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 Whether the FLP is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact Background Miami Corporation, the applicant for the Volusia County Farmton Local Plan, owns two contiguous and sizable tracts of land in Brevard County and Volusia County. Together they comprise the company's Farmton property (the "Farmton Site"). The portion of the Farmton Site in Brevard County is approximately 11,000 acres. The portion in Volusia County is approximately 47,000 acres. Miami Corporation has owned the property since the 1920's. It began silviculture operations onsite in 1952. The Farmton Site continues today to be used mainly for silviculture. In 2003, Miami Corporation began exploring long-term options for alternative uses. One option was bulk sales of large lot tracts, such as 100-acre tracts, to developers to build homes on the lots. Another option was a comprehensive plan amendment applying "smart growth" principles. The company opted for the latter approach. The smart growth comprehensive plan amendment eventually pursued included the creation of a regional wildlife corridor that extends from the headwaters of the St. Johns River to the Ocala National Forest. Before filing the application for the Original Amendment, Miami Corporation organized meetings of private and public stakeholders to gain input. Representatives from Brevard and Volusia Counties, affected municipalities, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC"), St. Johns River Water Management District ("SJRWMD"), East Central Florida Regional Planning Council ("ECFRPC"), and conservation organizations participated. After the application of Miami Corporation was filed, the County convened a Peer Review Panel. Chaired by two former Department Secretaries, the panel included nine experts in planning and natural resources fields. The panel made various recommendations that were incorporated into the Farmton Local Plan. Specific recommendations included the creation of a Community Stewardship Organization to protect the most sensitive natural resources. Florida Audubon made additional recommendations to strengthen the conservation measures consistent with mechanisms that experience in other areas of the state had taught Audubon were necessary to achieve conservation measures protective of the area's natural resources that would be perpetual. Due to the scale of the proposed amendment, the County hired an outside transportation engineering firm to review the Farmton Local Plan. In addition, the local plan's natural resource mapping and policies were subjected to two other peer reviews convened by the ECFRPC and University of Florida GeoPlan Center. These reviews included the participation of resource agencies, conservation organizations, and scientists. The County worked closely with Miami Corporation in revising the substantive content of the Farmton Local Plan through over 30 iterations to incorporate recommendations from the peer review process, the Volusia County Growth Management Commission, various County divisions, local governments, state agencies, and conservation organizations. The Brevard County Portion of the Farmton Site The Brevard County portion of the Farmton Site is immediately adjacent to the Volusia County portion of the site. Brevard County adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan regarding the portion of the Farmton Site in Brevard County. The amendment allows urban development. The amendment was challenged followed by a settlement of the case through the adoption of a remedial amendment. Subsequent to the filing of Case No. 10-2419, the amendment and the remedial amendment to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan led to a determination that the Brevard Farmton amendments were in compliance. The amendment as remediated became effective with no further challenges. The effectiveness of the amendment to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan which allows urban-type development was one of several significant events that took place between the 2010 Hearing and the 2011 Hearing. Significant Events Following the filing of proposed recommended orders in Case No. 10-2419, the Department, the County, VGMC, and Miami Corporation moved that the case be placed in abeyance so that settlement discussion could take place. The motion was granted over the objections of the Petitioners in Case No. 10-2419. The settlement discussions led to the Remedial Amendments adopted by the County in April 2011. The Original Amendments and the Remedial Amendments (the "FLP") were determined by the Department to be in compliance. The "in compliance" determination was challenged in a petition filed at the Department on May 16, 2011, by the Petitioners in Case No. 11-2527. The petition was forwarded to DOAH and the case was consolidated with Case No. 10-2419. In the meantime, the Florida Legislature passed chapter 2011-39, Laws of Florida (the "New Law"). The New Law substantially amends chapter 163, including the definition of "in compliance" in section 163.3184(1)(b). It took effect on May 17, 2011, when it was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State's office. The New Law was determined to be fully applicable to the consolidated cases. Prior to the Brevard County amendments taking effect, the Department regarded the Volusia portion of the Farmton Site as isolated and removed from other urban areas. Once the Brevard County Comprehensive amendments allowing urban development were determined to be in compliance and became effective, the Volusia portion of the Farmton Site became adjacent to "an urban area that is its match to the south." Petitioners' Ex. 6, Deposition of Michael McDaniel, at 14. The effectiveness of the Brevard County plan amendments that place an urban area adjacent to the Volusia Farmton Site was significant to the Department in its determination in 2011 that the FLP is in compliance. The Volusia Farmton Site The FLP applies to 46,597 acres in southern Volusia County. The Volusia Farmton Site is rural and much of it is classified as wetlands. No services or public facilities currently exist on the site. It contains abundant habitat for both upland and wetland dependent species. Within the site there are several outparcels owned by other persons or entities on which low density residential development is allowed by the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. More significant to the issues in this proceeding, the Comprehensive Plan allows low density residential development on the remainder of the site as well. The site includes approximately 260 miles of dirt roads that are maintained by Miami Corporation. In good condition, the roads are acceptable for ordinary passenger cars. The Current Plan Prior to the adoption of the FLP by the Original Amendment, the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1990 had been updated twice through the Evaluation and Appraisal Process. The first update occurred in 1998 and the second in 2007. (The updated plan was referred to in hearing as the "Current Plan" and was admitted into evidence as Joint Ex. 1.) The intent of the updates "is to take into account changes to state law and to reflect changing conditions within the community." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 3 of 5. Chapters 1 through 18 of the Current Plan contain elements and sub-elements "which are the basic building blocks of the Plan." Id. There are eleven required elements, the first of which is the Future Land Use Element (the "FLUE"). FLUE Overview Section A. of Chapter 1 of the Current Plan entitled, "Overview," states the following: The Future Land Use Element . . . ensures that physical expansion of the urban areas are managed (1) at a rate to support projected population and economic growth; (2) in a contiguous pattern centered around existing urban areas; and (3) in locations which optimize efficiency in public service delivery and conservation of valuable natural resources. * * * [W]hile it reflects existing urban services capacities and constraints, it also establishes locations where future service improvements will follow. It also reflects and promotes . . . activity in the private land market. * * * New urban growth, predicated on appropriate population projections, environmental suitability, and fiscal feasibility will be encouraged adjacent to the major cities that have a full range of urban services or inside County service areas. County service areas may include undeveloped land inside or near existing unincorporated urban areas where the developer agrees to provide necessary urban services through private means. * * * Regarding public systems, the major assumption is that the area adjacent to existing public infrastructure will be the primary areas for future infrastructure extension. Expansion of existing facilities in a fiscally and environmentally appropriate manner will be the primary option. The intent of this concept is to maximize efficiency of urban services through compact development otherwise consistent with the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. Planned developments include large scale, mixed-use, integrated, compact and distinct urban developments under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. * * * [A]reas that are outside the proposed development areas or contain environmentally sensitive features will receive special attention to ensure proper management of the County's natural resources. In order to further protect the County's natural resources and promote sustainability, the following will be included in the County mission statement: To balance development and the environment through innovative practices that lessen the impact of the development while preserving natural resources and improving the quality of life for present and future generations. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 1, pages 2-3 of 109 (emphasis added). Future Land Use Overlays and Designations Future land use overlays and designations are part of the adopted Future Land Use Policies. Id. at page 4 of 109. The entire Volusia Farmton Site is located within the Comprehensive Plan's overlay area of Natural Resources Management Area ("NRMA"). Approximately 11,000 acres of the site lie within the Environmental Core Overlay ("ECO"). There are three land uses on the Volusia Farmton Site under the Current Plan: Forestry Resources ("FR"), 22,294 acres (approximately); Environmental Systems Corridor ("ESC"), 22,344 acres (approximately); and Agricultural Resources ("AR"), 2,309 acres (approximately). Residential densities on the Farmton Site are different for the three land uses allowed on site but all are "low-density" and all have the same floor area ratio ("FAR"): 0.10. The AR land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per ten acres. The FR land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per twenty acres or one unit per five acres with clustering. The ESC land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 25 acres. The Current Plan would allow 4,692 residential units: 228 in AR; 706 in ESC; and 3,758 in FR. The land designated AR would allow 100,580 square feet of nonresidential development and the land designated FR would allow 719,637 square feet, for a total of 820,217 square feet of non-residential development. Types of Amendments The Current Plan allows four types of amendments: "Mandated," "Administrative," "Development," and "Small Scale." See Joint Ex. 1, 2010 Hearing, Tab 21, p. 5 of 7. The Farmton Local Plan is categorized as a "Development Amendment." A "Development Amendment" is defined by Chapter 21, Section (C)1.c. of the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan" or the "Comprehensive Plan") as: An Amendment which is initiated by the property owner(s) to change the Plan so that a particular development type or land use not otherwise consistent with the Plan, would become consistent following adoption of the amendment. Applicants may be private individuals or a public agency sponsoring an amendment subject to the Comprehensive Plan. Id. Local Plans The FLP is included in the Local Plan section of the Plan's Future Land Use Element. Local Plans in the Comprehensive Plan apply to specific geographic areas and provide a greater level of detail than the Plan in general. The Current Plan includes 13 other Local Plans. Once enacted, "the most detailed portion of the Volusia Comprehensive Plan," tr. 458, will be the FLP. The FLP The Original Amendment The Original Amendment includes one goal, eight related objectives and numerous policies under each of the eight objectives. The Amendment depicts on the Future Land Use Map two new future land use designations: "GreenKey" and "Sustainable Development Area" ("SDA"). The entire site is designated as either GreenKey or SDA. Objective FG 2 in the Amendment states: GreenKey and designated Resource Open Based Space shall be managed for natural resource protection and preservation of interconnected regional wildlife corridors, and conserved in perpetuity. "Resource Based Open Space" ("RBOS") is governed by Policy FG 2.4 of the Original Amendment: Resource Based Open Space. Resource Based Open Space shall be designed within Sustainable Development Area districts to protect and enhance environmental systems. Resource Based Open Space shall not include parcels identified for development (including, but not limited to individual yards), active open space, or civic open space. Resource Based Open Space lands may include areas set aside for ecological preservation, enhancement and restoration, nature trails, conservation education programs, observation decks and similar facilities including lakes used for detention and retention of surface water. Resources [sic] Based Open Space may include, flood plains, wetlands, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, specialized habitat for flora or fauna, passive recreation areas, water resource development areas, and shall be designed during the development review process. All such lands shall be subject to a conservation management plan, as set forth in FG 2.10 and FG 2.11, and protected in perpetuity by conservation easements. At least 25% of each SDA district shall be Resource Based Open Space. Joint Ex. 7, 2010 Hearing, Tab D-2, pgs. 9 and 10 of 49. The SDAs are primarily altered pine plantation lands. They total approximately 15,000 acres. Within the 15,000 acres of SDA land "are four land use districts which define the uses, densities, and intensities planned for each district." Id. at p. 4 of 49. The four are the Gateway District, Work Place District, Town Center District, and the Villages District. Within GreenKey, the Farmton Local Plan allows the continuation of agricultural uses employing practices regarded as "Best Management Practices" and prohibits residential and nonresidential development. There are two areas in GreenKey with additional natural resource protection standards. They are the Deep Creek Conservation Area which will be conveyed to a Community Stewardship Organization and managed in a primarily natural state and the Southwest Wildlife Corridor which will be managed to maintain habitat for wildlife, particularly for the Florida Black Bear. The FLP includes two long-range planning horizons. The "initial planning horizon" is 2025; "[t]he second planning horizon . . . shall be from 2026 to 2060." Policy FG 1.1, 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, p. 7 of 49. Through 2025, residential and nonresidential development may only occur within the Gateway District, "a distinct geographic area of approximately 821 acres at the northern end of the Farmton Local Plan near SR 442 and I-95." 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, 4 of 49. The development in the Gateway District is limited to a maximum under any circumstances of 4,692 residential units and 820,217 square feet of nonresidential development. See Policies FG 1.1, 1.4. "However, in order to plan for school capacity, there shall be no more than 2,287 dwelling units [in the Gateway District] unless there is a finding of school adequacy issued by the school district." Policy FG 3.4. Through 2060, the Amendment allows a total of 23,100 residential units and 4.7 million square feet of nonresidential development, excluding educational facilities and other institutional uses, within the various SDAs. With the exception of the Gateway District, which is in phase one of development, Policy FG 3.10 requires the development and implementation of a program designed to ensure an adequate number of jobs per residential dwelling unit exists in the SDAs. In phase two and subsequent phases, the development order shall require milestones for achieving the jobs-to-housing ratio target. In the event that the jobs-to-housing ratio drops below 0.65, residential development approvals shall be suspended until a remedial plan can be developed and approved as set forth in an accompanying development order. Policy FG 3.10. Prior to the FLP, the site had been subdivided into approximately 1,700 vested lots pursuant to existing exempt subdivision policies in the Volusia Land Development Code. The Original Amendment extinguished the vested exempt subdivisions as of the effective date of Ordinance 2009-34. The Original Amendment requires all lands designated GreenKey to be placed either in a conservation easement or a conservation covenant. A conservation covenant "is similar to an easement" 2010 Hearing, tr. 1077, "except that its term shall run with the land for an initial term of ten years, which shall automatically be renewed every ten years thereafter so long as the maximum densities and intensities established in the Farmton Local Plan Objective 3 shall remain in effect . . . ." Policy FG 2.15. For example, "Density and Intensity" for the WorkPlace District is described in Policy FG 3.5: "The WorkPlace district shall have a minimum density of eight units per acre and a target density of 18 units per acre. The minimum floor area ratio (FAR) for the nonresidential uses shall be 0.3 FAR." Joint Ex. 7, p. 22 of 49. A covenant under the FLP is converted to a perpetual conservation easement as prescribed in Policy FG 2.15: "At such time as the Master Development of Regional Impact equivalent Master Plan as provided in Objective 8 is approved consistent with the densities and intensities as set forth in Objective 3 in effect [when the FLP is adopted] . . ., a perpetual easement shall be recorded within 60 days." Joint Ex. 7, p. 15 of 49. The FLP requires a minimum amount of land to be set aside for conservation purposes as RBOS. Policy FG 2.4, quoted above, requires that a minimum of 25 percent of SDA land be set aside as RBOS. The RBOS lands will be placed in conservation covenants or easements. Policy FG 2.5 b. requires that a Black Bear Management Plan be developed in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission consistent with the Commission's Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. The Black Bear Management Plan applies to the Southwest Wildlife Corridor, part of which is on the site in Volusia County and part of which is in Brevard County. GreenKey and RBOS are subject to a mandatory conservation management plan ("CMP") to be funded by the landowner or its successors in interest. The CMP is to be developed by the owner through a task force appointed by the county within one year of the recording of the conservation easement. The CMP is to be "incorporated into the conservation covenants and easement and made enforceable." Policy FG 2.11, 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, p. 12 of 49. Under the FLP, protected wetlands within the SDA will be afforded a wider buffer than was required under Plan prior to the FLP. Through the RBOS designation, additional lands will be preserved and protected by what is in essence a secondary buffer. Under Policy FG 3.2, the footprint of SDAs is "designed to shrink." Tr. 1078. The policy provides: "For the purposes of calculating residential density and . . . FAR within the SDA districts, the density and FAR provision provided in the policies of Objective 3 of this Local Plan shall be calculated based on net SDA Buildable Area. Net SDA Buildable Area shall equal the total SDA district reduced by the minimum 25 percent [RBOS] area and by the minimum 40 percent mandatory Civic Space. Civic Space includes streets, stormwater systems, parks, buffers, water, access easements and other public infrastructure. . . ." Joint Ex. 7, p. 19 of 49. Policy FG 1.6c requires the SDAs to contain RBOS "such that when combined with GreenKey lands more than 36,000 acres or 75 percent of the area with the Farmton Local Plan shall be preserved." Joint Ex. 7, p. 8 of 49. Based on the acreage in GreenKey, RBOS, and buffers required by FG Policy 2.19 for SDA boundaries, wetlands, trails and roads, Sharon Collins, a private biological consultant for Miami Corporation and the primary field biologist onsite, estimated that the minimum amount to be protected under the FLP is 39,265 acres, which equals 80 percent of the total acreage subject to the FLP. b. The Remedial Amendments The County Council of Volusia County's Ordinance 2011- 10 (the "2011 Ordinance") which adopts the Remedial Amendments describes their substance in three sections. See 2011 Joint Ex. 10, page 2 of 3. Section I of the 2011 Ordinance consists of text amendments to: "Chapter 1 Future Land Use Element, Farmton Local Plan, Policies FG 2.4, FG 2.56, FG 2.18, FG 4.14, FG 4.15, FG 4.18, FG 4.20, FG 4.21, FG 5.7, FG 5.8, FG 5.16, and FG 8.1 . . . ." Id. The language of the text amendments referred to in Section I is contained in Exhibit A to the 2011 Ordinance. Sections II and III of the 2011 Ordinance refer to amendments to maps and figures. In Section II, the "Farmton Local Plan-Future Land Use Map" is amended "to include new land use of Mandatory Resource Based Open Space and by expanding the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to include additional lands." Id. Section III adds the "Farmton Local Plan Spine Transportation Network" to the Comprehensive Plan "as a new Figure 2-10 to the transportation map series." Id. The lands under the new land use of Mandatory Resource Based Open Space ("MRBOS") count toward the calculation of the requirement that at least 25 percent of the SDAs taken as a whole be RBOS. The location of all of the RBOS lands have not been determined. They are not shown, therefore, on the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") series. The revised FLUM, however, delineates where the MRBOS lands are located. The MRBOS will be subject to a Black Bear Management Plan. Policy FG 2.5b sets forth that it is to be developed in consultation with the FFWCC consistent with its Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. The Parties Petitioners Petitioner Barbara Herrin is a resident and owner of real property in Volusia County. She submitted comments regarding the Original Amendment during the time period between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. She submitted comments about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. ECARD, one of two Petitioners in Case No. 10-2419 (with Ms. Herrin), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with a membership of approximately 60 members, of which at least 50 are residents of Volusia County. ECARD submitted comments about the Original Amendment during the period of time between the transmittal and final adoption hearings for Ordinance 2009-34. It provided oral comments through counsel at the adoption hearing for Ordinance 2011-10. Sierra Club, one of the two Petitioners in Case No. 11-2527, is a California not-for-profit corporation registered in Florida with approximately 90,000-100,000 members. It has unincorporated state and local chapters. The Florida Chapter has approximately 29,000-30,000 members and the local Volusia County Chapter has approximately 820 members. Three letters containing comments about the Remedial Amendment were submitted to the Volusia County Council by the "Volusia/Flagler Group of Sierra Club and the Northeast Florida Group of Sierra Club," tr. 27, and by the Sierra Club Florida at the public hearing on the Remedial Amendment held in April 2011. All three letters were presented on behalf of Sierra Club. In addition, "[t]he Sierra Club Florida presented comments [at] the same public hearing." Tr. 28. Sierra Club does not own land in Volusia County. It does not own or operate a business in Volusia County. "The Volusia/Flagler Group has [its] own bank account." Tr. 39. Sierra Club has general meetings "in the area" id., to which the public is invited. The Club conducts outings to parks and natural areas "in the area" id., and members appear in public hearings where they speak. Members engage in letter-writing and "various other civic activities." Id. b. Respondents Volusia County (the "County"), a political subdivision of the State, adopted the FLP. Miami Corporation is a Delaware corporation registered in the State of Florida. It is the owner of the property that is the subject of the FLP and was the applicant for the text and map amendments that make up the FLP. Through its representatives, Miami Corporation submitted comments to the County about the Original Amendment during the period of time beginning with its application and through the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. It submitted comments to the County about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. Volusia Growth Management Commission ("VGMC") is a dependent special district of the County created pursuant to Volusia County Charter Section 202.3. Its duties include the review of amendments to local comprehensive plans. VGMC submitted comments to the County about the Original Amendment during the period of time between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. It submitted comments to the County about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. Suitability The Community Planning Act defines "suitability" as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." § 163.3164(45), Fla. Stat. "Compatibility" is defined as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." § 163.3164(9), Fla. Stat. Future land use map amendments are required to be based upon several analyses. One of them is "[a]n analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site." § 163.3177(6)(a)8.b., Fla. Stat. The future land use plan element is required to include criteria to be used to ensure the protection of natural and historic resources and to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses. See § 163.3177(6)(a)3.f. and g., Fla. Stat. Suitability: Petitioners' Evidence Mr. Pelham, Secretary of the Department at the time the Original Amendment was found by the Department to be not in compliance, testified at the 2011 Hearing that the site of the FLP is not suitable for development of the magnitude and nature allowed by the FLP. Consistent with the definition of suitability, the testimony of Mr. Pelham addressed both land and water. Commencing with water, he described the property as "extremely wet [and] dominated by an extensive system of sloughs, marshes, creeks, [and] swamps . . . ." 2011 Hearing, tr. 249. The property is an important state and regional resource that contains a variety of important wildlife habitats. Much of the property and substantial parts of the SDAs are in the 100-year flood plain. The property is extremely significant to the area's watershed as an area of recharge and a "high aquifer vulnerability area." 2011 Hearing, tr. 249. Mr. Pelham drew support for his opinion on suitability from the Comprehensive Plan. The County finds in the Plan that the lands subject to the FLP consist of "large, relatively uninterrupted expanses of rich natural resource areas." Tr. 250. The County gave the lands the NRMA designation precisely because they should "be protected and maintained because they serve a variety of functions, water-related, habitat area, a source of water, the open space and rural character, . . . [all] very important to Volusia County " Id. Mr. McDaniel testified as to the official position of the Department in 2010: that the property is not suitable for the FLP. Mr. Pelham's testimony in the 2011 hearing echoes and amplifies Mr. McDaniel's testimony. Dr. Smith testified in both the 2010 Hearing and the 2011 Hearing that development at the scale and intensity of the FLP is not suitable for the site for the same reasons given by Mr. Pelham and Mr. McDaniel. Other Analysis of the Character of the Land The FLP is based on an ecological evaluation that uses GIS-based decision support models and is supported by field work of biologist Sharon Collins. The ecological evaluation was reviewed by scientists from state agencies, universities, and conservation organizations. Ms. Collins provided 15 years' worth of data collection and field work on the site. Her first field assessment of the entire site took place between 1995 and 1998, and included wetlands delineation, evaluations of vegetative communities, habitats, historic natural conditions, hydrology, and listed species. Ms. Collins began remapping and reevaluating toward an ecological evaluation in 2005. The efforts led to the issuance of a report prepared for Miami Corporation and submitted in November 2008. The report was revised in July 2009. It is entitled, "GreenKey Project, Ecological Evaluation Assessment Methods" (the "EEAM Report"). See 2011 Hearing, Joint Ex. 5, Tab 10. Section 1.3 of the EEAM Report, entitled "Resource Identification," describes Ms. Collins' collection of data she used to identify habitat on the site. Among the data sources are the "'Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida' (FNAI, 1990)," id. at 3, and the "Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) produced by the Florida Department of Transportation." Id. Other data used in support of the EEAM Report include soils surveys, historic aerial photographs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ("USFWS") and Florida Fish and Wildlife listed species databases, a SJRWMD GIS FLUCCS map and an "exhaustive list" which Ms. Collins detailed at hearing. See 2011 Hearing tr. 1314. After evaluation of the data, Ms. Collins conducted "ground-truthing" or work in the field. Armed with the FLUCCS Map and the infrared aerials, she "went out in the field and did a comprehensive field analysis . . . and ground-truthed what [she] saw in the field with the [data] . . . ." 2010 Hearing tr. 1309. In order to evaluate and rank the various habitats on site, Ms. Collins designed a methodology using seven metrics that target the protection of regionally significant landscapes. She then assigned "ecological value ratings" and groupings of the habitats based on value as described in Section 1.5 of the EEAM Report: The habitat values ranged from a score of 7 to 1, as shown below from highest to lowest value: Crane Swamp and Spruce Creek Swamp (A & B) Buck Lake and Buck Lake Marsh (C) Cow and Deep Creek (D) Large Sloughs--forested and herbaceous E & F) Scrub Uplands (H) Smaller Wetlands--forested and herbaceous (J & K) Salt March (G) Oak and Hardwood Hammocks (I) Natural Pine Flatwoods (L) Harvested Wetlands (O) Hydric Pine Plantation (M) Pine Plantation (N) To provide a simple yet comprehensively applicable natural resource rating that applies and transfers value to the Farmton landscape, the habitats were further reduced to four groups of comparable ecological value and function. Therefore, Habitats A-D were grouped as one, Habitats E&F another, Habitats G-L as one, and the silvicultural habitats--Habitats M-O--as the fourth group. * * * The habitat types with natural resource rating scores around 7.0 (6.93 to 7.0) include Crane/Spruce Creek Swamps, Buck Lake and Marshes, and Cow and Deep Creeks. They are classified as "Regionally Significant Conservation Habitat Areas." They are regionally situated, extending beyond the boundaries of Farmton. The habitat types with natural resource rating values of around 6.0 include the larger sloughs and swamps. They are classified a s "Significant Conservation Habitat Areas." They are generally greater than 100 acres in size, make up a significant portion of the Farmton landscape, provide an interconnected network of wetlands across the property, but remain mostly onsite. The habitat types with natural resource rating values that are midrange around 3 (2.7-3.7) include the scrub uplands, oak and hardwood forests, salt marshes, natural pine flatwoods, and the smaller swamps and sloughs that have been generally embedded within pine plantations onsite. They are classified as "Conservation Habitat Areas." The fourth habitat types are with natural resource rating values of less than 3, with a range from 21.4 to 1.0, include the silvicultural habitats of the hydric and upland plantations as well as the harvested wetlands. They are classified as "Silvicultural Habitat Areas." These habitats are located onsite and are managed for timber, with varying degrees of tree ages, tree densities and site preparation stages, and/or harvesting disturbances. Joint Ex. 5, Tab 10 at 7-8. The EEAM's rankings were used as a basis for the Farmton Plan's design. The most significant natural resources and environmentally sensitive lands according to the EEAM rankings were designated GreenKey to be subject to permanent conservation. Areas which were disturbed or the least environmentally sensitive lands were deemed more suitable for future development and designated as SDA. The FFWCC used its own data to review the Farmton Local Plan. It was the first comprehensive plan amendment (or project) reviewed under the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project ("CLIP"). In the opinion of Dr. Walsh, a biological administrator with the FFWCC who supervises FFWCC land use consultations with external entities such as local governments and private land owners, the Farmton Local Plan is based on the best available science. In Dr. Walsh's opinion, the FLP provides for the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat and conserves and appropriately plans for protection of endangered and threatened wildlife. Land Use Protections The environmental evaluations are reflected in the FLP policies that require at least 67 percent of the site be designated as GreenKey and 75 percent or at least 36,000 acres of the site be preserved as GreenKey and RBOS. See Policies FG 1.3 and 1.6c, 2010 Hearing, Joint Ex. 7 at pages 7 and 8. Furthermore, Policy FG 2.6 states: As Sustainable Development Area districts are planned for future development, they shall employ Greenprinting decision support models to identify wetlands, flood plains, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, specialized habitat for flora and fauna, and under-represented natural communities, water resources development areas and trails. Joint Ex. 7, page 11 of 49. The FLP provides additional conservation measures for the most environmentally significant areas. Policy FG 2.5 establishes the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. Policy FG 2.5a establishes the Deep Creek Conservation Area with special levels of protection. The Remedial Amendment creates MRBOS lands and designates them on the Future Land Use Map. The result is that 33,665 acres of the site will be placed into conservation. With RBOS, wetland protections, and associated buffers, 80 percent of the site or 39,265 acres ultimately will be conserved. All lands placed in GreenKey, MRBOS, and RBOS are subject to the CMP approved by the Volusia County Council and ultimately subject to a conservation easement that perpetually protects the lands. See Policy FG 2.10, Joint Ex. 7. Policy FG 8.1 provides: No building permit shall be issued for new development within the SDA districts within five (5) years of the effective date of the Farmton Local Plan. No development order for new construction shall be issued prior to the approval by the county council of the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) described in policies FG 2.10 and 2.11 and the recording of a perpetual conservation easement over all Green Key lands as set forth in policy FG 2.15 with the specific exception of essential public utilities or communication structures. Joint Ex. 10, page 7 of 7. The Council has appointed a CMP Task Force to develop the plan. Natural Resource Management Area The NRMA overlay covers the entire site. It does not prohibit development but subjects it to scrutiny by the County. The NRMA overlay has not successfully prevented habitat fragmentation. Prevention of habitat fragmentation is a basis for the "layered additional protections," 2010 Hearing tr. 1167, of the FLP, including the Environmental Core Overlay Areas ("ECO"). Areas that must be protected are covered by the ECO, which receive the greatest protection in the Current Plan. The ECO covers approximately 11,000 acres of the site. The FLP adds 20,900 acres to the ECO. Without the FLP, and in spite of the NRMA and ECO overlays, existing Current Plan policies allow the Farmton property to be subdivided into approximately 1,700 lots. Significant habitat fragmentation is a potential result. The FR portion of the site, moreover, may develop in a clustered pattern at a density of one unit per 5 acres, as opposed to one unit per 20 acres under Future Land Use Policy 1.2.3.2. There are ranchette subdivisions in the site's vicinity and ranchettes are a feasible development option for the site. The FLP provides stronger natural resource protection than existing policies for the resources it protects. Its more restrictive standards eliminate the potential for development of the most sensitive areas and eliminate vesting of previously vested lots. Policy FG2.1 provides that the FLP is supplemental to NRMA and ECO. If the FLP conflicts with NRMA, the more specific or restrictive policies apply. The FLP is consistent with the current Plan provisions for the NRMA, Environmental Systems Corridor, and ECO. The Florida Black Bear and Regional Wildlife Corridor The Florida Black Bear is a State-designated Threatened Species. See chapter 68A-27. The purpose of the FFWCC in promulgating rules relating to endangered or threatened species is stated at the outset of chapter 68A-27: The purpose . . . is to conserve or improve the status of endangered and threatened species in Florida to effectively reduce the risk of extinction through the use of a science-informed process that is objective and quantifiable, that accurately identifies endangered and threatened species that are in need of special actions to prevent further imperilment, that identifies a framework for developing management strategies and interventions to reduce threats causing imperilment, and that will prevent species from being threatened to such an extent that they become regulated and managed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A-27.001(1). In June 2010, the FFWCC accepted recommendations of bear experts that it find there is "not a high risk of extinction," 2011 Hearing tr. 626, for the Florida Black Bear. Acceptance of the recommendation was accompanied by the commencement of the adoption of a management plan for the Black Bear. Upon the adoption of such a plan, the FFWCC is expected to de-list the Florida Black Bear from the threatened and endangered species lists. See id. Policy FG 2.5b requires the CMP within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to address habitat requirements for the Florida Black Bear in consultation with FFWCC. The FLP provides for the protection of regional wildlife corridors. Objective FG 2 of the FLP reads: "GreenKey and other Resource Based Open Space shall be managed for natural resource protection and preservation of interconnected regional wildlife corridors, and conserved in perpetuity." Joint Ex. 5, Tab 3 at 8. Nearly the entire Farmton Site constitutes Bear Potential Habitat. See DCA Ex. 4F. The entire site has been identified as Secondary Bear Range, see DCA Ex. 4G, and is roughly within 10 miles of an area of Primary Bear Range to its north and 20 miles of the same area of Primary Bear Range to its west. The area of Secondary Bear Range that includes the Farmton Site also includes urban areas such as the cities of Deland, Orange City, Deltona, and Sanford. Several hundred thousand people live in the secondary range that includes the Farmton site. The area of Secondary Bear Range in which the Farmton Site is located is habitat for the Ocala and St. Johns subpopulations of the Black Bear. While Dr. Hoctor considers the Ocala and St. Johns subpopulations to be separate, David Telesco, the Black Bear Management Program Coordinator for the FFWCC, described them as one subpopulation of bears that range over the Farmton Site, the Secondary Bear Range in which it is located, and nearby Primary Bear Range: This is our largest population of bears, estimated as potentially 1,200 animals. It's also the most densely populated, which means it's the highest quality habitat we have in the state. And our habitat models that we have are showing it as a stable subpopulation. 2011 Hearing, Tr. 625. Bear ranges do not coincide perfectly with bear habitat. Bears may range in areas that are not habitat. Just as in the case of ranges, bear habitats are classified as primary and secondary. Primary and Secondary Bear Habitats are both present on the Farmton Site. In Dr. Hoctor's opinion, to view Secondary Bear Habitat composed of pine plantation (as is the secondary habitat on the Farmton Site), to be more suitable for development would not be accurate or scientifically defensible. "[P]ine plantations are important habitat in and of themselves, plus they're important for . . . connecting all of [the] forested wetlands on [the Farmton] site . . . ." Tr. 475. An array of expert testimony was presented at the 2010 Hearing by Petitioners, the County, and Miami Corporation as to whether the FLP provided adequate wildlife corridors and protection of bear habitat. Dr. Hoctor testified that the Farmton Site is "particularly significant for potentially supporting . . . functional connectivity between the Ocala and Saint Johns [Black Bear] [sub]populations to those that are further south, the Highlands/Glades [sub]populations and Big Cypress [sub]population." Tr. 463. In the past, Florida's Black Bear population was integrated. There was "one [Black Bear] population . . . that occurred throughout the State of Florida." Tr. 465. The several Black Bear populations identified in the state now, however, are genetically distinct due to isolation caused by habitat loss, hunting and poaching. Re-integration will promote genetically healthy populations. Genetically healthy populations are more likely to adapt to future environmental changes and maintenance of connectivity between the subpopulations will promote a genetically healthy population of the Black Bear. A primary method of promoting a genetically healthy population is maintenance or restoration of functional corridors that connect sub-populations of the Black Bear in the state. Functional corridors are necessary to restore a single Black Bear population in the state or a "metapopulation . . . a set of subpopulations that are interacting through disbursal [sic] of individuals between . . . [the] various populations." Tr. 468. Dr. Hoctor opined, "If we're going to have a functional corridor between the populations to the south [south of northern Brevard and southern Volusia Counties] and to the Saint Johns and Ocala populations [to the north], it's more than likely going to have to occur through the Farmton Property." Tr. 467. It is Dr. Hoctor's opinion that functional corridors through the Farmton Property are particularly important to maintenance of the St. Johns subpopulation which consists of only 96 to 170 bears when a viable sub-population of bears is at least 200. Dr. Hoctor regards the wildlife corridors provided by the FLP, both for the Black Bear and other species, to be insufficient to offer adequate protection. They are not wide enough nor do they encompass enough acreage, in his opinion, to provide an adequate home range for a female Black Bear. The FLP allows too many significant road crossings. With regard to the Black Bear and other species, moreover, the FLP, in his opinion, does not sufficiently counter negative edge effects, that is, "negative impacts on natural areas or protected lands . . . from adjacent intensive land uses." Tr. 483. Consistent with action taken in June 2010, the Commission is in the process of adopting a Black Bear Management Plan for Florida. On May 19, 2010, the FFWCC issued a "Draft Black Bear Management Plan for Florida" (the "Draft Plan") which has been up-dated but remains in draft form. The Draft Plan opens with an executive summary, the first paragraph of which follows: The long-term future of Black Bears in Florida currently is uncertain because of their large spatial requirements, the fragmented nature of remaining populations, and increasing human development and activity leading to conflicts. A statewide management plan is needed to conserve this valued wildlife species. * * * This management plan is not intended to set all policies and operations for bears, rather it is intended to form a platform from which policies can be updated and operations can be based. While this plan will set clear guidance and structure for bear conservation in Florida, it will not be a panacea or silver bullet for current issues. In fact, this plan may create more work as key challenges are addressed in implementation. VC/MC Ex. 49. The Draft Plan does not contain any reference to Dr. Hoctor's opinion that the Farmton Site is a critical linkage between the Ocala and St. John's subpopulations and the subpopulations of Black Bear to the south. Randy Kautz, a supervisor of the nongame habitat protection planning section at the FFWCC and its predecessor agency for 20 years, testified that he knew of no agency recommendation to establish a corridor for Black Bears between the Ocala/St. Johns subpopulations and subpopulations of Black Bear to the south. Furthermore, he thought it very unlikely that the subpopulations would become connected if an adequate Black Bear corridor existed on the Farmton Site. He gave several reasons that included man-made disruptions between the subpopulations (such as pasture lands) and natural barriers posed by the St. Johns River, Lake Harney and marshes to the southwest of the Farmton Site over which Black Bears are not likely to traverse. Under the Original Amendment, the Southwest Wildlife Corridor ensures a wildlife corridor approximately one mile in width in the areas closest to the St. Johns River because the science indicated that was the primary regional wildlife corridor for the region. Within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor is the Deep Creek Conservation Area. It is the site's most significant area for regional movement of wildlife and will contribute to a corridor spanning as wide as three miles near the St. Johns River. The Remedial Amendment increases the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to establish a minimum of a one-mile buffer outside the areas planned for development. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes a functional wildlife corridor. The Cow Creek Corridor, Southwest Wildlife Corridor, and the corridor along the Volusia-Brevard border exceed a 10:1 ratio of length to width, a favorable ratio for wildlife, and each is a minimum of 900 meters in width. The Southwest Wildlife Corridor, which is 11.81 miles in length, was expanded by the Remedial Amendments to a minimum width of one mile, an average width of 2.26 miles, and a maximum width of 5.3 miles, and has a reduced length-to-width ratio of 5.2:1. The Cow Creek Corridor, which is not a regional wildlife corridor, was increased to 3.86 miles in length, a maximum width of 1.07 miles, a minimum width of 0.63 of a mile, and has a length-to- width ratio of 4.73:1. Respondents provided expert opinions that the FLP's provision of wildlife corridors is consistent with regional long range conservation planning and fits into an ecosystem pattern with wildlife corridors, linkages, and a variety of habitats. Respondents also presented expert opinion that FLP's proposed conservation areas are consistent with Florida wildlife conservation strategy. Other Listed Species and Wildlife Habitat Petitioners allege that the amendment fails to protect native vegetative communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and threatened and endangered species. The SOI lists several federally listed species within USFWS consultation areas for the Crested Caracara, the Florida Scrub Jay, and the Everglades Snail Kite. A consultation area includes the bird's dispersal range. Ms. Collins has never seen one of these three bird species on the property during her 15 years onsite, which she attributes to the site's inappropriate habitat for the species. Dr. Smith and Dr. Walsh also testified that it was highly unlikely to find these species on site. If a project is located within a listed species consultation area, the developer is required to meet with the USFWS to address the issue further during the permit process. Other listed species are found or are likely to be found on the site. However, there will be adequate habitat and conservation areas to support them. Gopher tortoises, for example, found within an SDA will be protected by existing County policies. The FLP provides a higher level of protection for listed species and other wildlife than if the site were developed under the current land uses. No development may take place, moreover, until the CMP is approved and incorporated in the development order. Policy FG 2.11 lists numerous minimum criteria for the CMP, including the identification of USFWS consultation areas and known onsite threatened and endangered plants and animals, the protection of habitats of species that are listed, imperiled, and otherwise in need of special protection, and coordination with management plans of adjacent conservation areas. Farmton contains native vegetative communities including mesic flatwoods, scrub flatwoods, and pine flatwoods. These native vegetative communities are predominantly present in the GreenKey conservation areas and will be protected. FAVA and Site-specific Data A Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment Map (the FAVA Floridan Map) for the Floridan Aquifer of the Farmton Site depicts three levels of vulnerability: "More Vulnerable," "Vulnerable," and "Less Vulnerable." See DCA Ex. 4D. Most of the Farmton Site is in the area depicted by the FAVA Floridan Map as "More Vulnerable." All of the SDAs allowed by the FLP to be developed as Gateway, Town Center and Work Place subareas, for example, are depicted as "More Vulnerable." Most of the SDAs allowed by the FLP to be developed as Village subareas are depicted as "More Vulnerable" and the remainder is depicted as "Vulnerable." The FAVA Floridan Map depicts none of the SDAs as "Less Vulnerable." See DCA Ex. 4-D. The FAVA maps supported the Department's determination that the Original Amendment was not in compliance. FAVA maps are used as data by the Department because they depict areas where the aquifer is susceptible to contamination from surface contaminants. In that they "cover broad swaths of the State of Florida, [however] . . . they are not meant to supersede site-specific data." Tr. 1942. Dr. Seereeram, on behalf of Miami Corporation, gathered data specific to the Farmton site. The data included "detailed soil profiles every six inches vertically . . . [to] depths . . . over 100 feet . . . ." Tr. 1941. His site- specific data showed that there are confining layers between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan aquifer that prevent "rapid movement of groundwater from [the surficial] aquifer into the underlying Florida[n] aquifer." Tr. 1941. The site-specific data led Dr. Seereeram to conclude that the Department's concern for contamination potential to the Floridan Aquifer based on the FAVA is misplaced. In light of his site-specific data, Dr. Seereeram's opinion is that the development of the Farmton property will not "pose a threat to the aquifer." Tr. 1942. Dr. Seereeram's opinion, based on the question from counsel, is expressed in terms of "the aquifer." See id. Based on the FAVA maps and the entirely to his testimony with regard to site-specific data, the opinion does not apply to the Surficial Aquifer but only the Floridan Aquifer. The development of the Farmton Site in Volusia County does not pose a threat to contaminate the Floridan Aquifer. Floodplains, Wetlands, and Soil The Farmton Site in Volusia County is predominantly floodplains and wetlands. Petitioners allege that the land uses proposed by the FLP are incompatible with wetland protection and conservation. The Comprehensive Plan's map series depicts a large portion of the County as being located within the 100-year floodplain. A significant part of the SDAs are within the 100- year floodplain. There is no state or federal prohibition of development in a floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLP describe the floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit development in the 100-year floodplain. The FLP, however, "advises development away from the floodplain, specifically as it relates to schools in the Farmton Local Plan." Tr. 1095-6. Development in floodplains has been allowed by the County subject to elevation of construction to be flood-free upon completion and mitigation via on-site flood storage. The Plan's floodplain policies would apply to development under the FLP and the FLP has policies which relate to floodplains. Policy FG 2.21 in the FLP, for example, requires the following: Floodplains. Impact to the 100-year floodplain shall be minimized. Any impacts must be fully mitigated by providing compensatory storage on-site. Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-3 at 17 of 46. As a result of changes made by the Remedial Amendment, the majority of developable lands within the SDAs are uplands not wetlands. Based on a review of aerial photography, soil surveys, and other data, combined with field work, Ms. Collins concluded that approximately 29 percent of the total SDA acreage can be identified generally as wetlands. The dominant soils in the SDAs are Smyrna fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Eau Gallie fine sand, and Myakka fine sand. Myakka soil, the soil of the flatwoods, is the most common soil in the state and has been designated as the "state soil." Tr. 1358. There are similar soils on adjacent properties. They are soils "that have had development occur on them." Tr. 1097. All of the soils in the SDAs are suitable for development. Wetlands delineation is not required at the comprehensive plan stage. It will be required prior to approval of development plans or issuance of a development order. The buildable areas within the SDAs will be determined with input from environmental regulation agencies prior to development order approvals. Without the FLP, preserved wetlands would be protected by a fifty-foot buffer. In contrast, Policy FG 2.19d requires all preserved wetland areas within an SDA to be protected by a buffer that averages 75 feet in width and is no less than 50 feet in width. See Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 17 of 49. On GreenKey land, the policy provides enhanced wetland buffer widths of an average of 100 feet with a minimum buffer of 75 feet. See id. "If different buffer widths are required by a permitting agency, the wider buffer shall apply." Id. Policy FG 2.20 states that activities within the FLP "shall be planned to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and the required buffers as described in FG 2.19(d)." Id. No less than 25 percent of each SDA as a whole must be set aside as RBOS, which may include wetlands. See Policies FG2.4 in Joint Ex. 10, Exhibit A, page 1 of 7; and 3.2 in Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2. Per Policy FG 2.8, those open space areas will be determined in consultation with regulatory agencies, Volusia Forever and entities that are parties to the conservation easements required by Policy FG 2.12. See Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2. Policy FG 2.6 requires that, when establishing RBOS, priority "be given to lands on the perimeter of the SDA, which are contiguous to GreenKey lands." Id. at page 11 of 49. In accordance with Policies FG 2.10 and 2.11, those RBOS areas will be added to the conservation easement and be incorporated in the CMP. Policy FG 2.11h requires the CMP to contain "[p]rovisions for significant water resources (such as streams, creeks, natural drainage ways, floodplains, and wetlands) protection, enhancement, and restoration and planned hydrological restoration." Joint Ex. 7, Tab 2-D, page 13 of 49. Wetlands Mitigation Bank In 2000, after a two-year permitting process, approximately 16,337 acres of the Volusia Farmton site was approved for use as a mitigation bank. Of that approved acreage, only 7,030 acres have been placed under a conservation easement and are required to be maintained in perpetuity for conservation purposes. Those 7,030 acres will continue to be preserved under the FLP. The portions of the mitigation bank that have not been placed under conservation easement may not remain within the mitigation bank and may be withdrawn. At the time of the final hearing, an application filed by Miami Corporation was pending before the SJRWMD to modify the mitigation bank permit to withdraw approximately 1,100 acres from areas within the mitigation bank that have not been placed in conservation easement. The lands proposed for removal from the permit are located within the SDA areas. The remaining portions of the mitigation bank would be protected from SDA uses through the 200 foot SDA perimeter buffer and wetland buffer requirements in Policy FG 2.19. Conservation Management Plans Within one year of the effective date of the FLP, the Deep Creek Conservation Area and the permitted Mitigation Bank lands will be placed into permanent conservation easement. Within two years, a CMP will be developed and enforced through the conservation easements. Remaining lands will be protected through a conservation covenant as well as the CMP. The covenant will have a ten-year term and automatically renew until the initial development plan is approved. Upon approval of a development plan consistent with the densities and intensities of the comprehensive plan, those lands will also be converted to a permanent conservation easement. The Remedial Amendment requires that no development can take place until the CMP plan is established and perpetual easements are recorded. Urban Sprawl The Thirteen Statutory Indicators Section 163.3177(6)(a)9 mandates that an amendment to the future land use element discourage urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a provides 13 "primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl . . . ." Evaluation of the indicators "consists of analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality " See section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. The 13 indicators are listed in the statute under roman numerals "I" through "XIII." I. The first indicator is promoting, allowing or designating "for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses." The current Plan (without the FLP) allows the site to develop as single residential uses at low densities. The pre- FLP densities allowed on the Farmton Site are one unit per 10 acres, one unit per 20 acres, or one unit per 25 acres depending on the three designations on the site: Agricultural Resource, Forestry Resource or Environmental Systems Corridor. Mixed use is not required, nor is clustering required. The result is a "ranchette pattern of land use." 2010 Hearing, Tr. 1817. Mr. Ivey at the 2010 Hearing described ranchette- style development and the use to which a ranchette would typically be put. He depicted a development pattern dominated by owners of property who want to be in the country to enjoy a country lifestyle. After purchase of the property, the owner typically builds a house, frequently clears the land, constructs a number of outbuildings and grows grass to support cows or goats. In Mr. Ivey's opinion, "if your goal is to protect the environment, [the ranchette pattern of development] does not do it." Tr. 1720. Mr. Pelham opined that, despite the current Plan's allowance of a ranchette style of development on the Farmton Site, the indicator is triggered because the FLP disperses so much low density development over the landscape and in development nodes. Such a pattern, in his opinion, "does result in a significant amount of low density sprawl, compounded by the fact that it's fragmented and distributed out rather than being in a very compact fashion." Tr. 280. In comparison to the ranchette style of development, however, the FLP calls for a mixed-use development much more concentrated than a ranchette type of development and, on balance, more protective of natural resources. The current land uses allow nonresidential development at a floor area ratio of 0.10 but non-residential uses are not required to be included so as to ensure a mix of uses. The current land use could result in an inefficient land use pattern of more than 4,600 residential units, each of which would be entitled to use a septic tank and potable water well. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.2.5 requires either clustering or open space for developments that contain environmentally sensitive lands or critical habitats but includes no minimum standards. The FLP removes residential entitlements from the GreenKey area and clusters residential development into the SDA areas. Since development is not allowed in GreenKey, it is reasonable to evaluate the FLP's density in terms of "net density" rather than "gross density." It is also appropriate to evaluate density based on the various SDAs. Each Village has a minimum density of 3 units per acre and a target density of 10 units per acre. The Town Center has a minimum density of 8 units per acre, a target density of 15 units per acre, and a center town square required density of 24 units per acre. Work Place has a minimum density of 8 units per and a target density of 18 units per acre. Finally, Gateway has a minimum density of 4 units per acre and a target density of 12 units per acre. The weighted average of the minimum densities throughout the SDAs is 3.3 units per acre and their weighted target density is 6.8 units per acre. This density is relatively high compared with developed portions of cities in Volusia County. The City of DeBary has a weighted average density of less than 2 units per acre. The City of Deltona has a weighted average density of 2.68 units per acre, and the City of Edgewater has a weighted average density of 4.89 units per acre. The weighted average maximum density for the residential land use categories in the unincorporated County is only 2.36 units per acre. The FLP also includes requirements for a mix of uses in the Gateway, Town Center, and Village districts. The jobs- to-housing ratio in Policy FG 3.10 also will ensure that development will contain a mix of uses. II. The second indicator is promoting, allowing or designating "significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development." Mr. Pelham found the indicator to be triggered because it designates over 12,000 acres of urban development in a rural area at a significant distance from existing urban development and leapfrogs over undeveloped urban-designated lands. Mr. Pelham holds the opinion despite the match of the FLP by the development that will be allowed under the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan on the Brevard County Farmton Property immediately adjacent to the Farmton Site in Volusia County. In addition to abutting the Brevard County Farmton Property, the Farmton Site abuts the City of Edgewater, and the approved Restoration DRI and Reflections PUD. There are undeveloped publicly managed lands and conservation easements in the vicinity of the Site. In contrast to Mr. Pelham, Mr. Metcalf does not think the indicator is triggered. He sees the FLP with its requirement of a greenbelt designated as GreenKey and RBOS and MRBOS to contain the essential components of an innovative development type known as "urban village." An urban village has the following characteristics: an area with urban density, a mix of uses including all major land use types in a self-contained, clustered, compact form that is transit-supportive and has a grid or modified grid street network and a walkable, unified design, with a defined edge separating urban rural uses. The FLP contains all the components required it to be considered to contain an "urban village" development pattern. III. Mr. Pelham concluded that the third indicator is triggered by the FLP's "fragmented development pattern . . . [with] ribbon strips of nodes, five or six of them, . . . in an isolated area." Tr. 281. In contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the FLP's "node" development pattern does not trigger the indicator. The nodes of development are not in a radial, strip or ribbon pattern. They do not, moreover, emanate from urban development. IV. Mr. Pelham's view that the FLP triggers the Indicator IV focuses on the 12,000 acres of NRMA land, a substantial portion of which will be converted to urban-type development. In contrast, witnesses for Miami Corporation cast the FLP as providing for the conversion of rural lands in a way that protects and conserves a range of natural resources, including wetlands and upland habitats. The indicator, moreover, does not require protection or conservation through preservation. Therefore, it is not triggered in all cases in which there is some use of the resource. GreenKey and MRBOS keep development out of the most environmentally sensitive wetlands and confines development to the SDAs so that wetland encroachment occurs only in wetlands of lower value than others in the area. Designation of areas as RBOS will also conserve natural resources. V. Indicator V refers to failure to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas and activities." Petitioners criticize FLP for failure to protect agricultural and forestry areas and activities within the SDAs. The Department of Community Affairs, however, has never applied the indicator to lands internal to an amendment. Policy FG 2.2 allows agricultural activities to continue in the GreenKey using Best Management Practices. Existing agricultural areas adjacent to the Farmton Site are mainly to the west. The FLP includes provision to adequately protect activities within those areas. Policy FG 2.19, for example, requires a minimum buffer of 200 feet around each SDA. Protection of adjacent areas and activities in the areas means Indicator V is not triggered by the FLP. VI. Mr. Pelham offered the opinion that the FLP fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services by allowing a large urban development in a rural area that has no public facilities and services and no plan to provide them. Mr. Metcalf testified that the services to be considered would be law enforcement, fire, emergency medical treatment and solid waste. In assessing Indicator VI, Mr. Metcalf began with the assumption that development under the FLP will increase the population in the service district. He opined that the indicator is not triggered because "[t]he higher [the] population in that service district, the higher the maximum usage of that service." Tr. 808. VII. Mr. Pelham believed the FLP fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services because, whether the developer makes significant payment for them or not, the remote location and type of the development will keep it from benefiting from the efficiencies and advantages of scale it would enjoy if it were more proximate to urban development and more compact. Policy FG 3.6d requires the Town Center to house a majority of civic uses, including public safety facilities. The Spine Transportation Network and its related policies provide a network of roads that disperses traffic designed to avoid overloading with local trips. Water service in Gateway will be provided by extension of infrastructure from the Restoration site. "The extension of those lines would be closer than would be many neighborhoods within existing urban areas." Tr. 809. School capacity for the initial 2,287 units will be concentrated in Gateway. The critical mass that can be achieved through the urban village form of development will support onsite facilities needed by schools, law enforcement and fire departments. The location of the facilities will serve development on the Farmton Site and also nearby ranchettes and all of South Volusia County. Mr. Metcalf's opinion is that that the indicator is not triggered by the FLP. VIII. Mr. Pelham's opinion is that Indicator VIII is triggered. "Many studies have shown that allowing urban development far distances from existing urban development drive up the cost of providing infrastructure." 2011 Hearing, tr. 285. Policies FG 7.1 and 5.13 require development within SDAs to provide infrastructure, including onsite roads, and government services that are fiscally neutral. They also require the developer to pay for its share of off-site transportation impacts on a pro rata basis. Construction of the Spine Transportation Network is required by Policy FG 5.7 to be funded solely by the owner/developer. These policies together with the urban village development pattern led Mr. Metcalf to the opinion that the FLP will not disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services. IX. By establishing SDA areas and buffer requirements in Policy FG 2.19 for perimeter boundaries and wetlands, the FLP establishes clear separations between rural and urban areas. X. The FLP would discourage and inhibit the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities, in Mr. Pelham's opinion, because it will compete with all other urban areas for residential and nonresidential growth. Joel Ivey, who has worked on many amendments to the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan, testified that he was not aware of any areas in the County in need of re-development or any infill areas with which the FLP would interfere. The Petitioners did not identify any areas in which the FLP will discourage development opportunities covered by the indicator. XI. Indicator XI is not triggered. The FLP encourages a functional and attractive mix of uses. It requires a mix of residential and nonresidential uses in the SDA districts, a jobs-to-housing ratio, placing lands in conservation easements, walk-ability, compact development, and a hierarchy of street systems to foster connectivity and pedestrian mobility. XII. Indicator XII is not triggered. The FLP promotes accessibility among linked and related land uses with interlinked multimodal roadways and paths, including the Spine Transportation System, walkways and bike paths. XIII. The FLP preserves significant areas of functional open space. It provides for passive recreation open space in RBOS areas. It provides expanses of functional open space areas for wildlife habitat. The Farmton Site, currently private property used primarily for silviculture that can be developed with more than 4,600 homes, under the FLP will place at least 36,000 acres in functional open space in perpetuity. It will conserve the site's most environmentally-sensitive lands and establish a network of wildlife corridors. Development Patterns and Urban Forms Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b declares that a future land use element or plan amendment "shall be determined" to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that incorporates four or more factors listed in the statute. The development patterns or urban forms are listed by roman numerals, I through VIII. I. The FLP promotes conservation and avoids adverse impacts to the most significant natural resources on site. It does so by placing the most significant natural resources in GreenKey and MRBOS, locating development in the SDAs so as to keep it out of the most ecologically significant areas on the Farmton Site, providing protections to the Southwest Wildlife Corridor, and deeding the Deep Creek Conservation area for permanent preservation. Any development within an SDA will be subject to development controls that first require impacts to wetlands to be avoided. If impacts cannot be avoided, only wetlands of lower ecological significance may be impacted, and the impacts must be mitigated to achieve no net loss in function and value. Policy FG 2.19 includes several buffer requirements. Other natural resource protection mechanisms include Policy FG 2.7 which promotes habitat connectivity and requires RBOS to minimize habitat fragmentation. Policies FG 2.10 and 2.11 require a conservation management plan. Policy FG 2.5 and 2.5b. require a forestry management plan and a bear management plan. II. The FLP promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services based upon findings above. III. The third development pattern is present. The FLP includes several provisions that promote walk-ability and connected communities, including Policies FG 3.1; 3.4g; 3.6e; 3.7a-d, h, and j; 5.1;, 5.3; 5.5; 5.6; and 5.7; and, the Spine Network Map. The SDA district policies provide for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that support a range of housing options and transit options. The FLP requires park-and-ride lots for bus stops, which supports a form of mass transit, and requires multimodal options, such as sidewalks, bike paths and multi-use paths that accommodate different transportation options such as golf carts and bicycles. Policies FG 3.1e (applicable to all SDA districts), 3.4 (Gateway) and 3.7k (Villages) require housing diversity and choice through a mixture of housing types and price points. IV. The fourth development pattern is present as the FLP promotes water and energy conservation. Policy FG 4.2c requires various conservation measures and water neutrality. The multimodal components and employment centers required by the FLP will reduce vehicles miles and promote energy conservation. V. The fifth development pattern is present if the word "preserve" is interpreted to allow agricultural and silviculture activities to continue, rather than mandate that they continue. Policy FG 2.2 allows agriculture activities to continue, but does not require or guarantee that they will continue in perpetuity. Id. Policies 2.2, 2.5a, 2.11g, 2.12f, 2.23, and 3.13 ensure that agriculture may continue. The timberland soils in GreenKey and MRBOS will be preserved. VI. The sixth development pattern is present. Policies 1.3, 1.7, 2.10, 2.11, 2.15, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.8, 2.5, and 2.16 preserve open space and natural lands. The conservation easements for GreenKey will preserve open space in natural lands. MRBOS and RBOS will provide open space areas in natural lands. Parks in RBOS will provide public open space and passive recreational areas. The SDA parks also will provide active recreational areas. VII. The seventh development pattern is present. The residential and non-residential allocations are balanced and are comparable to those in other master-planned communities. The jobs-to-housing ratio requirement in Policy FG 3.10 ensures a 1:1 balance at build-out and provides a mechanism to ensure that the balance does not drop below 0.65 during development. Gateway Policy FG 3.4d appropriately targets interstate commerce given its proximity to the I-95 and State Road 442 Interchange. VIII. The eighth development pattern is present. The FLP remediates the ranchette pattern allowed under the current Plan over the site. It also provides an innovative urban village development pattern, as well as transit oriented development. Internal Inconsistency Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Objective 1.1.3 in the Current Plan states: "Volusia County shall limit urban sprawl by directing urban growth to those areas where public facilities and services are available inside designated service areas and within urban areas." Joint Ex. 1, page 29 of 109. Future Land Use Policy 1.1.3.5 in the current Plan provides that: New urban development shall be located inside an urban designated area where a full range of urban services exist or are planned and with direct access to arterials and mass transit routes sufficient to handle existing and future development. Joint Ex. 1, page 30 of 109. Policy 1.1.3.6 provides: Id. Requests for land use map amendments will be reviewed using the urban sprawl indicators contained in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g). Requests that exhibit a presence of a majority of the indicators shall be concluded as to encourage urban sprawl. Mr. Pelham concluded the FLP was inconsistent with these two policies because the Farmton Site is in a remote, rural area outside of urban areas and away from existing or planned urban services. The basis of the opinion is contradicted by the Farmton amendments to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan now in effect. While rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) no longer exists, Mr. Pelham testified as to why the FLP constitutes urban sprawl. When evaluating whether a plan amendment is consistent with a provision in the plan, including a policy, the plan should be considered "as a whole." Tr. 222. As Mr. Pelham testified, "a common mistake in interpreting comprehensive plans is that policies are lifted out of context, considered in a vacuum without regard to the plan as a whole . . . ." Id. Mr. Pelham's approach is sanctioned by the Current Plan's provision that governs "Plan Interpretation" found in Chapter 21 of the Current Plan entitled "Administration and Interpretation." In particular, it is consistent with a statement that appears in the Introduction of the Current Plan as one of three guidelines or "statements which represent the underlying assumptions which support the Plan preparation." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 3 of 5. That statement is "Guideline Three: The Comprehensive Plan will be construed as a complete document and no specific goal, objective, policy or recommendation shall be used independently." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 4 of 5. Guideline Three is emphasized by its restatement in a quote from the Current Plan's Introduction in the provision governing "Plan Interpretation." See Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 21, page 2 of 7. The Current Plan does not prohibit urban development activities within NRMA. To the contrary, the Current Plan allows "Low Impact Urban," as defined in Policy 12.2.2.1c on lands within NRMA. See Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 12, page 8 of 16. The FLP directs development to certain areas within NRMA and away from the most environmentally sensitive lands in NRMA. There is a fair argument advanced by Miami Corporation, the County and VGMC that the FLP is coordinated with NRMA, is consistent with its objectives as to the bulk of the site and does not conflict with the Current Plan's Objective 12.2.1: "To provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and to direct growth away from such areas." Policy 12.2.1.2 requires the County to promote land use activities compatible with NRMA. The policy discusses the land use categories of ESC, FR and Low Impact Urban, among others. The County's planning and development services director for the County construes the uses under ESC, FR, and Low Urban Impact as not the only land uses allowed within NRMA. The critical determination is whether a land use is NRMA-compatible. Consistent with the Current Plan, Policy FG 2.1 states that the whole site is located within NRMA and the NRMA policies apply if they are more protective or stringent than the FLP's policies. The FLP provides more protection for the most environmentally sensitive areas on the Farmton Site than is provided under NRMA. Examples are the FLP requirement for a wider buffer and a minimum of 75 percent open space. Policy 1.3.1.28 forbids amendment of the FLUM not adopted in conjunction with the required Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") except under five conditions expressed in the policy. The FLUM amendment by the FLP was not in conjunction with an EAR. The five conditions, all of which must be met, therefore, are: Population projections have been revised, and accepted by the County and FDCA; Justification is provided for the expansion of the urban boundary; Compatibility with the character of the area; Availability of the full range of all urban services, including adequate potable water supply and facilities, to accommodate inclusion in an urban area; and, Documentation is provided that urban expansion will not be in conflict with the intent of the Natural Resource Management Area and Environmental Core Overlay. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 1, page 41 of 109. Testimony at the 2010 Hearing established that the County's population projections were rejected by DCA because they were not based on a professional methodology. The projections were not accepted by the Department in the interim between the 2010 and 2011 Hearing. Mr. Pelham testified that "[t]he Department has never accepted them." 2011 Hearing, tr. 242. The Department's planning function, including review of comprehensive plan amendments and compliance determinations, was transferred by the 2011 Legislature to the Department of Economic Opportunity. The Current Plan does not establish an urban service boundary. Mr. Ivey opined that the FLP is compatible with the character of the area because of the 200-foot wide buffers that exist between the SDA and GreenKey areas. The FLP provides for the City of Edgewater and Farmton Water Resources to provide central water and sewer, and there is adequate water supply. The FLP is consistent with NRMA and ECO because it achieves permanent protection of the key ecological resources on-site. The 11,000 acres of land on the Farmton Site under the ECO are entirely preserved. Conservation Element Policies Petitioners allege that the FLP is inconsistent with Conservation Element Policies 12.2.1.1, 12.2.1.2, 12.2.2.5, 12.2.2.7 and 12.2.3.2. The "Overview" section of the Conservation Element opens with the following paragraph: The Conservation Element provides the framework for the preservation, protection, and enhancement, of the County's natural resources. As such, the goals, objectives and policies outlined in this Element are strongly intertwined with other elements in the Comprehensive Plan relating to land use, utilities, recreation and open space, transportation and coastal management. It is the intent of this Element to provide a basis for responsible decision making for the appropriate use of natural resources when confronted by growth and corresponding development, as well as the identification and preservation of ecologically irreplaceable resources. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 12, at page 2 of 16. Objective 12.2.1 is: "To provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and direct growth away from such areas." Id. at page 7 of 16. Policy 12.2.1.1, in pertinent part, provides that "existing, relatively uninterrupted expanses of natural resources contained within the County shall be managed as an individual unit, providing natural resources the highest degree of protection in land development decisions and planning. These lands shall comprise the NRMA established in the Future Land Use Element. Mr. Pelham views the FLP as not managing the natural resources on the Farmton Site as a unit because it allows development to occur in eight different nodes of development spread out across the property. The development that is allowed, therefore, is fragmented. Mr. Pelham, moreover, sees the FLP as far less protective than the Current Plan because it does not retain protection of the NRMA. By eliminating low-density land use classifications in the SDAs, and replacing it with a large city, the effect on the more protective NRMA designation in his view, is that the FLP "retains the shell and takes out the meat." Tr. 271. In contrast, experts for the County and Miami Corporation see just the opposite. By confining development in the SDAs, which have additional internal protections provided by RBOS and MRBOS designations, and preserving in perpetuity up to 80 percent of the Farmton Site with special protections for wildlife corridors, the FLP provides permanent protection for the most environmentally-sensitive land on site. Policy 12.2.1.2 establishes the three low-density categories that currently apply in the NRMA area: ESC, FR and Low Impact Urban. Replacing the low density use classifications with the FLP has the benefit of protecting the Farmton Site from ranchette-type development with the urban village development pattern that provides the conservation benefit of permanent protection of the most environmentally sensitive lands on site. Objective 12.2.2 is "[t]o minimize, and eliminate where reasonably achievable, impacts to ecological communities which degrade their natural physical and biological functions as a result of land development activities." Id. at page 8 of 16. Policy 12.2.2.5 provides, "The County shall require clustering of dwelling units and/or open space for land development projects which contain environmentally sensitive lands and critical habitats within its project boundaries, in order to preserve these resources." Id. The policy is the most detailed rural clustering plan in Florida. The FLP is viewed by Mr. Pelham as inconsistent with the policy because of the allocation of multiple development nodes spread out over the Farmton Site. Ms. McGee sees a distinction in the language of the policy when compared to the FLP. "The important distinction is that this policy specifically refers to land development projects versus land planning projects." (emphasis added). Tr. 445. Petitioners contend there is no inconsistency because the aim of the policy is achieved since the most environmentally sensitive land is preserved in perpetuity by the FLP, functional and natural open space is set aside, and wetland buffers are provided in the FLP. Policy 12.2.2.7 requires the County to coordinate with appropriate governmental entities to protect environmentally sensitive lands that extend into adjacent counties and municipalities. Michael McDaniel testified at the 2010 hearing that the FLP allows the Gateway development to be adjacent to a 3,500 acre conservation area designated by the City of Edgewater as part of the Restoration DRI. Development allowed by the FLP in the Gateway SDA was determined by DCA initially to be not compatible with the resources in the conservation area and the designation of the area by the City of Edgewater. The Original Amendment, therefore, failed to reflect the intergovernmental coordination required by the policy in his view. At his deposition conducted prior to the 2011 Hearing, Mr. McDaniel testified that after the Remedial Amendments the Gateway Project would still be just south of the conservation land designated by the City and that nothing specific had been done in the Remedial Amendments to address the inconsistency with the policy. Policy FG 3.4 in the FLP includes several provisions relating to coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, two of which specifically refer to the Restoration DRI. Policy FG 2.11q requires the Farmton conservation management plan to be coordinated with the natural resource protection measures within the RBOS and Conservation Areas of Restoration. This requirement will ensure maximum open space connectivity between the Restoration development and any development in the northern portions of the Farmton site. On the southern end of the Restoration site (just to the north of the Farmton Site) is an area designated to be used for utilities. That area directly adjoins one of the three Gateway SDAs. The Restoration site includes a significant amount of degraded areas in need of restoration. East and west of the Gateway SDAs, there will be broad corridors that connect with the Restoration site. The Restoration DRI is subject to a conservation management plan requirement that can be coordinated with the FLP's CMP. During the Original Amendment process, the County coordinated with the City of Edgewater. As a result of discussions between the County and the City, the FLP incorporates policies to address common water supply issues and future coordination. The City has no objection to the FLP. The Amendment is internally consistent with Conservation Policy 12.2.2.7. Objective 12.2.3 is "[t]o eliminate any net loss of wetlands and prevent the functional values of such wetlands to be degraded as a result of land development decisions." Policy 12.2.3.2, in pertinent part, provides that "[p]roposed activities within the NRMA . . . shall avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and their associated natural, physical and biological functions, except in cases where it can be demonstrated to be in the overriding public interest." The policy also calls for mitigation in cases of overriding public interest. Wetland features are present in abundance and interspersed throughout the Farmton Site. Respondents contend that a reasonable interpretation of the policy is that it applies to projects at the time of decisions on applications for development orders rather than planning decisions such as adoption of the FLP. Since the policy, under the interpretation, does not apply to the FLP, the policy cannot be inconsistent with it. Public School Facilities Public School Facilities Element Policy 3.1.4.3 requires a finding by the School Board that adequate school capacity will either be timely planned or constructed if there is inadequate capacity at the time of a land use change. Petitioners contend that FLP Policies FG 6.1 and 6.2 are inconsistent with Public School Facilities Element 3.1.4.3. The FLP was coordinated with the Volusia County School District ("School Board"). The School Board reviewed the proposed FLP and revised its school provisions. At the time of the Original Amendment, the School Board, based on its independent data and analysis, determined that there is adequate school capacity for a maximum of 2,287 residential units through 2025. Based on school capacity, Policy FG 1.4 limits residential development through 2025 to 2,287 units in the Gateway district. The policy further restricts residential density in the Gateway district to a maximum of 4,692 units. "[A]ny increase in the density of the Gateway district above the 2,287 units [for which there is adequate school capacity now] and up to 4,692 units [the number of units allowed] shall not be effective until such time as the school district has issued a finding of school adequacy." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, at page 7 of 49. Policies FG 6.1 and 6.2 reiterate the 2,287 unit cap and do not allow additional residential units until the School Board finds adequate capacity to provide for additional units. Other FLP Policies "Fiscal neutrality means the costs of additional school district and local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the SDA districts shall be funded by properties within the approved SDA districts." Joint Ex. 7, Policy FG 7.1, page 42 of 49. Policy FG 7.1 requires each development within an SDA to provide adequate infrastructure that meets or improves level of service standards or will result in a fiscal benefit to the County and its municipalities. Policy FG 5.13 authorizes mitigation for offsite transportation impacts through proportionate fair-share or proportionate share payments. The policy requires proportionate fair-share or proportionate share payments to mitigate the offsite transportation impacts. State law authorizes proportionate-share contributions or construction to satisfy transportation concurrency requirements of a local comprehensive plan under certain circumstances. See § 163.3180(5)(h)3. There is no definition in chapter 163 of "fiscal neutrality." Nor is there a requirement that a developer pay for more than its pro rata share of impacts. Capital Improvements Element/Public Facilities With regard to "capital improvements and public facilities," Petitioners make three allegations that the FLP is not in compliance. First, Petitioners allege the FLP fails to demonstrate the availability of public facilities and services, as required by sections 163.3177(3)(a), 163.3177(6)(a)2.d., and 163.3177(6)(a)8.a. Second, pointing to sections 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. and 163.3177(6)(a)3.e., they allege that the FLP improperly defers data and analysis on which to base the adequacy of public facilities and services. Third, they allege the revised water supply data and analysis used to support the Remedial Amendments do not demonstrate the availability of sufficient water supplies. The term "public facilities" is defined in section 163.3164(38). It "means major capital improvements, including transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational facilities." Section 163.3177(1)(f), requires all mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments to be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. requires the future land use element and plan amendments to be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area as applicable including the availability of water supplies, public facilities and services. FLUM amendments are required by section 163.317(6)(a)8.a. to be based on an analysis of the availability of facilities and services. The FLP is supported by adequate public facility data and analysis. The data and analysis supporting the Original Amendment includes transportation network maps that generally depict and project external roadways and transportation improvements that will need to be built to serve development under the Amendment through 2025 and through 2060. It also includes an evaluation of current and future roadway level of service standards. The Original Amendment includes data and analysis that evaluate potable water and sanitary sewer demand. The water and sewer analysis includes separate charts for build-out in 2025 and in 2060 which assume maximum residential potential and expected nonresidential development types. The data and analysis evaluate impacts of development under the FLP in the short term and in the long term. A transportation analysis was submitted as part of the proposed Amendment package that evaluates impacts on the level of service standards of roadways through 2014 (5 years from the submission of the original Amendment) and 2025. Tables 12 and 13 of the analysis identify roadway improvements needed to maintain level of service standards in 2014 and 2025, respectively, assuming maximum development under the existing land uses and under the Amendment. The transportation analysis assumes full maximum development potential under the Amendment, not realistic growth projections. The analysis therefore evaluates 4,692 residential units and 820,217 square feet of nonresidential development, the maximum development potential under the current land uses. The original water demand analysis applies the Amendment's water conservation policies, as encouraged by the SJRWMD. That analysis estimates a water demand of 1.36 million GPD in 2025 and 6.714 million GPD in 2060. Another water demand analysis compares onsite development scenarios for ranchettes, a commercial nursery, and development under the FLP. The analysis demonstrates development under the FLP would use substantially less water than would development of ranchettes and a commercial nursery. The Remedial Amendments include revised water supply data and analysis that was requested by, and coordinated with, the SJRWD to more closely reflect the water conservation policies in the FLP. The Original Amendment's water supply analysis assumes usage of 250 GPD per residential unit, whereas the Remedial Amendments' revised water supply data and analysis assume a reduced usage of 175 GPD per residential unit. The SJRWMD accepted the revised data and analysis. Petitioners dispute the data and analysis' use of 175 GPD as underestimating demand, but they do not dispute the data and analysis' nonresidential usage rates. The use of 175 GPD is professionally accepted and the data and analysis demonstrate the availability of adequate potable water supplies. The estimated usage of 175 GPD is achievable under the FLP's conservation measures and is a conservative rate based on the FLP's provision for many multi- family units which have a lower GPD than single family units. Applying either 250 GPD or 175 GPD, the site's groundwater source of potable water, estimated to be 9.6 million GPD, will be adequate to provide potable water for maximum residential and nonresidential development under the Amendment while meeting the contractual obligation to provide 2.75 million GPD to the city of Titusville. Petitioners also dispute the reclaimed water analysis assumption in the revised water supply data and analysis that 20 percent of the SDAs will be covered with stormwater facilities. "Twenty percent of the developed landscaped is a lot of land devoted to stormwater treatment." Tr. 142. Mr. Diamond, Petitioners' expert, suggested an assumption of seven to eight percent of the SDAs devoted to stormwater treatment is more appropriate. Civil engineer Mark Dowst, however, demonstrated the 20 percent assumption is based on his experience designing hundreds of stormwater systems and is professionally acceptable. The general range, in his opinion, is 12 to 15 percent. In areas with flood plains or a high water table, such as the Farmton Site, the amount of land devoted to stormwater treatment must be more than the general range. The School District determined there was adequate school capacity through 2025 for a maximum of 2,287 residential units authorized under the current land uses. The School District also found the Amendment addresses and protects the School District's interests. Based on the School District's finding, Policy FG 1.4 limits residential development through 2025 to 2,287 units within the Gateway district until the School District issues a finding there is additional capacity. Policy FG 6.2 recognizes the School Board has not determined there is capacity for more than 2,287 units and therefore "no finding of school adequacy can be issued until and unless the Interlocal Agreement is amended to allow school capacity to be provided within the concurrency service area in which the Farmton Local Plan is located." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 40 of 49. The Amendment reacts appropriately to relevant school capacity data and analysis. Petitioners did not demonstrate how the FLP is inconsistent with applicable public facility requirements. They did not demonstrate that the FLP triggers a need under the New Act to amend the Capital Improvements Element. In order to encourage the efficient use of public facilities, section 163.3177(3)(a) mandates that the comprehensive plan contain a capital improvements element designed to consider the location of public facilities that covers at least a 5-year period and that sets forth: "A schedule of capital improvements [the "CIS"] which includes any publicly funded projects of federal, state or local government, and which may include privately funded projects for which the local government has no fiscal responsibility. Projects necessary to ensure that any adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period must be identified as either funded or unfunded and given a level of priority for funding." § 163.3177(3)(a)4. Policy FG 8.1 prohibits the issuance of any building permit within five years of the Amendment's effective date. This provision clarifies that the Capital Improvement Schedule ("CIS") need not be amended yet. There is no requirement the CIS include public facilities that are privately owned or operated, or are owned or operated by a different local government. None of the infrastructure to be provided by Farmton Water Resources LLC or the City of Edgewater under the numerous policies under Objective 4 need be included in the CIS. The evidence shows it is not realistic to expect development impacts to occur within five years from the adoption of the Remedial Amendments on February 18, 2011. Section 163.3177(3)(b) requires that the capital improvements element be reviewed annually. The CIS will be amended in the future as needed based on projected public facility impacts of future development proposals. Section 163.3177(3)(a) requires less detail for long-range public facility planning than for the five year CIS. The Amendment includes an adequate amount of detail for long range planning for public facilities. Policy FG 4.14 authorizes Farmton Water Resources, LLC, and the City of Edgewater to provide water to the site. Policy FG 4.19 identifies the City of Edgewater as the provider of potable water and wastewater for Gateway. The data and analysis include a utility service area map showing the service area. Policy FG 4.18 requires Farmton Water Resources, LLC, to provide off-site and on-site potable water, nonpotable water, and wastewater. That policy and Policy FG 4.21j list various infrastructure improvements that will be needed to provide those services. At this time, it is not possible to identify where public facilities will be located or their costs. Policy FG 8.3 requires all SDA development to undergo master development-of-regional impact review process, which will ensure infrastructure, including transportation, schools, stormwater, and water supply, to be a condition of the master DRI development order. Policy FG 8.7 includes a requirement that each increment of development address the adequacy of public facilities and services such that they are available to accommodate development and maintain or improve level of service standards. The master DRI requirement is a reasonable strategy to ensure infrastructure will keep pace with development. Water Supply Petitioners contend that the increased development allowed under the FLP was not anticipated by the water supply plan of the SJRWMD, or of any local government, and that a concurrent water supply plan amendment is required. They further argue this omission demonstrates the FLP is not based on the availability of water supplies. Petitioners also allege the Amendment is inconsistent with the Plan’s Potable Water Sub- Element Policies 7.1.3.1 and 7.1.3.3. Those issues were raised by the Department and SJRWMD, but were resolved to their satisfaction in the Remedial Amendments. SJRWMD proposed Remedial Policies FG 4.14, 4.15, 4.18, and 4.21. The Remedial Amendments also included additional data and analysis, which was accepted by SJRWMD. The Original Amendment is supported by data and analysis demonstrating there is a new source of potable water located on the site. The new water source is groundwater contained within the Upper Floridan aquifer and is of potable water quality. The potable water supply analysis demonstrates the new source of potable water is adequate to supply more than enough potable water to supply development under the FLP. The supply is conservatively estimated to be able to produce a sustainable 9.6 million GPD, while the projected demand for development under the FLP is estimated to be 6.76 million GPD. Future land use plan amendments must be based on data regarding the area including "[t]he availability of water supplies . . . ." see § 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. Adequate potable water supply must be shown to be available but need not yet be a permitted source. Regardless of whether the new groundwater source is identified in a regional or local water supply plan, the FLP is supported by a demonstration of an adequate water supply, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. Non-inclusion in a water supply plan does not negate the fact that a new source of potable water has been discovered and demonstrated to be available. Section 163.3177(6)(c) requires each water management district to adopt a regional water supply plan every five years and for each local government to incorporate relevant facilities contained in the regional plan into its comprehensive plan by adopting a local water supply plan within eighteen months after the regional water supply is adopted. The FLP was adopted between updates of the SJRWMD regional water supply plan and local water supply plan updates. The SJRWMD plan was required to be adopted in 2005, but was not adopted until February 2006. The mandatory five-year update for the SJRWMD was due in the fall of 2010, but has been delayed. The County’s required water supply facilities work plan was adopted on June 8, 2009. There is no requirement for the county to amend its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan before the SJRWMD amends its regional water supply plan. Potable Water Sub-Element Policy 7.1.3.3 requires the County to review its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan annually and update it as necessary. The FLP recognizes the County’s obligation to later amend its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and is consistent with it. Policy FG 4.15 requires Farmton Water Resources, LLC, to coordinate with the County, municipalities and the SJRWMD to propose additions to their applicable water supply work plans. The unchanged portion of revised Policy FG 4.18 expressly requires projects to be included in the annual updates as those projects are identified and approved. There is no statutory requirement that such availability be included in a water supply project list until the county and regional water supply plans are updated. Nonetheless, the report prepared by Dr. Seereeram demonstrated through data and analysis that sufficient on-site water will be available. Potable Water Sub-Element Policy 7.1.3.1 requires the County to maintain a Water Supply Facilities Work Plan that is coordinated with the SJRWMD water supply plan. The FLP is consistent with this policy because Policy 7.1.3.1 does not address the situation posed in this case by the delay of the update to the SJRWMD water supply plan. Policy FG 4.18, moreover, requires coordination after that update is made. Section 163.3177(6)(c) is silent as to the need to identify potable water projects between water supply amendment cycles, and as to the format a local government must use to identify water supply projects. Petitioners did not demonstrate the FLP is required to include amendments to the water supply plan, as opposed to a later update of the water supply plan, as required by Policy FG 4.18. They also did not demonstrate what legal requirement necessitates additional information, beyond the identity of the water source and its demonstrated adequacy, in order for the Amendment to be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis to demonstrate the availability of a water supply. Public Schools The County is required by section 163.3177(6)(a)7 to identify the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. The School District is responsible for identifying sites for future schools. In keeping with its responsibility, the School District has mapped future school sites needed through 2025. It has not planned, however, for new school sites needed through 2060. Objective 3.2.2 governs and requires establishment of "School Concurrency Service Areas," Joint Ex. 1, ch. 3, page 6 of 12. They are areas "within which an evaluation is made of whether adequate school capacity is available based on the adopted level of service standard." Id. Policy 3.2.2.8 requires "[r]equests to develop properties within the central school concurrency service areas at residential densities and intensities greater than the current land use or zoning designations . . . . [to] be done via a comprehensive plan amendment consistent with the Volusia County Charter provision 206 regarding school planning." Id. at page 7 of 12. Section 206 required the county council not later than September 30, 2007, to adopt an ordinance to the effect that any plan amendment allowing increased residential density "may be effective only if adequate public schools can be timely planned and constructed to serve the projected increase in school population." DCA Ex. 10. The policy further requires the amendment to demonstrate how school capacity will be met consistent with the terms of the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning, effective July 2007, and Section 206 of the Volusia County Charter. The FLP is consistent with Public Schools Policy 3.2.2.8 because it limits residential development to 2,287 units until there is a School District finding of additional capacity. Policy FG 8.3g. requires each increment of development in the master development order to include provision for schools, thus further ensuring adequate public schools will be timely built and available to serve all future development. The use of a plan amendment to include limitations on development based upon the availability of public facilities has been accepted by the Department. Policy FG 6.2 requires an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement before the School District can find there is additional capacity. This policy is coordinated and consistent with Policy FG 3.2.2.8's requirement that plan amendments be consistent with the Interlocal Agreement. A plan amendment creates an internal inconsistency when it has the effect of conflicting with an existing provision of the comprehensive plan, but if an amendment expressly creates an exception or waiver to a general rule set forth in the plan, it does not create an internal inconsistency. Related school concurrency Public Schools Objective 3.2.1 requires the County to "ensure that the capacity of schools is sufficient to support residential subdivisions and site plans at the adopted level of service standard within the period covered by the five-year schedule of capital improvements." Joint Ex. 1, ch. 3, page 5 of 12. Since school concurrency is a five-year planning concern and no development should occur within the next five years, there is no inconsistency between the FLP and Policy FG 3.2.2.8. Policy FG 3.1.4.1 requires the County to "take into consideration" School District comments and findings on the availability of adequate school capacity in its evaluation of plan amendments. The FLP is consistent with this policy. The County not only took the School District's comments and findings into consideration, but the FLP limits development to current and future findings of adequate school capacity made by the School District through Policy FG 1.4. Objective FG 6 in the FLP governs "School Planning and Concurrency." It states: "The Sustainable Development Area districts shall be designed and planned to ensure that the educational facilities are integral components within the community and that adequate school capacity can be timely planned and constructed to serve the anticipated population." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 39 of 49. The school policies that implement Objective FG 6, Policies FG 6.1 through 6.8, were drafted by the School District and are based on the best available data and analysis about future school sites, which currently is available from the School District only through 2025. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners contend that Policies FG 2.16 and FG 3.10 (untouched after the Original Amendment), and Policies FG 2.4, 2.5, and 2.18 (as revised by the Remedial Amendments) fail to establish the meaningful and predictable standards required by section 163.3177 (1). The statute, in pertinent part, provides: The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. Policy FG 2.16 requires a Community Stewardship Organization ("CSO") to be established and governed by seven directors. The policy provides the CSO's governance board of directors is to be composed of seven members, four of whom must be representative of statewide or national non-profit environmental/conservation organizations in existence at the time of the adoption of the FLP such as the Nature Conservancy, Florida Audubon Society, Trust for Public Lands, and the Florida Wildlife Federation. The owner shall be represented on the board, and the other two members may include representatives of public agencies, stakeholders and public citizens who participated in the development of the FLP. The policy also lists various functions the CSO may or must perform, including taking title to the GreenKey and RBOS areas or co-holding a conservation easement. The CSO is mandated to participate in development of the CMP. The policy also requires all current and future deeds of the Deep Creek Conservation Area, which is within the West Mitigation Bank, to be conveyed to the CSO. Policy FG 2.16 identifies specific activities for the CSO to undertake, and contains meaningful and predictable standards to guide the CSO's composition and actions. Policy FG 3.10 requires a jobs-to-housing ratio of one job per one residential unit. The policy also states Gateway development shall be Phase One and is exempt from the ratio requirement. Development orders for subsequent phases must include milestones for achieving the ratio. The ratio must be monitored at least annually. If the ratio falls below 0.65 (0.65 job for each housing unit), the policy requires development approvals to cease until a remedial plan is developed and approved. Policies FG 8.3j and Policy FG 8.4j require any development orders to include provisions to implement the jobs to housing ratio. Policy FG 3.10 does not allow the remedial plan to achieve any other ratio. A plain reading of Policy FG 3.10 as a whole, including the requirement to monitor compliance with the ratio, reveals it to be a remedial plan that must achieve the 1:1 ratio referred to in the policy. Policy FG 3.10 identifies specific strategies to achieve a balance of housing and employment opportunities, and contains meaningful and predictable standards to guide its implementation. There is no requirement for a CSO and there are no compliance criteria to guide the composition and roles of entities such as the CSO, nor does the law require or provide criteria for jobs to housing ratio. Policy FG 2.4 was revised by the Remedial Amendment to create MRBOS areas and depict them on Map Figure 1-12N so as to provide certainty as to where certain portions of RBOS lands will be located. MRBOS lands have the effect of expanding the GreenKey designated areas for the Cow Creek Corridor and the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. The Policy states MRBOS lands will not be subject to the RBOS public access plan, but will be subject to the Black Bear management plan. The Remedial Amendment's details for the new MRBOS areas are predictable and meaningful. The changes to Policy FG 2.5 clarify that the Southwest Wildlife Corridor must be "consistent with a forestry management plan designed to provide prescribed fire, promote dense understory vegetation such as palmetto and [be] consistent with the Black Bear Management Plan" as required in original Policy 2.5b. Petitioners did not present any competent substantial evidence that this guidance for the forestry management plan does not provide adequate meaningful and predictable standards. Policy FG 2.18, "Transportations Policies and Natural Resource Protection," addresses the arterial roads that traverse the GreenKey lands and provides design guidance to avoid and minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and the movement of wildlife. Section "a" of the policy, which was unchanged by the Remedial Amendment, includes the following non-exhaustive list of tools to minimize this conflict: landscaping techniques, fencing, speed limits, wildlife overpasses or underpasses, bridges, and elevating roadways. This section applies to the three arterial roads shown on the Spine Network Map; Williamson Boulevard, Maytown Road, and Arterial A. The proposed general alignment of Williamson Boulevard does not intrude into the boundaries of the Deep Creek Conservation Area, the Cow Creek Corridor, the Power Line corridor, or the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. Williamson Boulevard runs through, and connects, the largest Gateway SDA and the Work Place, Town Center, and the easternmost village. The Remedial Amendment revises Policy FG 2.18 by creating Sections "b" and "c." Section "b" provides mandatory guidelines that apply only to Maytown Road and Arterial A and requires their design to be based on "best available science" as determined by the FFWCC. Section "c" encourages additional guidelines for Maytown Road and Arterial A subject to the discretion of the roadway designers. As a whole, Policy FG 2.18 provides meaningful and predictable guidance for the designers of the roadways. There are no minimum standards in the New Law for the design of roadways to minimize conflicts with wildlife. With proper implementation, the guidelines in Policy FG 2.18 are reasonably expected to produce the defined outcome of a roadway network that will minimize conflict with wildlife. Audubon’s Charles Lee testified the policies were based on the model policies in the Wekiva Parkway Plan. Mr. Telesco of the FFWCC testified the policies were in line with FDOT policies. Further, the phrase "to the extent practicable" is a known conservation standard taken from the Endangered Species Act. Policies FG 2.4, 2.5, 2.16, 2.18, and 3.10 provide an adequate amount detail for a comprehensive plan amendment, as required by section 163.3177(1).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a Final Order that determines the Farmton Local Plan incorporated into the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan through amendments adopted by Volusia County Council Ordinance Nos. 2009-34 and 2011-10 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issue 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.
The Issue Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The FLUM and the Overlay. Lee County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1984. On January 31, 1989, the County adopted an amended version of the 1984 Plan intended to plan for growth up to the year 2010 and to comply with the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements. Essentially, the 1989 Plan was very similar to that drafted in 1984. Some major differences were provision of development timing and concurrency, creation of the privately-funded infrastructure overlay, elimination of the fringe land use category, and a variety of other new goals, objectives, and policies (GOP's). Most of the land use categories in the 1984 Plan were carried forward to the 1989 Plan. Almost all of the land use categories are mixed land use categories that allow residential, commercial and in some cases also light industrial uses without any percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. The DCA took the position that the 1989 Lee Plan was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act and filed a petition under Section 163.3184(10). The Department's objection to the 1989 Plan flowed in large part from the alleged overallocation of land for development by the year 2010 that resulted from the categories in the future land use map series (FLUM). Using the County's data and analysis, the DCA concluded that the 1989 map provided for 70 years of growth, to the year 2060, instead of 20 years, to the year 2010. To resolve the 1989 Plan dispute, the County agreed to adopt a 2010 Overlay and create a Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource future land use (FLUE) category (DRGR). The 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement included the following provisions: Amend the Future Land Use Map series by designating the proposed distribution, extent, and location of the generalized land uses required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)1.-9. for the year 2010. These designations will include acreage totals and percentage distributions (illustrated by a bar graph) for about 125 discrete sub-districts encompassing all of Lee County, which, once designated, shall be changed only by a formal amendment to the Lee Plan. The data for these designations shall be consistent with the Lee Plan's population pro- jections for the year 2010. This amendment shall be accomplished by the adoption of over- lay or sub-district maps for the entire County using the concepts developed therefor by Thomas H. Roberts of Thomas H. Roberts Associates and presented publicly to the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County on September 12, 1989, and to the Department of Community Affairs on September 22, 1989. Adopt a policy which will provide that no development approvals for any land use category will be issued in any of the sub- districts described above that would cause the acreage total set for that land use category in 2010 to be exceeded. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County created a 2010 Overlay. The County first projected future growth in Lee County to the year 2010, using a basic assumption that historic patterns of growth in Lee County, including historic densities, would continue. The County's 2010 population estimate was 757,370 for the entire unincorporated County. The County then assigned acreage allocations for different land uses allowed in each planning subdistrict. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County adopted the resulting 2010 Overlay, as well as a DRGR FLUE category with a density range of one unit per ten acres, as part of the 1990 remedial plan amendments. The Overlay consisted of Maps 16 and 17, which were added to the FLUM, along with implementing policies in the Future Land Use Element. The 2010 Overlay is, in the words of the 1994 Codification of the Plan, "an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series." Map 16 is a map which divides Lee County into 115 subdistricts. "Map" 17 is not a true map; it is a series of bar tables and pie charts that correspond to acreage allocations for land uses within the subdistricts. Each subdistrict is allocated a specific number of acres for each of the following land uses: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, passive agriculture and vacant. The land use acreage allocations for each Overlay subdistrict are the maximum amount of land which can be developed in that subdistrict. The intent of the 2010 Overlay was to match the amount of development that could be accommodated by the 2010 FLUM with the projected County-wide population for the year 2010. The 2010 Overlay accomplished this in part by assigning percentage distributions, in the form of acreage allocations, to the various uses in the many mixed use categories in the FLUM. Under the Overlay, once the acreage allocation for a particular land use is exhausted, no more acreage can be developed for that land use in that subdistrict unless the Lee Plan is amended. Policy 1.7.6 was adopted to establish an ongoing mandatory review procedure for evaluation and amendment of the 2010 Overlay. On September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments and officially revised the original data and analysis supporting the Plan. As the support documents for the 1990 remedial amendments stated: The future land use map series currently contained in the Future Land Use element of the Lee Plan depicts 18 land use categories and has an estimated 70-year population holding capacity. A future land use map series is re- quired by state law and is also a useful and necessary part of the plan in guiding land use and related decisions. The Year 2010 Overlay makes this map series even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon. * * * In addition to this "pure planning" function of the 2010 Overlay, a regulatory function will be added. No final development orders or building permits for any land use category will be issued in any subdistrict that would cause the acreage total for that category in 2010 to be exceeded. The Dwelling Unit Counts and Projections charts in the support documents for the 1990 amendments demonstrate that the 2010 Overlay was designed to greatly limit the number of dwelling units that could be constructed by 2010 compared to the number allowed by the 2010 FLUM without the Overlay. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments in compliance. However, a citizen challenge to the County's 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments resulted in an Administration Commission Final Order that the amendments were not in compliance and that the County had to take certain remedial actions to bring the Plan amendments into compliance. Final Order, Sheridan v. Lee Co. and DCA, 16 FALR 654 (Fla. Admin. Com. 1994)(the "Sheridan Final Order"). The Sheridan Final Order required the County to apply the 2010 Overlay at the development order stage, rather than at the building permit stage. As a result, no development order could be issued which caused the acreage allocations for any given individual subdistrict to be exceeded. The Sheridan Final Order also held that the County had not properly calculated the amount of development allowed by the 2010 Overlay and adopted the following analysis from the hearing officer's Recommended Order: The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities some- where between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. * * * The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population, and consider the extent of the overallocation in the light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 689. As a result, one of the remedial amendments required by the Administration Commission was: To address the density calculation issue the County shall revise the data and analysis to include the maximum allowable densities in determining the amount of development allowed by the 2010 overlay and to show that the amount of development allowed is based on the expected growth. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 661. The County adopted 2010 Overlay remedial amendments in October, 1994. In December, 1994, the DCA determined that the remedial amendments were in compliance. (The revised data and analysis were not made a part of the record in this case.) On July 1, 1994, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for its Plan and subsequently submitted to the DCA the EAR, along with the proposed EAR-based amendments for the year 2020. Among other things, the proposed EAR-based amendments eliminated the 2010 Overlay. Among other things, the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report objected to the elimination of the 2010 Overlay, taking the position that, without the Overlay, the EAR-based plan had the same allocation-related problems that had been in the 1989 plan. On November 1, 1994, the County adopted a modified version of the EAR- based amendments--still without any Overlay--and submitted these to the DCA, together with its staff response to the DCA's ORC Report. On December 28, 1994, the DCA issued a Statement of Intent to find the EAR-based amendments not in compliance. FLUM Population Accommodation Data and Analysis. The evidence in this case includes data and several different analyses comparing the population accommodated by the plan amendments at issue--i.e., the FLUM without any Overlay--with the population projected for the year 2020. Figure 14. Lee County's proposed population accommodation data and analysis is included in the EAR in Figure 14. Based on Figure 14, the County concluded that the 2020 FLUM accommodates 802,655 persons, or 128 percent of the projected 2020 population (an accommodation ratio of 1.28). Although the FLUM's many mixed use categories do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses, Figure 14 assumes that certain percentages of the many mixed use categories will develop in residential use, based on historic growth patterns. Also based on historic growth patterns, Figure 14 assumes that residential density will be less than the maximum of the standard residential density range allowed in each category although the GOP's allow residential development at much higher densities. Since Figure 14 is based on historic patterns of growth that are expected to continue into the future, Figure 14 appears to predict future growth as accurately as is possible at this time. It probably is the best possible estimate of how Lee County will build out under the proposed amendments. However, the ability to make truely accurate predictions over such a long period of time--25 years--is questionable. Figure 14 assumes that only a fraction of the new Vested Community land use district (Lehigh Acres) will be developed by the end of the planning timeframe. Most of the Vested Community district consists of subdivisions which were approved and platted several years before the adoption of the earliest Lee Plan, and which are vested from the restrictions of the Lee Plan. The Vested Community district contains over 130,000 vested lots which can accommodate at least 271,700 residents. In addition, the Vested Community district contains some land which is not actually vested from the Lee Plan but is allowed to develop at four density units per acre (du/ac). Figure 14 assumes that 45,888 residential units accommodating 95,906 persons will be developed in Lehigh Acres by 2020. There is no goal, objective or policy in the Lee Plan which would prevent the development of more lots vested or allocated in the Vested Community district. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis assumed that the Rural and Outer Islands categories will develop at their maximum residential density of one du/ac. In fact, the Lee Plan includes a Planned Development District Option ("PDDO") which allows: landowners outside the Future Urban Areas to increase allowable densities for development that will be totally independent of county- subsidized facilities and services. (Objective 1.8) The PDDO increases the maximum theoretical residential density of the Rural and Outer Islands districts from 1 du/ac to 6 du/ac. However, due the requirements for use of the PDDO, realistically it cannot be anticipated that much Rural or Outer Islands land will utilize it. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis did not include any residential allocation for the General Interchange category. The General Interchange category allows residential development of 100 residential units at 8 du/ac for every 100,000 square feet of commercial development. If the residential option applied to all 1,436 acres of the General Interchange category, the Lee Plan would accommodate another 13,209 persons in that category. However, for the residential option, the category requires 160 acres under common ownership. Currently, there is only one case in which the requirement is met, and it is a development of regional impact (DRI) that does not allow residential at this time. Figure 14A. Figure 14A is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It was supposed to adjust Figure 14 by assuming the maximum residential density allowed by each land use category in accordance with the Sheridan Final Order. The Figure 14A accommodated population rises to 1,325,568, and the so-called allocation ratio rises to 2.11. Actually, Figure 14A does not take into account the actual maximum residential density in Intensive Development (22 du/ac), Central Urban (15 du/ac), and Urban Community (10 du/ac). Instead, it uses the top of the "standard density range" in those categories. Figure 14 B. Figure 14B also is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It adjusts the Figure 14A analysis by estimating the total residential development allowed by the Vested Community category at 170,732 dwelling units, which will accommodate 356,829 persons. Adding those Vested Community numbers to the Figure 14A numbers, Figure 14B estimates the population accommodated by the 2020 FLUM as 1,586,491 persons, or an accommodation ratio of 2.53. Maximum Theoretical Residential Potential. The DCA proposes an analysis of the data using maximum theoretical residential potential for each land use category. Under the DCA analysis, there is enough land available for residential development accommodate a population of approximately 2.5 million people--401 percent of the expected County population in 2020 or, expressed as a ratio, 4.01. In contrast to Figure 14B, the DCA's preferred analysis takes into account all of the residential development capacity in Lehigh Acres. In addition, it assumes residential development in the Vested Intensive Development part of the Lehigh Vested Community at the maximum density of 14 du/ac and in the Vested Central Urban part at the maximum density of 10 du/ac. These assumptions add to the FLUM population accommodation analysis the capacity to accommodate approximately 246,000 more people, over and above the Figure 14B capacity. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that all Rural and Outer Islands land will utilize PDDO and develop residentially at 6 du/ac. Use of this assumption more than doubles the population accommodation in those categories, adding approximately 500,000 people to the analysis. While theoretically possible, as previously stated, this assumption is unrealistic. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that 13,209 people are accommodated in residential development in the General Interchange category. This assumption, too, is theoretically possible but not realistic. Finally, the DCA's preferred analysis assumes that, although most of Lee County's future land use categories allow a mix of uses, the land will develop at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area--i.e., that no other type of permitted use, such as commercial, parks, schools or even roads would occur in any of the land use categories. Finally, it disregards the actual existence of non-residential uses and residential uses at lower densities; instead, it assumes redevelopment at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area. County's 2010 Overlay Analysis. It seems obvious that deletion of the 2010 Overlay must increase population accommodation, at least up to the year 2010. Up to the time of the final hearing, the DCA had not requested, and no party did, an allocation ratio analysis of the 2010 Overlay similar to the one the DCA prefers for the 2020 FLUM without any Overlay for purposes of making a comparison between the two. The County's chief planner testified that he performed such an analysis during the course of the final hearing using the maximum residential and maximum density assumptions. Neither the details nor the results of the analysis were clear. However, it appears to indicate that the 2010 Overlay accommodated a 2010 population of 1.06 million, apparently including 282,000 assumed to be accommodated in Lehigh Acres, an allocation ratio of 2.11. Assuming that the County's 2010 Overlay analysis included Lehigh, it can be roughly compared to the Figure 14B analysis and the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" analysis by removing the Lehigh component from each. Subtracting the Lehigh component from the County's 2010 Overlay population accommodation analysis results in a 2010 population accommodation of 778,000. Removing the Lehigh component from Figure 14B results in 2020 population accommodation of 1,229,662. Removing the Lehigh component from the DCA's analysis results in 2020 population accommodation of 2,008,927. Meanwhile, the County's projection of future increased by only about 70,000 between 2010 and 2020 for the entire unincorporated county. RGMC Alternative 2010 Overlay Accommodation Analysis and Comparision. RGMC proposes its own alternative analysis for comparing the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay to the population accommodated without it. Using the County's population projection for 2020 of 626,860 in the unincorporated county and the accepted 2.09 people per unit, it can be estimated that approximately 300,000 units will be needed in the year 2020. Subtracting the 127,000 units existing in 1990, approximately 173,000 additional units will be needed over the 30 years from 1990 to 2020 to accommodate the expected population, or approximately 5,800 additional units per year. At that average rate, 116,000 units would be added by the year 2010 (5,800 units per year times 20 years). Adding the new units to the 127,000 units existing in 1990 results in a total of approximately 244,000 units in 2010. Since it is agreed that the Overlay was designed to accommodate, and accommodated, approximately the population expected in the year 2010, it can be estimated that the Overlay accommodated approximately 244,000 units. In the sense that all units accommodated under the 2020 FLUM without the Overlay are available for development before 2010, a rough comparison can be made between the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay and the population accommodated according to the other analysis methodologies: according to Figure 14, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 384,045 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14A, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 634,243 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14B, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 759,086 units for the year 2020; and according to the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" methodology, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 1,201,973 units for the year 2020. Calculation and Use of the "Allocation Ratio". The technique of determining a residential density allocation ratio was described in an article entitled "Expanding the Overallocation of Land Use Categories," which appears in a June, 1995, publication of the Department of Community Affairs called "Community Planning." "Community Planning" is published by the Department of Community Affairs "to provide technical assistance to Florida's counties and cities and implement any requirements of Florida's growth management laws." The article announces how the Department reviews the question of "overallocation" in determining whether a plan is in compliance with statutory and rule requirements regarding urban sprawl. According to the article, the Department suggests that a comprehensive plan should allocate up to 125 percent of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected future population. The article does not explain how the "allocation ratio" should be calculated. The Sheridan Final Order seems to say that maximum densities should be assumed. See Finding 11, above. But neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order indicate what other assumptions should be made. The "Community Planning" article and the Sheridan Final Order also do not specify whether, in calculating the allocation ratio, population accommodation capacity should be compared to the total expected population or to the incremental growth expected in the population. The DCA has accepted a 1.25 allocation ratio applied to the total expected population as being reasonable. A major treatise in this area known as Urban Land Use Planning, Fourth Edition, by Kaiser, Godchalk, and Chapin, suggests that an allocation ratio of up to 2.05 can be considered reasonable; however, when doing so, the authors were evaluating plans with a closer planning horizon (one to five years), and they were comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population. When calculating an allocation ratio for a 20-year planning horizon, they suggest that a 1.20 allocation ratio that compares population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be reasonable. By accepting a 1.25 allocation ratio that compares the population accommodation capacity to the total population expected on a 25-year planning horizon, the DCA seems to have been misapplying the allocation ratio analysis. Clearly, an accommodation ratio comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be much than one comparing to to the total population expected. There was no data and analysis as to exactly how much higher, and it is difficult to say based on the record in this case. However, an example of the difference between the too methodologies is suggested by one of RGMC's alternative analyses. It is known that approximately 300,000 units of residential development will be needed for the population expected in the year 2020. See Finding 36, above. The evidence was that there were approximately 143,000 units existing in 1995, so approximately 157,000 additional units will be needed by the year 2020 to accommodate the expected population. Meanwhile, using the County's Figure 14 assumptions, the FLUM without the Overlay makes 384,045 units available for development by the year 2020, or an accommodation of an additional 241,045 units over what was in existence in 1995. Comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020 would result in an "accommodation ratio" of approximately 1.54, versus the ratio of 1.28 calculated in Figure 14 comparing to total population expected. By way of further examples, using the same method of comparison: Figure 14A's 2.11 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.13, comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020; Figure 14B's 2.53 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.92; and the DCA's "accommodation ratio" of 4.01 would become a ratio of 6.75. It should be noted that the Urban Land Use Planning treatise also speaks of the use of the allocation ratio as a safety factor to provide a choice of location for housing type and to avoid artificially increasing land and housing prices. Rather than being a device merely to avoid the overallocation of land, the safety factor also is said to be necessary to ensure that enough land is allocated and that the limitations of forecasting approaches do not exacerbate the need for affordable housing. It also should be noted that neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order specify that allocation and urban sprawl issues should be determined from the simple calculation of a residential density allocation. To the contrary, the Sheridan Final Order would indicate that, once the allocation ratio is obtained, full consideration should be given to all pertinent factors "in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis." Analyses Not Conducted. The plan amendments do not only eliminate the 2010 Overlay. They also decline to retain the Overlay concept and extend it another ten years to the year 2020. There is no data or analysis in this case comparing the population accommodated by the FLUM without any Overlay to the population that would be accommodated in the year 2020 if the Overlay were extended another ten years to 2020. Such data and analysis would most clearly illuminate the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay, and abandoning the Overlay concept, on the residential allocation of the plan for the year 2020. There may be tens of thousands of, up to perhaps almost a hundred thousand, residential units in DRI's that have been approved but not yet built. There was inadequate data and analysis of how many of the residential units that will be needed by the year 2020 can be supplied in these DRI's. Lehigh Acres. Clearly, Lehigh Acres presents a special problem for Lee County and the DCA. Lehigh Acres was platted in the 1950s and 1960s. It covers approximately 97 square miles, which is slightly more than 62,000 acres. Since its inception, Lehigh has had all the attributes of urban sprawl. It is a large, sprawling, almost entirely residential community that was created in an area remote from urban services. It is characterized by grid patterns of development, a poorly-designed transportation network with large numbers of small local roads and no four-lane roads, huge amounts of land allocated to residential development and a relatively small amount of land allocated to commercial development. The roads in Lehigh are built. Virtually all of Lehigh has been subdivided into relatively small single family residential homesites, and almost all of these homesites have been sold to buyers all over the world. By virtue of the platting and sale of the land into homesites, Lehigh is a vested community. Over the years, the County has considered a number of potential solutions to the Lehigh Acres dilemma. Ultimately, the County decided to take a multi-pronged approach: (1) creating restrictions on additional subdivision and attempting to reduce densities to no more than four units per acre; (2) continuing the privately-funded infrastructure overlay as the means of providing infrastructure in Lehigh; and (3) utilizing sector planning to work toward a better transportation system and larger areas of commercial allocation to create a more balanced community. Based on the new treatment of Lehigh Acres, the County engaged in different assumptions about how Lehigh will build out. In 1989, Lehigh was shown as "central urban" and "urban community," together with the rest of the Lee Plan future land use categories. Under the 2010 Overlay, the County purported to reduce acreage allocations in Lehigh, but in fact there was little impact on residential potential due to vesting. In the EAR-based amendments, Lehigh is shown under "Vested Community," a separate land use category. Through the vested community category, the County attempted to restrict additional subdividing of lots and, with a few limited exceptions, set a maximum density of four units per acre. Based on the different treatment of Lehigh in the Plan, the County projected a population for Lehigh based on the amount of growth actually expected to occur by Year 2020. To do this, the County utilized eight different methodologies and averaged the projections to come up with a 2010 population for Lehigh of 95,906. These assumptions are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Neither the Department's rules nor the "Community Planning" article provide specific guidance as to how vested areas are to be treated in making a calculation of a plan's "allocation ratio." The vast area of Lehigh has the capacity to absorb virtually all the anticipated future population growth in unincorporated Lee County through the year 2020. In fact, it may be appropriate for Lee County to increase overall density in Lehigh if necessary to support the infrastructure and transportation needed to convert Lehigh Acres into a more balanced, multi-use development. Lee County's approach to Lehigh essentially was to attempt to satisfy the Department's desire for an acceptable "allocation ratio" by estimating how many residents will actually live in Lehigh by 2020, assuming the Plan's treatment of Lehigh, and treating those estimates as Lehigh's population accommodation. By studying historic rates of growth, the Lee Planning Division believes that number will be approximately 96,000 people. No evidence was presented by the Department or any intervenor in contradiction of this estimate. The results of the County's approach to Lehigh are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Another approach would be to attempt to reduce residential development in other parts of the County. It would be poor planning to reduce densities "across the board" throughout the County just to achieve a lower allocation ratio. Such an approach could direct population concentration away from urban areas into poorly-served rural areas, thereby discouraging the efficient use of land and encouraging sprawling uses. Depending on the densities, it could direct growth to remote areas of the county. Additionally, if Lee County attemped to limit residential growth based on incorrect assumptions regarding future densities, it could seriously underallocate land uses. Underallocation can greatly inflate land costs to the detriment of the general public. On the other hand, a better approach might be to couple sector planning in Lehigh with a reduction in densities in certain other parts of the County. If successful, such an approach could both create more balanced development in Lehigh Acres and direct future growth to Lehigh and away from coastal high hazard areas (CHHA), DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Commercial Allocations. The 2020 Lee Plan, without the 2010 Overlay, has some guidance for the location of commercial development, especially retail commercial. But it does not have percentage distributions or other objective measurement of the distribution of commercial and other uses allowed in its many mixed land use districts. Policy 6.1.2 of the 2020 Lee Plan consists of site location criteria which apply to retail commercial development, such as shopping centers, restaurants, gas stations, and other commercial development generating large volumes of traffic. Non-retail commercial development, such as office, hotel and motel or wholesale commercial development, may be developed at the identified intersections or anywhere else in the land use categories which allow commercial development. Even retail commercial can be developed at locations which do not meet the location criteria under discretion granted to the Board of County Commissioners. According to Lee County's EAR, the Commercial Site Locations Standards Map (Map 16) identifies 52 full intersections and 15 half-moon intersections which comply with the site location standards for Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. They represent 9,520 acres of land designated for retail commercial development. Using the standard planning conversion rate of 10,000 square feet per acre, average, there is room for approximately 95,000,000 square feet of commercial development in the commercial sites depicted on Map There also may be other intersections which meet the criteria for Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial but are not shown on Map 16. In addition, there are numerous intersections which meet the criteria for Minor Commercial which are not shown on Map 16. Map 16 also does not include Regional Commercial development. The report by Thomas H. Roberts & Associates on Commercial Land Use Needs In Lee County (Jan. 10, 1987), indicates that the retail space ratio in Lee County is 26 square feet per capita. Just counting the 95,000,000 square feet of retail commercial development allowed in the land shown on Map 16, the 2020 Lee Plan has enough retail commercial capacity to accommodate 3.7 million people. Without even considering the non-retail commercial uses that can be developed at any location in the several land use districts which allow commercial uses, or the unknown amount of retail commercial that can be developed at the numerous intersections which meet the Minor Commercial location criteria, the 2020 Lee Plan without the 2010 Overlay allows commercial development far in excess of the amount needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. Industrial Allocation Policy 7.1.4 in the 2020 Lee Plan provides: The [FLUM] shall designate a sufficient quantity of land to accommodate industrial development that will employ 3 percent of the county's population in manufacturing activities by the year 2010. The 2020 FLUM, without the 2010 Overlay, designates 6,062 acres in the Industrial Development category. Three percent of the 2020 County population represents approximately 19,000 people. The 1984 Roberts industrial land analysis for Lee County suggested a ratio of seven industrial workers per acre for industrial related activities. Most industrial land uses employ more workers per acre, and the national average is about 17 employees per acre. But even using the ratio suggested by the Roberts analysis, Lee County would need only approximately 3,000 acres of industrial land to accommodate three percent of the 2020 County population in industrial employment. Analysis in the EAR indicates that enough additional industrial land is needed to serve the needs of municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves and that this additional land accounts for the apparent excess in industrial lands allocated in the county. However, it is not clear from the data and analysis how this determination was made. In addition, light industrial development is permitted in several other mixed land use categories. For example, the existing approximately 2,800 acres of Airport Commerce (AC) located to the northwest of the airport is intended to include light industrial activities. There was no data or analysis as to how much additional industrial use will be made of land in those categories. There are no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution of land uses in the mixed land use districts that allow light industrial use. The Mixed Land Use Districts. As has been seen, the Lee Plan without any Overlay makes extensive use of mixed land use districts without percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. Much of the dispute between the parties as to residential accommodation and allocations of land for commercial and industrial uses results from the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use categories. Although the County predicts development of only a percentage of these districts as residential, it remains possible for much larger percentages to be developed residential. On the other hand, it is possible for practically all of mixed land use districts to develop commercially or even industrially. The 2010 Overlay attempted to address the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use districts by limiting the acreage that could be developed in particular uses by the year 2010. Without the Overlay concept, no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses remain in the plan. Because of the plan's extensive use of mixed use districts, the County's ability to control development through the plan is seriously undermined. Other Urban Sprawl Considerations. Unincorporated Lee County contains approximately 685 square miles. Lehigh Acres and the DRGR areas, combined, are approximately 199 more square miles, 29 percent of the total area of unincorporated Lee County. Except for the growth that will occur in the Vested Community of Lehigh, much of the future growth in Lee County will occur in the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor, which is oriented in a generally North-South direction and contains most of the urbanized areas of the County, including the City of Fort Myers. Because this area is already largely urbanized, most of the growth in it will result in either the expansion of existing urbanized areas or in-fill between existing urban areas. Certificated water and sewer franchise areas also generally coincide with the north/south urban core in which growth is expected to continue. The presence of water and sewer franchise areas in the north/south urban core and in Lehigh Acres encourages utilization of these areas through the ability to provide urban services. The absence of water and sewer franchise areas in other portions of the County will act as a hindrance to development in areas which are undeveloped and either in conservation or agricultural use. A review of County DRI approvals, together with approved development orders, also appears to indicate a trend toward development in the north/south core. The absence of development orders in most of the outlying areas, indicated as either agricultural, vacant, or conservation use, indicate that probably relatively little growth will occur in those areas. Platted subdivisions also appear to show a trend toward development in the north/south urban core. In general, there also appears to be a correlation between existing land uses and those factors which can reasonably be expected to establish future growth trends in the north/south urban core. Growth in the north/south I-75, U.S. 41 corridor across the county line to the south in Collier County tends to encourage similar growth at the southern end of Lee County. Meanwhile, there are hindrances to development across the county line to the east and southeast by virtue of the presence of agricultural lands and regional wetland systems such as the Corkscrew Swamp and the Everglades. The County has also made use of sector planning. The County's sector plans represent extensive and detailed planning studies which in many cases are reflected in both the FLUM and the policies in the Plan. However, currently there is no sector plan for Lehigh Acres. Policy 1.5.5, creating the Vested Community category for Lehigh, states a sector plan for Lehigh will be developed beginning in 1996. In terms of land uses, the Plan seems to be fairly well functionally related, both in terms of what is shown on the FLUM and the relation between the FLUM and the Plan policies themselves. A good example of this is the commercial site location standards, which establish a strong functional relationship between transportation and regional commercial facilities. There is also a good functional relationship between existing land uses. The Plan mixed use categories appear to recognize and attempt to encourage sound functional relationships between home, work, and shopping. The Plan also has compatibility standards that help maintain functional relationships. However, without the Overlay, the many mixed use categories in the Plan do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts. In terms of land use suitability, the County generally appears to be designating for development those areas which are most suitable for development. However, because it allows development of all kinds throughout the County in excess of what is needed by 2020, the Plan allows development in less suitable areas. A variety of methodologies and assumptions leads to the conclusion that the Lee Plan generally is an urban development plan, not a rural development plan. For instance, under the Figure 14 methodology, 80 percent of the population is directed toward urban land uses, and 12 percent into rural. Under Figure 14B, which unrealistically assumes that all of Lehigh Acres will be built out within the planning time frame, 90 percent of the population is directed to urban areas, and only 10 percent to rural. Even assuming that 100 percent of the land will be used for residential purposes, and that all of Lehigh will build out within the planning time frame, 92 percent is directed to urban areas, and only 8 percent to rural. Finally, even assuming 100 percent of the land to residential at maximum densities, and also that all rural land uses will use the PDDO option at six units per acre, only 4 percent of the population will be directed to rural areas in the FLUM. Notwithstanding the overall patterns of growth in Lee County, it clearly is indicated in the Sheridan Final Order that land in Lee County historically has been used inefficiently and that, without the Overlay, the plan allows inefficiency to continue unabated. This is due in large part to the extensive use of mixed land use categories that do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts, together with the overallocation of land that also results in part from their use. By comparing the FLUM's since 1984 with the current Existing Land Use Map (ELUM) (Lee 56), it is apparent that rural designations have not preserved agriculture. Significant parts of county that have been designated rural since 1984 actually have been developed residential or non-agricultural use. In Range (R) 25 East (E), Township (T) 45 South(S), Sections 31 and 32 are residential, while 33 is a golf course. Similarly, R 25 E, T 47 S, Sections 14, 15 and 23 have developed significantly residential and part of Section 14 is now designated Outlying Suburban. In addition, significant residential development has occurred in areas of Pine Island that have been designated rural since 1984. On the other side of the coin, much of the "New Community" still is in rural use (R 35 E, T 45 S, Sections 1, 2, 3, parts of 10, 11, and 12; R 26 E, Sectons 5-8, 17 and 18.) Some "Industrial Development" land is actually still in rural use or vacant--R 25 E, T 46 S, Section 3 west of I-75, and Sections 4- There is significant land that actually is rural or vacant adjacent to wetlands and Estero Bay in R 24 E, T 45 S (Sections 28, 29, and 31-35), together with Sections 3-5, 8-10, and 15 in R 24 E, T 46 S, that are designated for Suburban or Outlying Suburban uses. Land designated rural, open land or fringe in 1984 has been redesignated for urban uses over the years. A large block straddling Daniels Parkway east of the 6 Mile Cypress Strand has been designated Outlying Suburban. Approximately between Buckingham Road, Orange River Boulevard and I-75, rural land has been redesignated as Rural Community Preserve. Large blocks of land, one at the extreme north end of the county between U.S. 41 and I-75, and the other east of I-75 near the river, have gone from rural to Outlying Suburban. A large amount of what was rural and fringe between Bonita Springs and San Carlos Park, west of U.S. 41, has become Suburban and Outlying Suburban. CHHA and Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter. Objective 75.1 of the amended Lee Plan defines and delineates Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) for the first time. Previously, the plan referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "A Zone," which encompasses somewhat more land than the new CHHA. Policy 75.1.4 of the amended Lee Plan, which formerly applied to the "A Zone," states: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within [CHHA] shall be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In this round of amendments, the County did not consider either reducing density categories, or assigning the minimum allowable densities in categories with a range of densities, in undeveloped land in the CHHA. In prior rounds of amendments, the County reduced densities in areas that would be inundated by Category 1, 2 and 3 hurricanes (which would include CHHA). Assuming maximum allowable densities together with the other Figure 14A assumptions, the density reductions reduced population accommodation by 13,000 units in those areas. Elimination of the 2010 Overlay opened additional land to immediate development in the CHHA. There was no data and analysis on the amount of new land opened to immediate development or the additional population accommodated in the CHHA that would result. Goal 79 in the Lee Plan, as amended, is to "provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.1 of the Lee Plan, as amended, is to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 2000, and to reduce the clearance time portion of evacuation time to 18 hours or less by 2010. Previously, the plan's objective was to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. Lee County has among the best hurricane planning efforts in southwest Florida. Nonetheless, as of the time of the final hearing, evacuation times still exceeded 1987 levels, and clearance times exceeded 18 hours. Little progress had been made toward the previous objective to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. That is why the objective was extended five more years until the year 2000. It may be that the 2010 Overlay was not designed with hurricane evacuation times in mind. It also is true that the County's evacuation plans are updated every three years based on actual development data. But it also is true that additional development in the CHHA due to elimination of the 2010 Overlay may make it more difficult to achieve Objective 79.1, even as amended. Objective 79.2 of the Lee Plan is to make adequate shelter space available by the year 2010 "for the population in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone at risk under a Category 3 storm." There was no data and analysis of the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. There also was no data and analysis of the impact of amending Objective 75.1 and 75.1.4 to reduce the size of the coastal area subject to consideration for land use density reductions on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. Change of Alico Property from DRGR to AC. Another significant FLUM amendment in the EAR-based amendments was to change the designation of 1400 acres of property owned by Alico, Inc., from DRGR to Airport Commerce (AC). Uses allowed in the AC district include light manufacturing and assembly, warehousing, distribution facilities, ground transportation and airport related terminals or transfer facilities, and hospitality services. Suitability. Policy 1.4.5 of the plan, as amended, defines DRGR as "upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" and as "the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." Although previously designated DRGR, more recent data and analysis calls this designation into question. The amendment property does provide some recharge to both the water table (surficial) aquifer and the underlying Sandstone aquifer, but it does not provide above-average groundwater recharge for either aquifer (or any recharge to any of the deeper aquifers). In addition, it is not a good site for the development of a wellfield in either the water table or the Sandstone aquifer. The water table aquifer is not especially thick, and there are too many wetlands on the site for production from the water table aquifer. (Pumping from the water table aquifer next to the airport also could be problematic in that the stability of the soil under the airport could be affected. (Cf. Finding 100, below.) In the Sandstone aquifer, groundwater flows away from the site, making it unsuitable for production. Despite the questions raised by the new data and analysis, the amendment property may still be suitable for designation as DRGR. But that does not necessarily make it unsuitable for AC use. In terms of location, the amendment property is perfectly suited to AC use. I-75 and other AC-designated property is to the immediate west of the amendment property. The Southwest Florida International Airport is to the immediate north of the amendment property. A second runway and a new cargo handling facility are planned for construction to the south of the existing airport runway. When built, the new facilities will practically be touching the northern boundary of the amendment property, and the proposed new south airport access will cross the amendment property and intersect Alico Road, which is the southern boundary of the amendment property. Commercial and industrial use on the property would not pose an unreasonable threat to contaminate either existing or future potable water wells. Theoretically, stormwater from the amendment property could contain contaminants which could eventually migrate to a drinking water well. But the threat of such contamination is small. Permitting criteria adopted and imposed by the South Florida Water Management District will require all construction on this site to conform to surface water quality standards through Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and permitting rules of the Water Management District within Chapter 40, Florida Administrative Code. These rules will require on-site detention and retention of stormwater which will greatly reduce the threat of surface contaminants leaving the property. Additionally, all surface water runoff from the property, and most groundwater, will be intercepted by the Alico Road Canal, which drains in a westerly direction away from any existing drinking water wells. If any contaminants from the amendment property were to enter the groundwater, avoid the Alico Road Canal and leave the property, they would have to migrate a considerable distance to reach a potable water wellhead. The only wellfield pumping, or planned to pump, from the water table aquifer which contaminants possibly could reach would be the existing Gulf Utilities wellfield approximately one mile and a half southeast of the amendment property. Contaminants within the groundwater move at a slower speed than the water itself. Most contaminants move at a much slower speed than the water. Thus, the chances are very slight that contaminants from the amendment property would threaten the Gulf Utilities wellfield. Any metals in the groundwater would attach to soil particles and migrate extremely slowly. Other potential contaminants would eventually break down within the soil as they slowly migrated away from the site. It was estimated that the travel time from the closest portion of the amendment property to the Gulf Utilities well field would be in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years. If any such contaminants did reach the wellfield they would be in such dilute concentrations that they would pose no health hazard. The only other wellfield that is reasonably close to the proposed site is the Florida Cities well field to the northeast. This wellfield taps the Sandstone aquifer. The Sandstone aquifer is separated from the water table aquifer by an approximately 40 foot thick semi-confining layer. This layer is composed of silt and clay which provides hydraulic separation between the aquifers. There are no known breaches of the semi-confining layer in this area. The direction of flow and the nature of the semi-confining layer also make it extremely unlikely that contaminants from activities on the amendment property and discharged from the site by stormwater could migrate to the Florida Cities water wellfield. The groundwater in the water table aquifer flows generally southwest, and the confining layer has low leakance values. Additionally, safety measures required for the development of the amendment property include the installation of monitoring wells and the requirement to use the best environmental management practices. The data and analysis includes panther sitings in the vicinity of the amendment property. There also is evidence that the amendment property is part of land that has been labeled as "Panther Priority 2." The significance of this label was not clear from the evidence. In any event, while part of the "Panther Priority 2" land, the amendment property clearly also is surrounded by uses not particularly suited for panthers. Currently, rock mining is occurring on property to the east and to the south of the amendment property. Rock mining on the amendment property itself also is allowed under its previous DRGR designation. The airport is immediately to the north, and both other AC property and I-75 are immediately to the west. In light of those developments, the "Panther Priority 2" designation does not make the amendment property unsuitable for AC designation. Need. The County has a legitimate need to diversify its economy so that it is not so dependent on tourism. It is the County's perogative to attempt to develop its regional airport into an international trade center. In view of the suitability of the amendment property for AC, and its projected role in furthering the County's plans to develop its regional airport into an international trade center, the amendment property should be viewed as a valuable economic resource in need of protection. It is appropriate, when trying to protect a resource, to plan for the needs of generations to come. If the amendment is not approved, there is a good chance that the land eventually will be used for a rock mine. Residential use in that location is incompatible with airport noise. A public gun range is a permissible use of DRGR property, but there are no plans for a public gun range on the amendment property, and such a use also would not be compatible so close to the airport and would be unlikely. Although agricultural use as pasture is possible, ultimate use of the property for pasture seems less likely than rock mining. As previously mentioned, the land immediately to the east of the subject parcel and to the south of the subject parcel is being utilized as rock pits. If the amendment property eventually is used for rock mining, the land would be excavated into what becomes deep lakes. In all likelihood, such a use would permanently preempt the land in question from being a commercial resource that could be utilized in conjunction with the airport. Of the 1400 acres of amendment property, approximately 800 acres are jurisdictional wetlands; only about 600 acres of uplands actually can be used for AC purposes. Meanwhile, approximately 173 acres of industrial land has been rezoned to other uses within Lee County between 1990 and the date of the hearing. Another 300 acres of AC are to be incorporated into the new airport expansion. But there was no data or analysis as to how much of those 473 acres consist of wetlands. Utilizing the 1984 Roberts methodology, the County has analyzed the need for industrial land in the County and has concluded that the addition of the amendment property is necessary to meet those requirements. However, as previously mentioned, it is not clear how the County's analysis was conducted or what the actual needs for industrial land in the County are. In addition, several mixed land use categories permit light industrial use but do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution among the mixed uses within those categories. Taken as a whole the data and analysis does not establish that the AC amendment is necessary to meet the need for industrial land in the County. Adequate data and analysis to establish those needs is necessary to determine whether other land where industrial use is permitted should be redesignated if the AC amendment is to be adopted. As previously discussed, Lee County has much more land designated for commercial development than will be needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. See Findings 58-68, above. In support of their position that the AC map amendment is needed in order to meet the demand for airport-related industrial and commercial development that will be generated by the expanding Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County and Alico point out that international airports serve a larger area than a single County, and that a larger AC district near the Airport will serve the Southwest Florida region. With its new runway and larger terminal with new cargo handling facility, the Airport Authority intends, and the County would like to encourage, a large increase in airfreight handled by the Airport by 2020. Alico prepared a Response to DCA's ORC, which attempted to compare the acreage of approved, large-scale commercial and industrial development near the Orlando International Airport to the amount of acres proposed for Airport Commerce near the Southwest Florida International Airport. However, the Alico Response failed to take into account the amount of approved development near the Orlando Airport which is vacant. According to the Alico Response, the Orlando International Airport handled 233,587 tons of airfreight in 1994. Also according to the Alico Response, 7,152 acres of industrial and commercial development, including ten DRI's, are located near the Orlando Airport. The ten DRI's located near the Orlando Airport include 55,464,770 square feet of approved industrial and commercial development. But as of June of 1995, only 3,386,744 square feet of industrial and commercial development, or 6.11 percent of the approved industrial and commercial square footage, had been constructed. Applying the percentage of approved industrial and commercial in DRI's actually developed by 1995 (6.11 percent) to the acreage approved for industrial and commercial (7,152 acres), it can be determined that 440 acres of existing industrial and commercial development were supporting the 233,587 tons of airfreight handled by the Orlando Airport in 1994. Based upon the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that each acre of industrial and commercial development near an airport supports 534.54 tons of airfreight each year. The Southwest International Airport projects that 196,110 tons of airfreight will be handled by the Airport by 2020. Dividing the projected 2020 tonnage by the 534.54 tons of airfreight per acre from the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that the air freight activities projected for the Southwest Florida International Airport by the year 2020 will support only about 367 acres of AC. The Lee Plan FLUM already includes approximately 2800 acres of AC located to the northwest of the Airport. (It is not clear whether the 300 acres consumed by the runway expansion should be deducted from the 2850 acres of AC said to currently exist.) The existing AC district is essentially undeveloped. The AC which already exists to the northwest of the Airport is more than sufficient to support the airfreight which the Airport expects to handle by 2020. Zemel FLUM Amendment. Background. The Zemels own approximately 8600 acres of land in northwest Lee County. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendments which resulted from the settlement between Lee County and DCA, designated Zemel property as DRGR with a residential density of one unit per ten acres. The DRGR designation for the Zemel property was determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Zemel v. Lee County & DCA, 15 FALR 2735 (Fla. Dept. Comm. Aff. 1993), aff'd, 642 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1st DCA 1994). Based in part on data and analysis which were not available at the time of adoption of the DRGR category, a circuit court determined that the Zemel property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DRGR category. The circuit court ordered that: The property is hereby restored to the Rural land use classification on the Future Land Use Map of the Lee Plan, including restoration of the subject property's density to 1 du/acre and use of the Planned Development District Option for the property. This action shall not preclude the County from amending its plan, including the 2010 Overlay, as it pertains to the Zemel property, pursuant to Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., subject to constitutional limita- tions and other requirements of law. Placement of Zemel Property in Open Lands Classification The 1994 EAR-based amendments changed the land use designation of the Zemel property to Open Lands. Open Lands is a new category created by the EAR- based amendments in Policy 1.4.4. The residential density allowed in the Open Lands category is one unit per ten acres, except a density of one unit per five acres is permitted if the planned development process is used to prevent adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands (as defined in Policy 77.1.1.4). (Commercial and industrial uses are permitted in the Open Lands category in accordance with the standards in the Rural category.) Of the 8,600 acres owned by Zemel, approximately 1,900 acres are wetlands and 6,700 acres are uplands. Lee County chose the Open Lands category for the Zemel property because it was the least intensive land use category available after the circuit court determined that the DRGR category was not appropriate, and because the County did not wish to exacerbate the overallocation of the FLUM. According to new Policy 1.4.4: Open Lands are upland areas that are located north of Rural and/or sparsely developed areas in Township 43 South. These areas are extremely remote from public services and are characterized by agricultural and low-density residential uses. It was not proven that the Zemel property does not meet the Policy 1.4.4 definition of Open Lands. The Zemel property clearly is in Township 43 South. It is north of areas that can be said to be "sparsely developed." The Zemel property clearly is characterized by agricultural use. Finally, although some of the Zemel property is not "extremely remote" from some public services, all of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from at least some public services, and some of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from all public services. Placement of the Zemel property in the Opens Lands category was based on adequate data and analysis. To the extent that data and analysis in the EAR may have been lacking, the evidence at final hearing included adequate data and analysis. Using the Figure 14 methodology, the County calculated that Open Lands category would accommodate 2,073 people, as compared to 8,293 people at the Rural density. However, assuming development of all of the Zemel property at the one du/ac standard density allowed by the Lee Plan for Rural, 14,003 people (1 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit) would be accommodated. In the case of the Zemel property, such an assumption would be less unrealistic than in many other parts of the County since it is a large, vacant tract. The evidence also was that the Zemel property is one of the few parcels of land in the County in which use of the PDDO is a realistic possibility. Assuming maximum densities under the PDDO, the Zemel property under the Rural designation could accommodate 84,018 people (6 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Under the Open Lands category, even at the maximum density allowed for planned developments, the Zemel property could accommodate only 2,801 people (1 du/5 ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Dependence of Open Lands on Deletion of Overlay Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. Although all of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires," the evidence was that one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. Specifically, there was evidence that the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," was intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay, and to either become effective together or not at all. Otherwise, there would be no development authorized in property redesignated "Open Lands" because there was no land use category called "Open Lands" at the time of adoption of the 2010 overlay, and no express authorization for development of any kind in "Open Lands." Planning Timeframe. Clearly, the EAR-based Lee Plan amendments are intended to plan through the year 2020. The year 2020 was chosen for the amendments to enable the County to make use of the best available demographic projections being generated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for that time frame. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan, as amended, retains Map 11. Map 11 depicts "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries." It is the map that was generated in 1989 and used in the 1989 and subsequent plans for the year 2010. However, it was not proven that the map does not accurately depict "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries" for the year 2020. The County concedes that the Community Facilities and Services Element of the plan, as amended, projects waste generation and recycling rates only from 1991 to 2015. The County contends that these projections are easily extrapolated to the year 2020, and no party disputes this. The County's response to the DCA's ORC report indicates that the Hurricane Shelter/Deficit analysis for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element is for shelter needs to the year 2000. However, the County cannot accurately project shelter needs much further in the future. The evidence is that the better practice is to plan for shorter periods of time and continually update the projections. This is what the County does. It was not proven that the County is planning for the wrong timeframe or that its plan is defective for that reason. Other alleged uses of the wrong planning timeframe actually arise from questions as to the allocation of land to meet the needs of the County through the year 2020. There is no question whether the County's intent is to plan for the year 2020. The dispute is whether land has been overallocated. Other Alleged Internal Inconsistency. Amended Objective 100.1 in the Housing Element uses data for the County, including municipalities, in projecting the number of housing units needed for the 2020 timeframe. It is true that EAR Figures 14, 14A and 14B, which analyze the FLUM, identify the number of units which may be accommodated for the unincorporated area. But EAR Figures 12 and 13, which also analyze the FLUM, are directed to the entire county, including municipalities. Besides, it is clear that the County understands its obligation is only to implement affordable housing with respect to the unincorporated county. Water Supply. The Regional Water Supply Master Plan (RWSMP) serves as supporting data for several amended policies in the Potable Water sub-element of the Community Facilities and Services Element. The purpose of the RWSMP was to ensure an adequate, reliable and cost-efficient supply of potable water to meet the current and future needs of Lee County to the Year 2030 and beyond, considering both economic and environmental factors. The County's reliance on implementation of the RWSMP for this purpose is justified. Preparation of the plan was a very complex undertaking. In preparing the population projections on which the Regional Water Supply Master Plan relies, the County's consultant attended the technical staff meetings of the individuals with the Metropolitan Planning Association (MPO) charged with preparing the MPO population projections. The MPO Countywide population projections utilized in the RWSMP were prepared by estimating the number of permanent residents and taking into account a number of other economic characteristics and social characteristics such as the number of children per household, historic and expected natural and State trends, and the degree to which these trends will affect the future of Lee County. The Lee Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plans of the other governmental jurisdictions in Lee County, were utilized in preparing the RWSMP. It was a plainly spelled out requirement for preparation of the Master Plan that it had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of the County and cities in Lee County. The MPO population projections are reasonably accurate, and they are the best available data for purposes of planning water supply. The MPO projections are preferable to the "maximum theoretical" population accommodation used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis. Regardless of the appropriate analysis for purposes of determining whether a plan overallocates land, it would not be appropriate to plan water supply based on unrealistic population projections. The RWSMP uses MPO 2020 population projections that are somewhat different from, but reasonably close, to the 2020 population projections reflected in Figure 14 and used to support the FLUE of the Lee Plan. The special purposes of the RWSMP projections justify the differences. Besides, the differences are not large enough to prove beyond fair debate that the plan is not internally consistent. Wetlands Protection. Prior to the County's adoption of the EAR-based amendments, Goal 84 in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Lee Plan and its objectives and policies included guides for local land development regulations in the protection of wetlands by establishing allowable land uses and their densities, and by establishing design and performance standards for development in wetlands. The County modified Policy 84.1.2 (renumbered 84.1.1) in part by deleting a prohibition against the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or additional drainage features in wetlands. Ditches, canals and dikes could be constructed in wetlands to have beneficial effects. For example, a ditch could be built to increase the hydroperiod of a wetland and result in a benefit. A dike could enhance a mitigation area, which would also result in environmental benefits. Thus, the repeal of this prohibition could benefit wetlands. The 1984 data and analysis contained in the EAR recommended that the prohibition be deleted and instead suggested the use of performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. The EAR-based amendments to the Lee Plan do not include performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. Instead, the County has modified Policy 84.1.1 (renumbered 84.1.2) in part by deleting the following language: Wetland regulations shall be designed to protect, conserve, restore, or preserve water resource systems and attendant biological functions, including: Preventing degradation of water quality and biological productivity. Preventing degradation of freshwater storage capabilities. Preventing damage to property and loss of life due to flooding. Preventing degradation of the viability and diversity of native plants and animals and their habitats. Assuring the conservation of irretrievable or irreversible resources. In place of those performance standards, the EAR-based Policy 84.1.2 provides: The county's wetlands protection regulations will be amended by 1995 to be consistent with the following: In accordance with F.S. 163.3184(6)(c), the county will not undertake an independent review of the impacts to wetlands resulting from development in wetlands that is specifically authorized by a DEP or SWFWMD dredge and fill permit or exemption. No development in wetlands regulated by the State of Florida will be permitted by Lee County without the appropriate state agency permit or authorization. Lee County shall incorporate the terms and conditions of state permits into county permits and shall prosecute violations of state regulations and permit conditions through its code enforcement procedures. Every reasonable effort shall be required to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wet- lands through the clustering of development and other site planning techniques. On- or off-site mitigation shall only be permitted in accordance with applicable state standards. Mitigation banks and the issuance and use of mitigation bank credits shall be permitted to the extent authorized by applicable state agencies. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County also modified Policy 84.1.4 by deleting language that addressed permitted uses in wetlands and their densities, but that issue is now covered under renumbered Policy 84.1.1. The amendments added to Policy 84.1.4 the following provision: Land uses in uplands will be regulated through the implementation of the Land Development Code to avoid degrading the values and functions of adjoining and nearby wetlands. New Policies 84.1.2 and 84.1.4 in effect defer performance standards covering development in wetlands to the state and water management district permitting processes. The Lee amendments in part are an attempt to avoid duplicating what state agencies accomplish through their permitting programs. The evidence is that the state and water management district permitting processes include newly adopted Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules. These rules consider the type, value, function, size, condition and location of wetlands in determining how to protect them. The ERP rules also require proposed development to avoid or eliminate wetland impacts or, if not possible, to minimize and mitigate for them. The ERP rules also require consideration of the cumulative and long-term adverse impacts of development on wetlands in a comprehensive manner within the same water basin. The DEP and the Southwest Florida Water Management District also have adopted supplemental ERP rules covering only the jurisdiction of that water management district, which includes Lee County. By including a requirement that every state environmental permit shall be incorporated into county permits and that violations of a state permit also are violations of the county permit, the Lee Plan commits the County to assist the State in enforcing environmental permits in Lee County. Through this new emphasis on compliance and enforcement, Lee County will be providing valuable assistance to state environmental protection. Lee County's efforts will assist those agencies by devoting staff to compliance and enforcement efforts. Prior to the EAR-based amendments, the County had two wetland land use categories under the Lee Plan. These were described as the Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and Transition Zones (TZ). Guidelines and standards for permitted uses and development in the RPA and TZ were found in the policies under Objective 84.1 and 84.2, respectively. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County replaced the RPA and TZ categories with a single Wetlands category. This new Wetlands category includes all lands that are identified as wetlands under the statewide definition using the state delineation methodology. The County's definition of "wetlands" in the plan amendments covers more area than the areas previously known as "resource protection" and "transition zones." To that extent, the present amendments to the Lee Plan give greater protection to wetlands than the previous version of the Lee Plan. The Lee Plan, as amended, also contains other GOP's. Taken together, the GOP's ensure the protection of wetlands and their natural functions. Reservation of Future Road Right-of-Way. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County has deleted or amended certain policies in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Lee Plan regarding the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. Deleted Policy 25.1.3 provided that the County would attempt to reserve adequate rights-of-way for state and county roads consistent with state and county plans. The County also deleted Policy 21.1.7, which addressed the possibility of acquiring future rights-of-way through required dedications of land. Policy 21.1.7 provided: The previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs shall not be construed so as to prohibit the adoption of regulations requiring such dedication. However, any such regulations must provide for a rational nexus between the amount of land for which dedication is required and the impact of the development in question, and must also provide that such dedication, when combined with other means which may be used to offset the impact of development (such as, for example, the imposition of impact fees), does not exceed the total impact of the develop- ment in question upon the county's transportation network. The "previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs," referenced in Policy 21.1.7, above, was Policy 21.1.6, which has been renumbered 21.1.5. As modified, that policy provides: In order to acquire rights-of-way and complete the construction of all roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map, voluntary dedications of land and construction of road segments and inter- sections by developers shall be encouraged through relevant provisions in the development regulations and other ordinances as described below: Voluntary dedication of rights-of-way necessary for improvements shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map shall be encouraged at the time local development orders are granted. In cases where there are missing segments in the traffic circulation system, developers shall be encouraged to also construct that portion of the thoroughfare that lies within or abuts the development, with appropriate credits granted towards impact fees for roads. However, site-related improvements (see glossary) are not eligible for credits towards impact fees. Policy 21.1.7 provided policy guidance for LDRs in establishing required dedication of future rights-of-way as a means of acquisition, if the County chose to use that measure. Policy 21.1.6 (renumbered 21.1.5) provides policy guidance for LDRs in establishing voluntary dedication of future rights- of-way as another means of acquisition. By deleting Policy 21.1.7, the Lee Plan, as amended, is left with a policy that establishes only the voluntary dedication measure as a means towards acquiring future rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map of the Lee Plan. The County has made these changes because legally it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option after the decision in Joint Ventures, Inc., v. Dept. of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990). The County's plan does more than just encourage voluntary dedication of rights-of-way. There are numerous policies in the Lee Plan that, taken together, adequately address the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. The following policies relate and achieve right-of-way protection: Policy 1.3, 1.6, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 6.1.5, 16.3.5, 21.1.5, Objective 21.2, Policies 21.2.1, 21.2.3, 21.2.5, 21.2.6, 21.2.7, Policy 23.1.2, 23.1.4, 23.2.3, Policy 25.1.1, and 25.1.3. Under these policies, all new projects receive a review for voluntary dedication as against the Lee County official trafficways map and the facility need identified for the planning horizon of the future traffic circulation element and map. In addition, all new developments are required to mitigate off-site impacts through a payment of impact fees. They are also required to address and mitigate site-related impacts through the provision of site-related improvements at the developer's expense. Payment of impact fees and additional revenues generated through mitigation of site-related impacts, both generate revenues for the capital improvements programming process for purchase of rights-of-way. Accomplishing necessary site-related improvements pursuant to the Lee County program also frequently results in County acquisition of rights-of-way at the developer's expense. Mitigation of site-related impacts, as well as payment of proportional share and impact fees, are generally accomplished through Policy 1.8.3, Subsection 1, Policy 2.3.2, Objective 3.1, Policy 3.1.3, Policy 7.1.2, Policy 14.3.2, Objective 22.1, 23.1, and the policies thereunder, Policy 23.1.1, 23.1.3-.7, 23.2.6, Objective 24.2, Policy 25.1.2, Objective 28.2, and Policy 70.1.1, Subsection A-7. The County's primary method of acquisition of rights-of-way is through the Capital Improvements Element. The Capital Improvements Element does include projected costs to purchase needed rights-of-way. The Lee County Capital Improvements Program is accomplished through Goal 70 of the Lee Plan, which expressly includes acquisition of rights-of-way. Objective 77.3 - Wildlife. Before the EAR-based changes, Objective 77.3 of the Lee Plan was to: "Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system . . .." In pertinent part, the EAR-based amendment deleted the phrase "current complement of." The change does not alter the meaning of the objective. The concept of a baseline expressed by the deleted phrase also is inherent in the words "[m]aintain and enhance" and remains in the amended objective. Policy 77.11.5 - Endangered and Threatened Species. The EAR-based amendments deleted Policy 77.11.5, which stated: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for public acquisition purposes shall be identified within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Data and analysis supports the deletion of the first two sentences. The use areas and public acquisition corridors have been identified. To reflect the new data and analysis, Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2 also were amended to provide for updating of data on sitings and habitat for these species and to encourage state land acquisition programs. The last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 has been transferred and added verbatim to Policy 77.11.2. Related Policy 77.11.4 was also amended to reflect new data and analysis and to provide that, instead of just encouraging the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand, the County shall continue an acquisition that is in progress. The Adoption Ordinance. As mentioned in connection with the Zemel amendment, Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. All of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires." All of the parties except for the Zemels agree that, under Section 8 of the ordinance, the "ultra vires" part of the adopting ordinance is severable from the rest of the ordinance, which remains valid. The Zemels take the positions (1) that the state circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the remainder of the ordinance is valid and (2) that the remainder of the ordinance is invalid. Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30 provided: [I]t is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners . . . to confer the whole or any part of the powers herein provided. If any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any remaining provision of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners that this ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional provisions not been included therein. The evidence was that, notwithstanding Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30, one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. As discussed in connection with the Zemel amendment, the evidence was that one such package consisted of the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," and the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. There also was some less compelling evidence that amendments creating the Commercial Site Location Standards Map, FLUM 16, were intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. No other examples of similar "packages" of plan amendments was shown by the evidence or argued by any party. RGMC's Standing. The Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Inc. (RGMC), was formed in 1988 to insure compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule Chapter 9J-5 and to conserve resources. RGMC has offices in Lee County and conducts educational programs in Lee. In addition, at the time of the hearing, RGMC had 157 members residing throughout Lee County, most or all of whom own property in Lee County. RGMC participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Lee plan amendments in issue in this case and submitted oral or written comments, recommendations or suggestions between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the plan amendments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Lee Plan amendments are not in compliance and requiring as remedial action: That the FLUE's mixed land use categories be amended to include percentage distribution or other objective measurements of the distribution among allowed uses, whether by use of an appropriate 2020 Overlay or by other appropriate means. That a sector plan be adopted for Lehigh Acres, including appropriate plans for provision of infrastructure, to create more balanced development in Lehigh and, to the extent possible, to direct future population growth to Lehigh and away from CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Such a sector plan could include minimum densities and target densities to support mass transit along transit corridors in Lehigh. That consideration be given to increasing densities in central urban areas and along transit corridors while at the same time reducing densities or adopting other plan provisions, such as the prohibition of certain kinds of development, to afford more protection to CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. One example would be the prohibition, or staging, of non-farm development in some or all rural areas. That, in accordance with Policy 75.1.4, undeveloped areas within CHHA be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. That the data and analysis supporting the remedial amendments account for units approved but not built and include both a population accommodation analysis based on maximum densities and an explanation of how the GOP's in the remedial amendments justify the resulting allocation ratio. That the remedial amendments include data and analysis of the impact of the resulting plan, as amended, on hurricane evacuation and clearance times and shelter planning, especially if, as part of remedial amendments, the 2010 Overlay is removed (or replaced). That the remedial amendments be based on data and analysis as to the need for commercial and industrial land, including the Alico amendment property. That the data and analysis extrapolate solid waste projections to 2020. That the sub-elements of the Community Facilities and Services Element (and other parts of the plan, as appropriate) be consistent with and based on data and analysis of future population predictions in light of any remedial amendments to the FLUE and FLUM. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0098GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: DCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-17. Accepted. 18. There is a legal issue whether Ordinance 94-30 was adopted validly; otherwise, accepted. 19.-28. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected in part: plan includes "guides" (but no "objective measurements"); and Commercial Site Location Standards Map 16 implies that other uses are required elsewhere in the districts where these sites are located. Otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected. (Assumptions are in part "based on" the GOP's, but they also assume less development than permitted by the GOP's.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Characterization "conservative" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 34.-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted as being theoretically possible, but not likely to happen. 37.-38. Accepted. 39. Accepted as approximation of maximum theoretical residential capacity. 40.-46. Accepted. (However, as to 45 and 46, these numbers do not take into account industrial land needed to serve municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves.) First sentence, conclusion of law. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (The plan is "based on" the population projections, but allocates more land than needed to accommodate the population.) First sentence, conclusion of law; second sentence, accepted. 49.-50. Conclusions of law. 51.-52. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 53. First sentence, conclusion of law; second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; last sentence, accepted. 54.-55. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 56. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 57.-58. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; third, accepted (but does not prove non- compliance with the state plan.) First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 63.-64. Accepted. As to b.1. not timely raised; accepted as to b.2. (but easily extrapolated five more years to 2020); otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First two sentences of a. and b., accepted; otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (As to b., the discrepancies are not significant enough to create "internal inconsistency.") First sentence, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; rest, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that deletion of the Overlay "accelerated development." (Rather, it allows--and, under certain conditions, would result it--development of more acreage sooner.) First sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First and third sentences, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are easonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The RWSMP population projections are reasonably close to the Figure 14 projections. See also 66., above.) First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See also 71., above. 74.-77. Accepted. 78. 2850 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); otherwise, accepted. 79.-81. Accepted. 82.-83. Accepted. However, last sentences assume: (1) accurate inventory of developed acres in Orlando comparable to the land uses in AC under the Lee Plan; (2) 2850 acres of AC; and (3) developability of all AC acreage--including wetlands--for AC use. Those assumptions are not, or may not be, reasonable. 84. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See 82.-83. 85.-87. Accepted. However, as to 87., it is noted that the words "area," "surrounded by," and "nearby" are imprecise. Accepted; however, the degree of the sandstone aquifer's "susceptibility" to impacts depends on many factors. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that existing sources cannot produce any more; however, proven that new sources will be required, and otherwise accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that groundwater moves "to" the existing and planned wellfields. Otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. Fourth sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 97.-98. Accepted. Characterization of methodology as "flawed" rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It depends on the use being made of the results of the methodology.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, legal conclusion. (Legally, it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option, and the County's amendments presume that it is not.) Rest, accepted. 102.-105. Accepted. 106. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that voluntary dedication is not "effective" as one of several policies. Otherwise, accepted. 107.-108. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the state regulations are supposed to serve as "guidelines" or "guidance" for LDR's; rather, they are to serve in the place of duplicative County LDR's on the subject. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, appropriate comprehensive planning for wetlands occurs in other parts of the plan; the state regulations take the place of performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. Rest, accepted. (However, state regulations apply to some uplands that adjoin or are near to wetlands.) First sentence, accepted. (They don't guide the establishment of design and performance standard kinds of LDR's for any development in any wetlands; the state regulations take the place of design and performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (that they are the "core wetland policies in the plan.") Third sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. RGMC's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted. 9. Conclusion of law. 10.-15. Subordinate; conclusion of law; argument. 16. Accepted but subordinate. 17.-18. Rejected as not supported by record evidence. 19.-35. Accepted. 35(a). Conclusion of law. 36.-40. Accepted. 40(a). Conclusion of law. 41. Accepted. 41(a). Conclusion of law. 42.-44. Accepted. Accepted; however, the option to consider assignment of the minimum of a range of densities is in parentheses after the primary option to consider reducing densities. Largely argument. The objective and policy is "triggered" by any plan amendment, before and after the change from "A Zone" to "CHHA." See 47. Accepted. 47(a). Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (It is a question of internal consistency.) Accepted. 48(a). Argument and recommended remediation. Accepted. 50.-59. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 60.-62. Accepted. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 65.-66. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are reasonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) 67.-73(a) County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 77.-78. 2800 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); 1000 rejected as 400 low; otherwise, accepted. 79.-81(a). Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 82(a). Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Accepted but "between" is imprecise. Accepted, but not likely. Accepted that two are mutually exclusive; otherwise, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the lands are "adjacent"; otherwise, accepted. 93.-94. Accepted. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it is "the reasonable professionally acceptable methodology." Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Whether it is appropriate to apply a safety margin factor just to projected new growth can depend on the safety margin factor used and how far out the projection.) Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as being hypothetical argument. (Also, the ratios do not convert to percentages, i.e., 25:1 does not convert to a safety margin factor of 25 percent.) 104.-111(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that "overallocations" occur in the earlier years of the planning timeframe; the relevant inquiry relates to the planning horizon. Also, as to 111., the reference should be to the year 2020. (Also, again the ratios do not convert to percentages.) Otherwise, accepted. 112.-118. Accepted as being paraphrased from part of the Sheridan Final Order. 119.-128. Accepted as being the adjustments to Figure 14B to yield unrealistic "maximum theoretical" capacity. 129.-130. Conclusions of law. 131. Accepted. 132.-133. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The plan does not "propose development"; its projections on which the County bases its facilities and services are more realistic that the "maximum theoretical" capacity projections.) Also, these specific issues were not timely raised, and County motion to strike granted. 134. Accepted. 135.-140. Descriptions of what the various FLUM's show and what development has occurred over the years, accepted as reasonably accurate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there were either official or unofficial "urban expansion lines." (It was not clear from the evidence whether the so-called "Proposed EAR Urban Boundary" shown on Lee Exhibit 53 was either an official or an unofficial "urban expansion line," and there was no other evidence of any "urban expansion lines.") Also, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there was a "failure to maintain" them, or that the Southwest International Airport or the Westinghouse Gateway DRI "breached" the alleged "1988 urban expansion line." (The Westinghouse Gateway DRI was vested prior to 1984, and the regional airport development appears on FLUM's prior to 1988.) Also, development that occurred in earlier years is not particularly probative on the issues in this case (in particular, the amendment eliminating the Overlay). 141.-142. Accepted. 142(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Also, the specific issue of failure to establish an "urban expansion line" is not raised by amendments at issue in this case (in particular, the elimination of the Overlay), and was not timely raised by any party. 143.-146. Densities in land use categories, accepted as reasonably accurate. The rest is rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. The plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance. Primarily, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage of non-urban land uses prior to 2010. They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020. 147.-150. Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. 150(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. Conclusion of law. In part, accepted; in part conclusion of law. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. 154.-160. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It remains to be seen how effective they will be in the long term.) Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage in potential wildlife habitat and corridor areas prior to 2010. (They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. 164.-168. Rejected because issues not raised timely. 169. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. 170.-174. County motion to strike granted. 175.-179. Accepted. 180.-182. Conclusions of law. 183.-184. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 185. Accepted. 186.-188. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 189. First clause, rejected (see 186.-188.); second clause, accepted. 190.-191. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 192.-193. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 194. Conclusion of law. 195.-196. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 197.-198. Except for typographical errors, accepted. (However, the last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 was transferred verbatim to amended Policy 77.11.2.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence to be the entire justification. (Also justified by updated data and analysis--namely, that the habitats have been identified and mapped--and by amended Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2, which respond to the new data and analysis.) Argument. 201.-204. Cumulative. (See 154.-157.) 205.-206. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 207.-208. Accepted. Accepted (although not demonstrated by Lee Exhibit 49). Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that the Zemel property is connected to and part of the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Otherwise, accepted. 213.-216. Accepted. 217.-218. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (which is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 219.-222. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate (which, again, is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 223. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected. See 217.-222. Zemels' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted; however, relatively little of the Zemel property abuts either U.S. 41 or Burnt Store Road. 2-10. Accepted. Last clause rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; another option would be to amend the definition. Otherwise, accepted. Last clause, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that they are not "sparsely developed." Otherwise, accepted. 13.-15. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence as to the south; otherwise, accepted but irrelevant to the application of the definition. Accepted; however, not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Zemel property is not north of "sparsely developed areas." (Emphasis added.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rest, accepted in large part and rejected in part as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Clearly, at least a good portion of the Zemel property is "extremely remote" from all existing public services. Some portions of the Zemel property are not "extremely remote" from some public services, but not proven by a preponderance of evidence that at least some public services are not "extremely remote" from all portions of the Zemel property. Also, in addition to existing public services, c) and e) also refer to future public services. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that no agricultural activities have been profitable (only that row crop farming has not); otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (as to second and third sentences, because of the existence of the Open Lands category.) Accepted (although there also are other data and analysis in the record). First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Not all of the statements are "conclusory".) Second, accepted. Third, rejected; see 21., above. 28.-29. Accepted. (However, as to 29., it refers to existing access.) First sentence, accepted. A. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "fails to recognize" the roads in northern Cape Coral (although it clearly does not mention them); otherwise, accepted. B. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "appears to ignore" the water line along U.S. 41 (although it clearly does not mention it); otherwise, accepted. C. - accepted; however, the "proximity" is to a point on the periphery of the property. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence except using the County's methodology. Otherwise, accepted. 33.-34. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The County in effect "borrowed" the DCA's data and analysis.) Rest, accepted. Accepted, assuming the County's methodology; however, there also are other concerns. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. As to the second, there is rural land to the northwest; as to the third, there also is resource protection land in Charlotte County to the north, and the "enclave" is large; as to the fourth, no I-75 boundary would appear to apply to Township 43 even if it might appear to apply to the south. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The analysis compares the costs and difficulty in Yucca Pen to Lehigh and Cape Coral; in terms of such a comparison, the differences are significant.) 40.-45. Accepted. County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; third, accepted (assuming "actual bona fide business" means a for-profit commercial enterprise.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the DCA "agreed with and relied on" the County's analysis. (The DCA utilized the analysis for purposes of its objection.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the determination was "on a largely subjective basis" (although some determinations necessarily were at least partly subjective); otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay was designed "without policy considerations" or that historic growth trends were "simply extrapolated." (The policy considerations already in the plan were utilized, and an effort was made to predict growth in light of those policy considerations. It is true, however, that the Overlay was not designed to further direct growth patterns within the planning districts and subdistricts.) Accepted (but not particularly probative). 11.-14. Accepted. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it implies that the impact of the plan was not taken into consideration in predicting future population. See 9., above. Otherwise, accepted. Firsts sentence, accepted. As to second and third, not clear from the evidence what if anything was submitted in the way of data and analysis for the remedial amendments. They were not introduced in evidence or referred to by any party. As to the last sentence, it is not clear from the evidence exactly how the 2.11 factor was derived or whether it took into account the 2010 population accommodation for Lehigh (282,000 people in this analysis). (T. 1267-1269.) If the 507,000 units of accommodation did not include Lehigh, the total accommodation of 1.06 million also could not have included Lehigh. Accepted. First three sentences, argument. Rest, accepted. 19.-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as unclear what "that allocation" refers to. (Accepted if it means "up to 125 percent"; rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence if it means "200 percent.") 22.-23. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (In addition, a more meaningful comparison would be between the adopted EAR 2020 plan without a 2010 Overlay and a 2020 plan with an overlay extending the 2010 Overlay out another ten years.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted (as accurate recitation of testimony) but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 30.-32. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to first sentence, see Sheridan Final Order.) Accepted. First and last sentences, accepted. Rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Such an approach would direct population to Lehigh, which might be the best thing to do. (At this point in time, development of Lehigh under a good Sector Plan might be able to change what was classic urban sprawl under past conditions into well-planned growth under present and future conditions.) It might also direct population to other, non- urban areas if densities were not low enough in them. Finally, Nelson suggested other ways of bring the plan into compliance without the Overlay. 38.-42. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The County did not seek to "match the available land to meet that growth"; rather, it checked to see if what was on the FLUM would "accommodate" (i.e., hold) the population projected for 2020. Last sentence, rejected in that RGMC challenged the opinion in its response to this proposed finding; otherwise, accepted. Rejected that the County "cannot alter the future development" of Lehigh or that Lehigh is "beyond the reach of" the comprehensive plan; otherwise, accepted. The 199 acres is part of the 685 acre total. Otherwise, generally accepted. However, significant additional growth can be expected in coastal areas, and there is rural land both within and outside the so-called "I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; presumably, the existence of this land is the reason the finding is couched in the terms: "the remaining area . . . is largely . . . along the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; and "all future growth . . . will predominantly occur." First and third sentences, conclusion of law; second, accepted. Conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate; also, the rule citation is incorrect; in addition, they testified to the effect of removing the Overlay. Second sentence, conclusion of law. Accepted. (The effect of the Overlay is in the extent of the indicators that exist.) Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted; third, conclusion of law; fourth, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear"; also, conclusion of law. 58.-60. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The same conditions exist without the Overlay.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay did not have any "true policy bias or consideration built into it"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, the same conditions exist without the Overlay.) 68.-71. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "removing Cape Coral . . . reduces the FLUM capacity"; rather, it represents a change in the methodology of evaluating the FLUM capacity. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. 74.-78. Accepted. However, it appears that the County's treatment of Lehigh essentially was a device to enable it to have the projected population in the year 2020 treated as if it were the capacity of Lehigh in the year 2020. 79.-81. First sentence of 79, unclear; rest, accepted. However, only certain retail commercial are restricted to the locations on Map 16; others can go either there or elsewhere. 82.-85. Conclusion of law. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the ELUM "represents the growth trends" (rather, it shows what is there now) or that, except for Lehigh, growth only "is occurring in the north/south core." Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First and last sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Barrier" is too strong; "obstacle" or "hindrance" would be accepted.) Otherwise, accepted. 91.-95. Generally, accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as conclusion of law that they are "objective measures" and "responsive to . . . 5(c)"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, accepted (although some higher, urban densities are in coastal areas, and there remains some rural land in the so-called "north/south core"); third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that a "large impact" is "clear"; fourth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the "segmentation" is absolute but otherwise accepted. Except for Lehigh, generally accepted. (What is missing are "objective measures.") Generally, accepted. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "nearly identical." Third sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it necessarily is not excessive. The evidence was that it is not necessarily excessive, but it could be depending on many factors, including whether it was calculated based on total capacity on the planning horizon or incremental growth during the planning timeframe, and the length of the planning horizon. Otherwise, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; last two, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 107.-108. Accepted. 109. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. 110.-117. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The effect of removing the Overlay is to allow more development sooner throughout the County. The effect of the increased development would depend on how it occurs. As to 116 and 117, one purpose of the Overlay was to require a mix of uses in mixed land use districts. First sentence, rejected. See 110-117, above. Rest, accepted. Cumulative. Last sentence, subordinate argument; except for apparent typographical error in third sentence, rest accepted. Last sentence, rejected as unclear from the evidence why there has been no agricultural use; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Significance" depends on other factors as well, including the amount of acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) Assuming that the "127 additional acres" refers to uplands, the rest is accepted. 124.-125. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and, in part, conclusion of law. There was no evidence of any serious risk of a taking. If these were legitimate reasons to redesignate the Alico property AC, it would be questionable if any DRGR would survive. First sentence, accepted (assuming the County's efforts are otherwise "in compliance"; second, subordinate argument; third, cumulative. Accepted. (However, the County's analysis does not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) First four sentences, accepted but irrelevant; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to assume"; last sentence, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that mining would "permanently preempt" commercial use, but accepted that subsequent commercial use would be much less likely; fourth sentence, accepted (except for typos); last sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not clear that it "won't be available," but accepted that it may not, depending on when it is "needed." Rest, accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear" but accepted that it probably "will not pose a significant threat"; third and fourth, accepted; fifth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that there is no recharge, but accepted that recharge is not better than average; rest, accepted. Accepted (with the understanding that the last sentence refers to surface water runoff). First sentence, accepted; second and third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Gulf Utilities-San Carlos wellfield is the only wellfield in the water table aquifer (otherwise, the third sentence is accepted). 134.-136. Accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other internal consistency issues concerning the date.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 140.-141. Accepted. 142. Irrelevant; issue not timely raised. 143.-144. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (in that DCA and RGMC did not prove internal inconsistency beyond fair debate); second, third and fourth sentences, accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay); rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 147.-149. Accepted. First two sentences, argument; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; last, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that a reduction in densities is not necessarily positive; rest, accepted. 152.-155. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (assuming it refers to the deleted first sentence of former Policy 84.1.2, now 84.1.1); second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence since its context requires the opposite interpretation. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the report "specifically recommends the amendment . . . in the fashion that Lee County has done." Otherwise, accepted. 159.-160. Accepted (159, based on the plan language and Joyce testimony, as well as the Deadman testimony.) First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; conclusion of law; subordinate. Accepted; subordinate. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 166.-169. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Use of the "allocation ratio" is being determined in this case.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order can be said to be a DCA "publication." Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Joint Exhibit 17 gives some indication of how to apply an "allocation ratio"; accepted that Joint Exhibit 17 does not fully explain how to apply the "allocation ratio." Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order constitutes such evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Atlantic Gulf's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted. 4. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 5.-7. Accepted. 8.-10. In part conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. (The incorporation of the DEP and SWFWMD permitting requirements only replaces former County permitting requirements; other parts of the amended plan's provisions relating to wetlands protection remain in effect.) Alico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-13. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the phrase "substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" may distinguish DRGR-suitable land from other land by the nature of the aquifer it recharges, not by the relative amounts of recharge. However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that it is in the "area" of "most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. 16.-19. Accepted. Accepted (assuming it refers to the DCA submitting); subordinate. Accepted. 22.-24. Subordinate argument and conclusion of law. 25.-34. Accepted. 35.-36. Accepted; subordinate. Last sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument and conclusion of law. Accepted (except, in s. and u., it should read "Six Mile Cypress Basin.") Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the list is not exhaustive ; otherwise, accepted. 40.-41. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Policy 7.1.1 just says applications are to be "reviewed and evaluated as to" these items; it does not say that "negative impacts" must be "avoided." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Goal 12 and Standard 12.4 under it are renumbered under the current amendments as Goal 11 and Standard 11.4; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that former Standard 14.1 has been transferred to Policy 7.1.1. under the current amendments. See 40 and 42, above. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that former designation as DRGR is the only reason why water quality and quantity issues arise; second, cumulative. Cumulative. First two sentences, cumulative; rest, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, unclear which fact is "in dispute"; rest, accepted. (The AC amendment property probably would not be developed as a producing wellfield.) First sentence, accepted; second, cumulative. First two clauses of first sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, cumulative; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. 55.-56. Cumulative. 57.-59. Accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, third and fourth sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, argument; rest, accepted. Accepted. 65.-66. In part, cumulative; otherwise, accepted. 67.-70. Accepted. First sentence, argument; middle sentences, accepted; penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that he made no blanket concession, instead conditioning interception on water table levels; last sentence, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that there's no "realistic way" "you" can do it); rest, accepted. 73.-74. Cumulative. Accepted. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Beginning, cumulative; last sentence, subordinate argument. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the influence of additional pumping has not been analyzed; last, accepted. Accepted. First two sentences, conclusion of law; last, accepted. Subordinate argument. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the "performance standards" say to maintain current protection and expand protection "to encompass the entire area." Accepted. (However, it is far from clear that the BMP's referred to in Policy 1.2.2 are the same ones referred to in this proposed finding.) Accepted. 87.-88. Subordinate argument. Cumulative or subordinate argument. Unclear what is meant by "several generations of numbers." Otherwise, cumulative. Cumulative. Accepted but subordinate. Accepted. (However, he also raised the question that the County's analysis did not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) 94.-95. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that they conceded need is not based exclusively on resident and seasonal population, not that it is not based at all on it; third, accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument. Accepted. Accepted. (Nor was there testimony that there is a need based on population.) Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law, cumulative, and rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was evidence of other motivations for providing the information as well. Accepted. (However, the analysis was limited to Orlando, and Nelson's method resulted in no need found.) Subordinate argument; cumulative. Subordinate argument. Accepted. (As to third sentence, neither did any other witness.) 106.-107. Accepted. Last sentence, subordinate argument; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (or, at least, unclear); rest accepted. Cumulative. 110.-113. Accepted. Cumulative. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted as an excerpt from the dictionary, but argument and conclusion of law that it is the "plain meaning" of the word "need," as used in 9J-5. (Also, citation to Joint Exhibit 11, p. 9, is not understood.) Argument and cumulative. 117.-118. Accepted. 119.-120. Conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 121. Last sentence, accepted. (It is not clear from the evidence that the designation of the property as "Panther Priority 2" on Lee Exhibit 42, introduced by RGMC, means that the County has identified it as being "in need of conservation.") Rest, conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 122.-126. Conclusion of law and cumulative. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not essentially incorporated into the Findings of Fact of this Recommended Order, they were considered to be either subordinate or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Bridgette Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Timothy Jones, Esquire Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue So. St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles J. Basinait, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Thomas B. Hart, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2449 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2449 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire Goldberg, Goldstein, & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Greg Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol - Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning Administration Commission The Capitol - Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments 00-1, 97-4, and 01-7 adopted by Ordinance No. 598 on September 25, 2001, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Sally O'Connell (O'Connell), Donna Melzer (Melzer), and Martin County Conservation Alliance, Inc. (MCCA), contend that three amendments (Amendments 00-01, 01-7, and 97-4) to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Respondent, Martin County (County), are not in compliance. Amendment 00-01 makes certain textual changes to the Economic Element and Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. Amendments 01-7 (also known as the Blydenstein amendment) and 97-4 (also known as the Seven J amendment) amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) by changing the land use designation on property owned by Intervenor, Dick Blydenstein (Blydenstein), and Seven J's Investments, Inc., from Mobile Home Residential and Medium Density Residential, respectively, to General Commercial. The parties agree that the validity of Amendments 01-7 and 97-4 is contingent on whether Amendment 00-01 is in compliance. On September 25, 2001, the County approved Ordinance No. 598, which adopted the foregoing amendments and three other FLUM amendments not relevant to this dispute. On November 16, 2001, Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department), the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments, issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. In addition, an external review of the amendments was conducted by the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Department of State, and the Department of Environmental Protection. Except for minor objections by DOT, which were satisfactorily resolved, no objections were filed by any reviewing agency. On December 7, 2001, as later amended on December 20, 2001, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the plan amendments. As reflected in their unilateral Pre-Hearing Statement, Petitioners contend that: The data and analysis for the amendments was not available to the public throughout the review and adoption process. The conclusions about supply and demand for commercial land uses that underlie the adoption of the amendments to the Economic and Future Land Use Elements, and the "Blydenstein" and "7J" [FLUM] Amendments are not supported by the best available and professionally acceptable data and analysis. Instead of a deficit of, and need for, land available for commercial uses, there is a surplus of land available for such uses. The "Blydenstein" and "7J" [FLUM] Amendments are not supported by data and analysis concerning the availability of infrastructure, the character of the land and the need for redevelopment. The approval of these FLUM amendments is inconsistent with several provisions of Ch. 163, Fla. Stat., Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the Martin County Comprehensive Plan. These allegations may be grouped into three broad categories: that the data and analysis was not available for public inspection throughout the adoption process; (2) that the plan amendments are not based on the best available, professionally acceptable data and analysis; and (3) that the Blydenstein and Seven J amendments are not supported by data and analysis as they relate to infrastructure, character of land, and need for redevelopment and thus are inconsistent with relevant statutes, Department rules, and Comprehensive Plan provisions. Although Petitioners have not addressed the first allegation in their Proposed Recommended Order, and have apparently abandoned that issue, in an abundance of caution, a brief discussion of that matter is presented below. The parties The Department is the state land planning agency responsible for reviewing and approving comprehensive plan amendments by local governments. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the local government which enacted the three plan amendments under review. The overall size of the County is approximately 538 square miles, with agricultural uses on 72 percent of the land, residential uses on 16 percent of the land, public conservation uses on 6.5 percent of the land, and other uses (such as commercial, industrial, and institutional) on the remaining 5.5 percent of the land. The current population is around 125,300 residents. Blydenstein is the owner of the property that is the subject of Amendment 01-7. He submitted oral and written comments concerning Amendment 01-7 to the County during its adoption. Melzer is a former County Commissioner who resides and owns property within the County. She is also the chairperson and member of the board of directors for MCCA. Melzer presented comments in opposition to all three amendments during the time period beginning with the transmittal hearing for the plan amendments and ending with the adoption of those amendments. O'Connell has resided and owned property in the County since 1984. She presented comments to the County in opposition to Amendments 00-01 and 97-4 (but not to Amendment 01-07) during the time period beginning with the transmittal hearing for the plan amendments and ending with the adoption of those amendments. MCCA is a not-for-profit corporation first organized in 1965 and later incorporated in 1997 to advocate and promote the protection of the natural environment and quality of life in the County. The specific purpose of the corporation is to "conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect the native flora and fauna of Martin County, to maintain and improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin County, and to work to these ends." The corporation holds monthly meetings and annual forums to educate its members and others about issues related to the County's growth management. In prior years, it has actively participated in the development of the County's Comprehensive Plan and actively advocated for a public land acquisition program in the County. Presently, there are 104 individual members (of whom 99 reside in the County), 9 delegates at large, and 20 corporate and non-profit corporate members. The latter group includes such organizations as 1000 Friends of Florida, the Marine Resources Council, and the Citizens Stormwater Protection Group, who also have individual members residing within the County. The parties have stipulated that MCCA made comments to the County in opposition to the three amendments and that a substantial number of MCCA members own businesses within the County. The record also shows that MCCA's Board of Directors passed an appropriate resolution authorizing MCCA to file this action. Intervenor, the Economic Council of Martin County (ECMC), is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to dedicated to building a quality community which provides a healthy economy and protects the quality of life and to encourage the planned growth of the County. Like the MCCA, the ECMA has actively participated in the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Its members are individuals and businesses who reside, own property, and operate businesses within the County. The ECMC made comments to the County in support of the three amendments during the adoption of those amendments. The Amendments Amendment 00-01 represents a policy change by the County and amends the text of the Economic Element and FLUE to change the methodology for determining the need for commercial land within the County. Prior to the amendment, the County used a supply-demand equation based upon an "acreage per population" methodology to determine the amount of commercial land use necessary to serve the County. Under the old methodology, relevant portions of the FLUE, in conjunction with various provisions in the Economic Element, were used to establish a supply-demand equation that would determine whether the projected need for commercial lands by a future population of the County could be met by the current amount of designated lands. If the result of the equation was a surplus of commercial lands, that factor alone would require the denial of any request to redesignate land for commercial use, regardless of any other factor or circumstance. According to the repealed text of the Plan, this methodology produced a 1,131-acre surplus of commercial lands for the year 2010. The County proposes to use a more flexible policy and guideline type of review to make this need determination. Rather than projecting future demand for commercial land based solely on a numerical calculation, the County will make that determination based on a number of factors which must be weighed together, such as suitability, location, compatibility, community desire, and numerical need. It also proposes to change the manner in which numerical need is determined. Under the new methodology, the County will now use jobs and the amount of land needed to support those jobs. Put another way, commercial demand will be based on the projected number of jobs in the future. Using the new methodology, and after adding a 25 percent market factor, the County projects that in the year 2015 there will be a commercial land deficit of 112 acres. To accomplish this change in policy, the amendment alters the text of the Economic Element and FLUE by moving some language from the goals, objectives, or policies sections of the elements to preliminary sections that contained summaries of the data and analysis relied upon for each element. It also eliminates certain language from the goals, objectives, and policies of the elements, or from the preceding sections containing summaries of data and analysis, where such language was redundant and already appeared elsewhere in the Plan. In contrast to the former provision, the new amendment makes a finding that "the raw data appears to show that there is a significant deficit of commercial land necessary to accommodate economic needs if Martin County's ten year trend toward retail/service jobs continues." Amendment 01-07 pertains to a 27.8-acre triangular- shaped tract of land located less than a mile south of the center of the urban area of Indiantown, a small community in the southwestern part of the County. The property, which lies within the County's Primary Urban Service District, is bounded on the north by State Road 76, a major arterial roadway which connects Indiantown with Stuart, on the west by State Road 710, another major arterial roadway which connects Indiantown with Okeechobee and Palm Beach Counties, and on the east by Southwest Indiantown Avenue, which connects State Roads 76 and 710. The site is surrounded by vacant property, including Agriculture-designated land on three sides, and Estate Density Residential on the other. Immediately north of State Road 76 lies the C-44 Canal, a major waterway that connects Lake Okechobeee with the South Fork of the St. Lucie River and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean. A two-lane bridge (with no pedestrian walkway) provides automobile access from Indiantown to the Blydenstein property. The amendment changes the land use designation on the property from Mobile Home Residential (8 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial. Even though the property is designated for use as a mobile home park, the property has been vacant and undeveloped for more than 20 years and is used principally for cattle grazing. The Seven J property consists of 2.99 acres located just west of Jensen Beach in the northern part of the County at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and Westmoreland Boulevard, both major arterial roadways. The property is adjacent to a partially built Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as the West Jensen DRI and is virtually surrounded by other commercial uses. The amendment changes the land use designation on the property from Medium Density Residential (8 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial. Presently, a nursery, older residential homes, rental property, and wetlands are found on the property; the nearby property is primarily made up of both developed and undeveloped commercial land. Availability of Data and Analysis Rule 9J-5.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires in part that "[a]ll background data, studies, surveys, analyses, and inventory maps not adopted as part of the comprehensive plan shall be available for public inspection while the comprehensive plan is being considered for adoption and while it is in effect." Relying upon this provision, Petitioners have contended in their Unilateral Prehearing Stipulation that the County failed to make such data and analysis "available to the public throughout the review and adoption process." At least one general source of data that was used by County experts was not physically present in the County offices for inspection by the public during the adoption process. That derivative data source was entitled "CEDDS 2000: the Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source" and was prepared by Woods and Poole Economics, a Washington, D.C. consulting firm. The data source was used by one of the County's experts (Dr. Nelson) "to generate [the] demand numbers" in his technical report. In order to inspect and review this data, Petitioners, like the County or any other interested person, would have had to purchase a copy from the authors. However, all of the data and analyses accumulated or generated by the County staff were available for public inspection during the time between the transmittal and adoption of the amendments under review. Further, Petitioners did not show how they were prejudiced by the failure of the County to maintain the Woods and Poole data in their offices. The Department does not construe the foregoing rule as narrowly as Petitioners, that is, that every piece of data relied upon by a local government must be physically present in the jurisdiction of the local government. Indeed, the Department has never found a plan amendment out of compliance solely on the basis that data was not physically located at a local government's offices. Rather, it construes the rule more broadly and considers the rule to have been satisfied so long as data and analyses are "available for public inspection," even if this means that derivative source data such as the Woods and Poole report must be purchased from out- of-state sources. Were the plan amendments based on the best available, professionally acceptable data and analysis? Petitioners contend that the plan amendments "are not supported by the best available and professionally acceptable data and analysis." As to this contention, Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth a general directive that all plan provisions "be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analyses applicable to each element." In addition, the same rule requires that the data must be "collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." Petitioners contend that the County's collection of data to support the amendments, and its analysis of that data, was not professionally acceptable, as required by the rule. More specifically, Petitioners contend that the County undercounted the commercial land inventory used in projecting future need by omitting between 80 and 100 acres of undeveloped commercial land from the West Jensen DRI, by failing to count commercial development allowed in industrial- designated lands, and by failing to include 30 acres of land at the Witham Field airport which remains available for commercial development. They also contend that the County inadvertently failed to include more than 60 acres that were placed in the Commercial category by amendments to the FLUM in 1995 and 1996 and which remain undeveloped and available for new commercial development. In support of the amendments, the County submitted to the Department more than 1,000 pages of supporting materials and maps, including 384 pages related to the FLUM amendments, 642 pages of revised supporting data for the text amendments, and 89 pages of public comments. In choosing the sources of data to support the plan, the County used generally accepted, nationally available data as the basis for its review and revision of the Plan. After reviewing the foregoing material, the Department found such data and analysis to be relevant and appropriate. The County also generated extensive data from locally available information that is unique to the County, such as an inventory of the lands within the County that are designated for Commercial uses on the FLUM, but do not yet have any developed commercial uses on them. As to one of Petitioners' contentions, the County agrees that its staff inadvertently omitted 60.4 acres of commercial property which was changed to that designation by certain 1995-96 FLUM amendments. However, the greater weight of evidence shows that this omission was not significant in terms of the overall collection of data, and it did not render the gathering of the other data as professionally unacceptable. Petitioners go on to contend that the analysis of the data (in determining the supply inventory) was flawed for a number of reasons. First, they argue that the undeveloped portions (around 70 acres or so) of the West Jensen DRI that are commercially-designated land should have been included in the commercial land inventory. The West Jensen DRI is an approximately 180-acre residential/commercial development with a large commercial component. Even though specific site plans have not been issued for some of the undeveloped property, the County excluded all of the undeveloped acreage because the property is dedicated under a master plan of development, and therefore it would be inappropriate to include it as vacant inventory. On this issue, the more persuasive evidence shows that the treatment of undeveloped land in a DRI (subject to a master plan of development) is a "close call" in the words of witness van Vonno, and that it is just as professionally acceptable to exclude this type of undeveloped land from vacant commercial inventory as it is to include it. Therefore, by excluding the West Jensen DRI land from its inventory count, the County's analysis of the data was not flawed, as alleged by Petitioners. The Plan itself does not allow commercial uses within the Industrial land category. However, the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) permit certain commercial uses on Industrial lands when done pursuant to specific overlay zoning. While the County (at the urging of the Department) intends to review (and perhaps repeal) these regulations in 2003, and possibly create a new mixed-use category, there are now instances where commercial uses are located on Industrial lands by virtue of the LDRs. Because of this anomaly, Petitioners contend that the County's analysis of the data was flawed because it failed to count vacant, surplus lands in the Industrial land use category that are available for commercial development. Except for arbitrarily allocating all undeveloped industrial land to the commercial category, as Petitioners have proposed here, the evidence does not establish any reasonable basis for making an industrial/commercial division of industrial-designated lands for inventory purposes. Indeed, no witness cited to a similar allocation being made in any other local government's comprehensive plan as precedent for doing so here. In those rare instances where the Plan itself permits multiple uses in a single land category, such as Commercial Office/Residential (an office and multi-family land use designation), the County used a supply figure that was derived from estimating how much land in this category was developed commercially as opposed to residential and allocating acreage from the category based on that percentage. No party has suggested that such a methodology be used here, particularly since the mixed use categories are distinguishable from single land use categories, such as Industrial and Commercial. Moreover, the County has demonstrated a conscious effort to separate these two types of land uses (industrial and commercial) into separate and distinct categories, they are depicted separately on the County's FLUM, and the Plan has separate locational criteria for the siting of these lands. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the County's analysis of the data was not flawed (or professionally unacceptable) because it failed to include undeveloped industrial lands in the commercial inventory. Petitioners next contend that the County erred in its commercial inventory count by failing to include around 30 acres of vacant land located at Witham Field, a local airport. Under the present zoning scheme at the airport, only aviation- related commercial uses are allowed, and thus the vacant land cannot be used for any other commercial purpose. Further, the airport is designated Institutional on the land use map, rather than Industrial, and it would be inappropriate to count vacant institutional lands in the commercial land inventory. Therefore, the exclusion of the Witham Field land from the commercial inventory did not render the County's analysis of the data professionally unacceptable. Finally, the remaining contentions by Petitioners that the County understated its supply inventory for both commercial and industrial property have been considered and rejected. In summary, it is found that the amendments are based on relevant and appropriate data and analyses, and that the data was collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. The Blydenstein FLUM Amendment Petitioners generally contend that there is no demonstrated need for the Blydenstein parcel to be redesignated as General Commercial, that the amendment is not based upon data and analysis, that the County failed to coordinate the land use with the availability of facilities and services, that the amendment is inconsistent with redevelopment and infill policies, and that the amendment encourages urban sprawl. The Blydenstein amendment reclassifies 28 acres to commercial use and will amount to 36 percent of the existing commercial development in downtown Indiantown. In terms of need, the County projects that only 17 acres of commercial development will be needed in Indiantown through the year 2015, and there presently exist around 186 acres of undeveloped commercial acreage in that community. At the same time, Amendment 00-01 reflects a deficit of 112 acres of commercial land in the County during the same time period. Although the local and countywide demand calculations are seemingly at odds, at least in the Indiantown area, there will be a surplus of unused commercial lands through the end of the current planning horizon, and thus there from that perspective there is no need for an additional 28 acres of commercial property in that locale. Notwithstanding a lack of numerical need, that consideration is not the sole factor in determining whether the amendment should be approved. As noted earlier, in addition to need, the County considers such factors as the suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community desires in making this determination. Here, the subject property is suitable for commercial development because of its location on two major arterial roadways and its ready access to a railroad and major waterway. Further, the property is located within the Primary Urban Services District, which is an area specifically designated for more intense, urban development. In addition, the current land use designation allows 8 residential units per acre, which is an "urban" type of designation. Finally, because there is vacant, undeveloped property surrounding the subject property, the redesignation of the property to General Commercial will not pose a compatibility problem with any residential areas. When these considerations are weighed with the need factor, it is found that the proposed land use change is appropriate. The existing land use designation of Mobile Home Residential is a carryover land use designation which recognized the mobile home use that occurred on the property when the future land use maps were originally created. At the present time, all mobile home use has ceased and the property is vacant. The nearest residential neighborhood is located to the north across State Road 76 beyond the Canal and is at least 600 feet away. Because of the property's configuration and immediate proximity to major arterial roads, railroad tracks, and a canal, the greater weight of evidence shows that it is not suitable for residential development. These considerations support the County's determination that the property has been inappropriately designated as residential for more than a decade. Although the County did not conduct formal studies to determine whether the public facilities and services will be capable of serving the proposed change in land use, a general analysis of the availability and adequacy of public facilities was performed by its staff. That analysis reflects that the property lies within the service area of a local water and sewer utility and has access to two major roadways. Based on its proximity to major roadways and local public utilities, the County does not anticipate that the change in land use will adversely impact public facilities and services. To ensure that this does not occur, the County will require a traffic impact analysis at the time the parcel is submitted for development review. Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)8., Florida Administrative Code, requires that a plan "[d]iscourage the proliferation of urban sprawl." Leapfrog development is a form of urban sprawl and typically means leaping over a lower density development and placing higher density development just beyond the lower density development. Given the location of the Blydenstein property within the Primary Urban Services District, and the adjacent major arterial roads, railroad, and canal, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the proposed land use change will not constitute leapfrog development. The change in land use will not promote, allow, or designate urban development in radial, strip, isolated, or ribbon patterns; it will not result in the premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land; it will not discourage or inhibit infill or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods; it will not result in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses; and it will not result in a loss of significant amounts of functional open space. In the absence of these indicators, it is found that the amendment will not contribute to urban sprawl. The Seven J FLUM Amendment Like the Blydenstein amendment, Petitioners likewise contend that there is a lack of demonstrated need for the Seven J amendment; that the amendment lacks data and analysis; that the County failed to coordinate with the availability of services; that the amendment will promote urban sprawl; and that the amendment is internally inconsistent. The Seven J property is surrounded by the partially built-out West Jensen DRI, is located within the County's Primary Urban Services District, and is considered to be in a "regional hub" of activity, that is, within the core of major commercial development in the northern part of the County. Further, it is located on an eight-lane road at a major intersection (U.S. Highway 1 and Westmoreland Boulevard). Therefore, the change is compatible with surrounding existing and planned commercial uses, and the County's redesignation of the property from Medium Density Residential (8 units per acre) to General Commercial is appropriate. Further, the greater weight of evidence shows that because the property is located within the Primary Urban Services District, is near existing commercial and residential development, and urban services are already provided, the Amendment will not contribute to urban sprawl. Finally, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the amendment is internally consistent and based on adequate data and analysis, contrary to Petitioners' assertions.
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 Martin County Plan Amendments 00-01, 01-07, and 97-4 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ 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 16th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven M. Siebert, 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 Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Environmental and Land Use Center, Inc. 3305 College Avenue Shepard Broad Law Center Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314-7721 Joan P. Wilcox, Esquire 2336 Southeast Ocean Boulevard, PMP 110 Stuart, Florida 34986 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David A. Acton, Esquire Office of County Attorney 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3322 Johnathan A. Ferguson, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Shuster & Russell, P.A. 145 Northwest Central Park Plaza, Suite 200 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986-2482 Linda R. McCann, Esquire Royal Palm Financial Center 789 South Federal Highway, Suite 310 Stuart, Florida 34994-2962
The Issue By the filing of an application with the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or the "Department"), Florida Power and Light Company ("FP&L") initiated a proceeding for the certification of the siting of its proposed West County Energy Center Power Plant (the "WCEC Project" or the "Project" or the "WCEC") in Palm Beach County. This order follows the "land use hearing1" mandated by Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, as a step in the consideration of the application. Pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes,2 the sole issue for determination in this order is whether the site proposed for the WCEC Project "is consistent and in compliance with the existing land use plans and zoning ordinances."
Findings Of Fact The Applicant Florida Power & Light Company has provided electric service in Florida since 1926. It presently operates power plants at 14 sites in the state in a service area that covers the eastern coastline and the southern portion of the Florida Peninsula. With 4.3 million customer accounts, FP&L provides electric power to more than 8 million people in the State of Florida. FP&L proposes to construct and operate the WCEC on a site in western Palm Beach County. The Site A 220-acre site (the "Site") located on State Road 80 (also known as Southern Boulevard), "close to a feature known as the 20-mile bend" (tr. 19) on State Road 80, the Site is northwest of the Village of Wellington in the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County, Florida. See FP&L Exs. JG-3 and JG- 4, a map and aerial photograph of the Site. Until recently, the Site has been in agricultural use. Currently comprised of lands that were partially reclaimed and restored following mining of lime rock on the northern portion of the Site, there are no onsite activities or facilities on the Site. The land uses to the west of the Site are agriculture and electrical transmission facilities, to the east, predominately mining, and to the north, mining and transmission facilities. Lands to the east and north have been extensively mined for lime rock. Lands to the east are slated for use by the South Florida Water Management District as water storage ponds. The nearest occupied residence is three-quarters of a mile away from on-site infrastructure. The WCEC Project is compatible with those existing adjacent land uses and sufficiently buffered from the nearby residential area. The WCEC The WCEC will provide an initial 2,200 megawatts ("MW") of electrical generating capacity with an ultimate capacity of 3,300 MW. Initially the WCEC will consist of two 1,100 MW, natural gas-fired, combined-cycle generating units. The units will utilize new combustion turbines (similar to a large jet engine, they produce electricity by direct connection to an electric generator), new heat recovery steam generators ("HRSGs"), and new steam turbine generators. The exhaust heat from the combustion turbines will be routed through the HRSGs to produce steam for the new steam turbine which is attached to another electric generator. Natural gas will be the primary fuel for the new units, with ultra low-sulfur distillate as an alternate fuel. FP&L is considering two different designs for the WCEC Project, based upon the particular combustion turbine to be selected in the fall of 2005. FP&L is also considering two different classes of advanced combustion turbines. A layout using one class of turbines, rated at around 180 MW each, would result in four combustion turbines and HRSG and one steam turbine per unit, or a “four-on-one” configuration. A second layout for the other class of turbines, rated at around 230 MW each, would include only three combustion turbines and heat recovery steam generators per unit and a single steam turbine, for a “three-on-one” configuration. Either configuration would be consistent with the local land use approvals for the Site. Facilities for construction and operation of the new units will be located within the Site. The first two units will be located at the northern end. The third future unit will be located to the south of the first two units. Other onsite facilities will include cooling towers, fuel oil storage tanks, stormwater ponds, administration and maintenance facilities and parking areas. Natural gas will be supplied to the Project by an interstate natural gas pipeline, whose owner will be responsible for licensing and constructing the supply pipeline to the Site. Connection to the Transmission Network The Project will interconnect with FP&L’s existing electrical transmission network at the existing FP&L Corbett system substation, which is located adjacent to the north edge of the project Site. No new offsite transmission lines are required for the proposed 2,200 MW Project. The County's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinances and Zoning Approvals Palm Beach County has adopted a Comprehensive Plan to meet the requirements of the Local Governmental Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Palm Beach County has also adopted local zoning ordinances and zoning approvals that apply to the project Site. The Palm Beach County Commission has issued site- specific zoning approvals for the project Site. They approved the Site’s use for electrical generating capacity, and determined that the Site is consistent with the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan and the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code, which contains the County’s zoning ordinances and regulations. Board of County Commissioner's Action, Resolution 2004-0401 On March 29, 2004, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners adopted its Resolution 2004-0401, approving an amendment to an existing County-issued development order. The amendment approved the use of the project Site for an electrical generating plant using 12 combustion turbines and the use of low sulfur distillate as a backup fuel. The 2004 Resolution determined that the development order amendment approving the Project was consistent with the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. Under that Plan, the Site was designated RR10 on the County’s Future Land Use Map, which remains the future land use designation for the Site. Electrical power plants were an allowed use in this land use category at the time the County Commission first adopted its resolution approving the use of the project Site for electrical power plants. The County Commission also determined the 2004 development order amendment for the Site was consistent with the County’s Unified Land Development Code, which contains the County’s zoning regulations. Under that Code, the Site was and remains zoned as Specialized Agriculture ("SA"). Electrical power plants were allowed as Class A conditional uses at the time the County Commission adopted its resolution approving the site for use by electrical generation facilities. The SA zoning district has been deleted by Palm Beach County but lands in the SA zoning district in this area of Palm Beach County are now deemed to be in the Agricultural Production ("AP") zoning district. Electrical power plants remain a conditional use in the AP zoning district. Palm Beach County Resolution 2004-0401 amended an existing Palm Beach County development order that constitutes a Class A conditional use approval of the Site for use by electrical generating facilities. The Palm Beach County Commission has also issued two other Class A conditional use approvals for electrical generating facilities on the Site. The WCEC Project as proposed by FP&L and the Site with an ultimate capacity of 3300 MW will comply with the Palm Beach County zoning ordinances and with the amended development order issued by the Palm Beach County Commission for the Site. Notice Notice of the land use and zoning hearing was published by FP&L in The Palm Beach Post on June 16, 2005. Notice of the land use hearing was also published by DEP on its Official Notices website on June 17, 2005, pursuant to Chapter 2003-145, Laws of Florida. (FP&L Ex. 1)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board find that Florida Power and Light Company's West County Energy Center Project, as described by the evidence presented at the hearing, and its Site at an ultimate capacity of 3,300 MW are consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances and site-specific zoning approvals of Palm Beach County as they apply to the Site, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 September, 2005.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Collier County (County) Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted through Collier County Ordinance Number 02-32 ("the Rural Fringe Amendments" or "the Amendments") on June 19, 2002, are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background The Amendments at issue in these cases arose from a specific historical background which is relevant to help put them in context. In 1997, the County adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based plan amendments ("EAR-based amendments"). DCA found the EAR-based amendments not to be "in compliance." Following an administrative hearing in which FWF and Audubon intervened, the Administration Commission entered a final order agreeing with DCA's determination. Joint Exhibit J.3. The Administration Commission’s final order, entered on June 22, 1999, directed the County to take the following steps in order to bring its comprehensive plan amendments into compliance: (1) rescind those EAR-based amendments found not in compliance; (2) adopt certain specific "remedial" amendments; (3) initiate an assessment of the area of the County designated on the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") as Agricultural/Rural; (4) adopt interim amendments to remain in force during the course of the assessment; and (5) no later than June 22, 2002, adopt those plan amendments needed to implement the findings and results of the assessment. Summary of Rural Fringe Amendments In response to the Administration Commission's final order on the EAR-based amendments, the County elected to divide its Agricultural/Rural-designated area into two subdistricts-- Rural Fringe and Eastern Lands--for purposes of the assessment and implementing plan amendments. The Rural Fringe subdistrict was designated as "the Rural Fringe Mixed Used District" (or "the Rural Fringe"). The Rural Fringe is described in the amendments as follows: The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is identified on the Future Land Use Map. This District consists of approximately 93,600 acres, or 7% of Collier County's total land area. Significant portions of this District are adjacent to the Urban area or to the semi-rural, rapidly developing, large-lot North Golden Gate Estates platted lands. * * * The Rural Fringe Mixed Used District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. In order to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed species, to retain a rural, pastoral, or park-like appearance from the major public rights-of-way within this area, and to protect private property rights, the following innovative planning and development techniques are required and/or encouraged within the District. J.4 at 50. Under the Amendments, the Rural Fringe was divided into areas designated as Sending, Receiving, or Neutral on the FLUM.18 J.5. Some Sending Areas are also designated Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs). Receiving Lands "are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as most appropriate for development . . . ." J.4. at 51. These lands have been chosen because they "have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations." Id. Approximately 25,000 acres are designated Receiving Lands. Receiving Lands "are also located to allow for the provision of central water and sewer and have excellent access to the County's arterial road network." J.11. at 2. The base density within Receiving Lands is one dwelling unit per five acres. However, through the purchase of development rights from Sending Lands through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program established by the Amendments (discussed in Findings 72-91, infra), Receiving Lands may increase density up to one dwelling unit per acre. Additional density may be obtained if a development preserves more than the minimum required amount of native vegetation. Limited commercial, industrial, and earth-mining uses are also allowed in Receiving Lands. Receiving Lands may also be developed as "Rural Villages." The Amendments provide for the possibility of one rural village within each of the four distinct Receiving Areas in the Rural Fringe. The purpose of rural villages is described as follows: Rural Villages may be approved within the boundaries of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District in order to: maximize the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; to reduce the need for residents of the District and surrounding lands to travel to the County's Urban area for work, recreation, shopping, and education; and, to enhance the provision of limited urban and rural levels of service through economies of scale. J.4 at 62. The rural villages permitted in the Rural Fringe must consist of compact neighborhoods with nearby neighborhood or village centers. The neighborhood or village centers are to include retail and office uses; public parks, squares, or greens; civic and government uses; and service facilities. J.4 at 63. Specific provision also is made for open space in and surrounding the rural village. J.4 at 63-64. In addition to the one-village-per-district limitation, the amendments impose the following additional locational criteria on a rural village: (1) it must be at least three miles from any other rural village; (2) it must have direct access to an arterial or collector road, or the developer must bear the cost of a new collector road directly accessing the village; and (3) it must be near already- existing or planned public infrastructure, such as water and sewer facilities. J.4 at 63. In addition, a rural village may only be approved if shown to be fiscally neutral to taxpayers outside the village. J.4 at 65. Neutral Lands "have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development" at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres. J.4. at 55. Limited commercial, industrial, and earth-mining uses are also allowed in Neutral Lands. Approximately 7,000 acres have been designated as Neutral Lands. Sending Lands are those lands "that have the highest degree of environmental value" and "are the principal target for preservation and conservation." J.4. at 58. The residential use of this land is restricted to one dwelling unit per parcel which existed before June 22, 1999, or one unit per 40 acres, whichever yields the greatest density. Nonresidential uses of Sending Land, other than agriculture, are quite limited. There also are specific criteria for the protection of site-specific native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and wetlands. J.4 at 58-62; J.6 at 24, 27, and 29-30. Some of the land designated Sending is also subject to regulation as NRPA. The purpose of a NRPA designation "is to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and to identify large connected intact and relatively unfragmented habitat, which may be important for these listed species." J.4 at 79. Designation as a NRPA also limits the intensity and density of development in an area (J.4 at 58-61) and imposes specific restrictions for the preservation of native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and wetlands (J.6 at 24, 27, and 29). The principal additional effect of NRPA designation is to increase the requirement for the retention of native vegetation. In addition to the changes to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the Amendments also affected the Coastal and Conservation Element (CCE), Potable Water Sub-Element, and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element. Standing of Petitioners and Intervenors The evidence was that the Husseys and Brown own property in Collier County and submitted comments regarding the Rural Fringe Amendments between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. The parties stipulated to the standing of FWF, Audubon, Vision & Faith, and Section 20 Investments. There also was evidence that FWF and Audubon submitted comments regarding the Rural Fringe Amendments at both the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing and that, at least as of June 14, 2000, they owned property or operated a business in Collier County and had members who reside in Collier County. Century is a for-profit corporation that has its principal place of business in Collier County. Century owns 12.5 acres of land in Collier County. According to the testimony of Donald Lester, President of both Century and Waterford Management, Inc., Century is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Century Holdings, a limited partnership. Waterford is Century Holdings' general partner. Waterford, Century, and approximately 300 other entities are limited partners of Century Holdings. All of these entities and the land they own are managed by Waterford. According to Lester, the various Waterford-managed entities are involved in real estate development and have spent $42 million (over $30 million in "land basis" and $7-8 million on professional fees and expenses) acquiring land for development in Collier County, including approximately $36 million for approximately 3,500 acres in North Belle Meade (NBM) in the Rural Fringe and approximately $6 million for another approximately 2,000 acres farther east in Collier County. There was no evidence that these lands have obtained any master development approval or are otherwise vested for development. Coalition is a not-for-profit corporation having its principal place of business in Collier County. Lester is its Executive Director. There was no evidence that Coalition itself owns property or conducts any type of business activity in Collier County, other than commenting on the Rural Fringe Amendments and participating in these administrative proceedings. Coalition is comprised of approximately 2,000 members. Of these members, approximately 300 are the various entities making up the Century Holdings partnership and managed by Waterford. A total of approximately 320-350 Coalition members own property approximately 3,500 acres in NBM; there was no evidence that the other approximately 1,650 members own property or conduct business in Collier County. An unspecified number of members own approximately 2,000 acres to the east of NBM in Collier County. According to Lester, some members voluntarily donate money to the Coalition; others have "been supporting the proceedings" in some unspecified manner. Lester testified at final hearing that he commented on the Rural Fringe Amendments on behalf of both Century and Coalition during the adoption hearing. He indicated that he filled out and submitted a "speaker card" in order to give his comments and that the card indicated that he was speaking on behalf of both Coalition and Century; but the card was not placed in evidence. The only other evidence on the subject consisted of the transcript of that hearing, which records Lester's introductory statement as follows: "I represent a director of 15,000 coalition. I represent landowners that own property within the TDR area." The transcript also reflects that Robert Diffenderfer commented and stated: "I represent the 15,000 coalition and literally thousands of individuals. . . . On behalf of coalition and the individuals, I have the list here. There are 4,000 plus of them." While the list was not placed in evidence, it can be inferred from Lester's testimony that it would have included Century and the other Coalition members owning land in Collier County. Petitioners' Challenges Petitioners' challenges to the Rural Fringe Amendments were narrowed during the course of this proceeding and now are essentially: (1) whether the County's delineation of Sending and Receiving Lands, especially within the NBM portion of the Rural Fringe, is based upon and reacts appropriately to the best available data19; and (2) whether the TDR Program is based upon and reacts appropriately to the best available data, in particular as to the feasibility of its operation.20 Delineation of Sending and Receiving Lands A. Data and Analysis The process of delineating Sending and Receiving Lands in the Rural Fringe was involved and complex. The County accumulated and considered a wide range of data in the process. Among the data sources used were: (1) the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD's) 1994/1995 Land Use/Land Cover map; (2) Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") soils survey data; (3) soils tables prepared by Florida soils scientist, Howard Yamataki; (4) the National Wetlands Inventory; (5) true-color aerial photographs provided by the County property appraiser's office; (6) the updated FWCC's "Closing the Gaps" Report; (7) FWCC's updated wildlife and wildlife habitat data, including its Florida panther and Florida black bear telemetry data and red-cockaded woodpecker colony data, as well as its updated strategic habitat data and Strategic Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA) maps; and (8) the 1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Multi- Species/Ecosystem Recovery Implementation Team (MERIT) data for South Florida, in particular pertaining to the Florida panther. The County also actively solicited updated data from property owners and other members of the public. These opportunities for public input included numerous publicly- noticed meetings and hearings before the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee (52 to 53 meetings), the Environmental Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. At all of these meetings, the public was invited to submit information to the County. On two occasions, notification was mailed to each property owner in the Rural Fringe, alerting them of the County's consideration of the amendments and inviting their input. The County posted signs on the two main roads entering the Rural Fringe, notifying the public of the on-going evaluation of the Rural Fringe and providing a contact name and telephone number for those wanting further information. The County also solicited information from the public via the County web page. Members of the public did submit information, some of which resulted in adjustments to the designations ultimately adopted. For example, the County received data from both Audubon and the Collier County School Board regarding red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat in the northeast corner of NBM. Similarly, Brown submitted information regarding some of his land holdings in NBM that was used in the ultimate delineation of boundaries between Receiving and Sending. The Husseys also submitted data that was considered. While all information submitted by the public was considered, not all resulted in a change in designation. For example, the County received information regarding jurisdictional wetland determinations on four separate properties and reviewed that information in order to determine whether there was a consistent correlation between jurisdictional determinations and the wetlands land cover information obtained from SFWMD. No consistent correlation was found. In two instances, the jurisdictional wetlands were larger than the area shown as wetlands land cover; in the other two, they were smaller. Despite ample opportunity, the only information submitted to the County by the Husseys was a limerock mining exploration contract on some of their property; Coalition and Century did not make any information available to the County between the transmittal and adoption hearings.21 In its analysis of the data, the County recognized that they were collected during different time periods, ranging from the 1980s through 2001. The soils data from NRCS, for example, was developed in the early 1990's from Landsat satellite imagery from 1985-1989, while the panther telemetry data reflected field data through the end of 2001. SFWMD's data was generated based upon false color infrared aerial photography and reflected changes in land cover through 1995.22 At the time of adoption of the Amendments on June 19, 2002, SFWMD's land use/land cover data was the most recent publicly-available depiction of land uses and land cover in the Rural Fringe.23 Petitioners take the position that the NRCS Soils Survey data was the most accurate data available because it was "ground-truthed." But the NRCS data did not depict land use cover; and it was not proven that the NRCS data accurately and reliably depicted vegetative cover.24 Petitioners also criticized the County for not "ground-truthing" the SFWMD data despite having knowledge of inaccuracies in its depiction of jurisdictional wetlands. But even if it were the County's intention to delineate Sending Lands based on the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, "ground-truthing" would have required the collection of additional data, as Petitioners' own expert conceded. See Conclusion 105, infra. The Husseys also argued in their PRO that the NRCS soils survey data should have been used instead of the SFWMD land use and cover data to delineate wetlands because it was "ground-truthed." But even if it were the County's intention to delineate Sending Lands based on the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, the NRCS data does not purport to identify jurisdictional wetlands and should not be used as a proxy for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands due to drainage activities, particularly in NBM. The Husseys had a Lower Tamiami (Aquifer) Recharge/ Discharge map and a map of the County's Wellfield Protection Zones admitted in evidence and argued in their PRO that the County failed to consider these data in delineating Sending Lands and Receiving Lands. To the contrary, the only evidence was that these maps were considered by the County's environmental specialists. Moreover, there was no evidence that these data were in any way inconsistent with the delineation of Sending and Receiving Lands in the Rural Fringe. Having accepted the SFWMD land cover data as the most accurate indicator of land cover and land uses, the County "updated" Gaps Report maps of biodiversity hotspot areas (which were based upon 1980 satellite imaging) by removing areas shown on the more current SFWMD maps to have been cleared for agriculture by 1995 or 1996. Petitioners contended that "updating" the data in this manner made resulting data and analysis inaccurate and misleading by "masking" natural resource information. But those maps were intended to depict features on parts of the Rural Fringe not mapped as agricultural land use cover on SFWMD's land use cover maps. As such, these "updates" reflected the County’s reasonable determination that, while lands cleared for agricultural use can retain natural resource value, they generally have lower environmental and habitat value than uncleared wetland and forest. No evidence suggested that this judgment was unreasonable. The County's analysis resulted in sensible planning decisions that generally afforded undeveloped wetland or forested areas a higher level of protection than land that has been disturbed through agricultural clearing. Petitioners initially seemed to contend that the County failed to take into account changes in hydrology and wetland vegetative cover in NBM as a result of drainage canals and similar alterations. As the hearing progressed, however, it became clear that from the evidence that the County was aware of the changes in hydrology and vegetative cover in NBM and took those changes into account in its planning decisions. The best data and analysis available as of June 19, 2002, showed that NBM is utilized by both the Florida black bear and the Florida panther. The data and analysis indicate that both of these species make more use of areas to the east (the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and largely undeveloped portions of Northern Golden Gates Estates) and south (the (South) Belle Meade NRPA and largely undeveloped portions of Southern Golden Gates Estates). However, both panther and black bear access NBM from those areas by crossing Everglades Boulevard to the east and Interstate 75 to the south. A significant population of black bear uses NBM. FWCC lists the Florida black bear as a threatened species. Areas mapped by FWCC as strategic habitat statewide would support approximately five populations of approximately 200 individual black bears. (By comparison, FWCC ideally would like to maintain enough strategic habitat to support ten populations of 200 individuals, in part to reduce adverse impacts from natural disasters and genetic problems from inbreeding.) FWCC lists the Florida panther as an endangered species. It is one of the most endangered large mammals in the United States. Only approximately 80 to perhaps 100 panthers are thought to exist in the wild, all in south Florida. The Florida panther faces extinction unless "aggressive action" is taken for its protection. Panthers require large areas of habitat to survive in the wild. Depending on habitat quality, individual males require a home range of 100-150, 200-250, or even as much as 400 square miles; females have a smaller home range of approximately 50-70 square miles. Notwithstanding its general goal of maintaining ten populations of 200 individuals, FWCC's realistic goal for the Florida panther is to maintain current panther habitat and population. The (South) Belle Meade NRPA is considered Priority 1 Panther Habitat by FWCC. Other Priority 1 and Priority 2 Panther Habitat exists farther to the southeast and east. While NBM is not as good for panther habitat, radio telemetry data show that panthers also use NBM. Telemetry data show that panther use of NBM has increased in the last ten years. This could be due in part to the introduction of a female Texas cougar as part of FWCC's breeding program. NBM is currently within the home range of at least one male Florida panther and the introduced female Texas cougar. (Other use is possible, as only about a third of the animals in the population are collared for telemetry.) The female denned and gave birth to three kittens in NBM in 1998. It is possible that panthers frequented NBM in the late 1990's in part because a ranch lessee on Brown property in Section 21 was operating a deer-feeding station there. Panther telemetry data seem to have decreased after Brown required his lessee to cease those operations. However, while panther may have returned to those feeding stations because of the deer being attracted, they first had to have been in the area to become aware of the deer being attracted. This indicates some panther use of NBM prior to establishment of the feeding station. FWCC and United States Fish and Wildlife Service data also indicated to the County that red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) colonies existed in the old-growth forest areas that remain in the western part of NBM, nesting in cavities in these trees. There also were data that FWCC considered these lands to be RCW strategic habitat. To nest, RCWs need old-growth cavity trees in an area not overgrown with new growth. While there were data that drainage of land in NBM in the RCW strategic habitat area has resulted in invasion of melaleuca (a nuisance exotic species), RCW can continue to use the habitat and forage in and around the melaleuca unless the melaleuca blocks off the cavity tree. There were no data that RCW no longer use NBM due to melaleuca infestation. Much of the now-urbanized areas of Collier County once provided RCW habitat, but development has impaired the value of that land for RCW nesting and foraging. As with panther habitat, traditional RCW habitat has diminished under the current regulatory scheme, and additional protection is needed. The non-NRPA Sending Land in the western part of NBM is the last remaining viable RCW habitat that is not already in conservation status. In gathering and using data in the development of the Rural Fringe Amendments, the County was supported by various state agencies that informally reviewed and commented on the amendments. These agencies supported Collier's approach to the designation of Sending and Receiving Lands. It is found that the County used the best available data and reacted to it appropriately for planning purposes by applying professionally acceptable analysis in review and application of that data. Sending and Receiving Delineations in General Petitioners were most critical of the County's alleged exclusive use of the SFWMD vegetative and land use cover maps to delineate Sending Lands based on the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. But the evidence was clear that the County had no intention of designating Sending Lands solely on the basis of the presence of wetlands. See J.15 at 4 (identifying percentages of wetlands in each category, and showing that the County recognized there were wetlands in Receiving Lands and non-wetlands in Sending Lands). Petitioners' characterization of the County's effort was a gross oversimplification. It also was clear from the evidence that the County did not restrict its data and analysis to the SFWMD maps. Petitioners contended that the County ignored the actual boundary of natural features, such as wetlands, in delineating the boundaries of Sending and Receiving Lands. Instead, for planning purposes, the County attempted to delineate reasonably large, contiguous areas as Sending and Receiving Lands, rather than creating a "Swiss cheese pattern" of intermixed Sending and Receiving Lands, designating isolated pockets of Sending within a large Receiving Area, and vice versa. This made sense from a planning perspective, for a number of reasons, including: (1) it permitted concentration of infrastructure, reducing infrastructure costs; (2) it allowed greater opportunity for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands; (3) large, contiguous areas of habitat are necessary to support a viable population for some of the endangered species present in Collier County-- Florida panther, in particular; and (4) it prevented urban sprawl (in part because sufficient acreage must be available in order for higher density development feasible.) In some instances, the County chose to delineate the boundary between Sending and Receiving Lands with a straight, easily-defined line, rather than using the edge of some feature such as vegetative cover. This also made sense from a planning perspective. A straight boundary, such as a section line, is easier to administer and more easily communicated to the public than a natural feature like vegetation, which would require a survey and is often characterized by a gradual change, rather than the sharp demarcation necessary for a boundary. The County recognized that, as a result of the combined effect of its planning approach, Sending Lands would include some areas neither particularly environmentally sensitive nor--apart from the land surrounding it--valuable habitat. Conversely, some relatively environmentally- sensitive lands would fall within a Receiving Land designation; however, it also recognized that these lands would remain subject to site-specific criteria imposed both by the County's Comprehensive Plan (e.g., amended CCE Policy 6.1.2 criteria for preservation of native vegetation and amended CCE Policy 6.2.3 criteria for protection of wetlands25) and by state and federal regulatory programs. It was not shown that these planning decisions lacked merit; at the very least, their merit is fairly debatable. NBM Delineations Distilled to its essence, the testimony of the natural resource experts called by Petitioners argued that the natural resource data and analysis available at the time of adoption did not justify distinguishing Sending, Receiving, and Neutral Lands in NBM. In other words, their position was that measures for protection of practically the entire NBM would be an appropriate response to the data and analysis on wetland and forest cover and habitat value for Florida panther, Florida black bear habitat, and RCW. But it also is at least fairly debatable that the County's inclusion of Receiving and Neutral Lands in NBM was an appropriate response to the totality of the data and analysis. The Rural Fringe Amendments themselves include the County's rationale for the North Belle Meade (NBM) Receiving designations. The Receiving Areas are generally located in the northern portion of NBM [North Belle Meade] Overlay and are generally contiguous to Golden Gate Estates. Two sections are directly to the south of the APAC Earth Mining Operation. The Receiving Area exhibits areas of less environmental sensitivity than other portions of the NBM Overlay, because of their proximity to Golden Gate Estates and prior clearing and disturbance to the land. Within the Receiving Area of the NBM Overlay, are located Sections 21, 28 and the west 1/4 of Sections 22 and 27, which have been largely assembled under one property ownership. These lands are located south of the existing APAC earth mining operation and have been largely impacted by agricultural operations. The location of Sections 21 and 28 is just to the south and west of Wilson Boulevard located in the southern portion of north Golden Gate Estates. Because an earth mining operation and asphalt plant uses have existed for many years in the area, and the surrounding lands in Sections 21, 28 and the western halves of Sections 22 and 27 are reported to contain Florida Department of Transportation grade rock for road construction, these uses are encouraged to remain and expand. J.4 at 76-77. Section 20 (just west of Section 21) also was designated as Receiving. The southwestern corner of NBM, consisting of Sections 26 (Range 2626), 29, 30, 31, and 32, and the eastern half of Section 36 (Range 26) was designated as non-NRPA Sending, along with the southern halves of Sections 13 and 14 in the northeast corner. The southeastern corner (consisting of the eastern 3/4 of Sections 22 and 27, along with Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, and 36) was designated as NRPA Sending. The northwest corner (Section 24, Range 26) was designated Neutral, as was the northern halves of Sections 13 and 14 in the northeast corner. The 15,552 acres in NBM are surrounded on the south by the South Belle Meade (SBM) NRPA across Interstate 75; on the east by largely undeveloped portions of Northern Golden Gate Estates (NGGE); on the north by a more developed portion of NGGE; and on the west by Urban Fringe future land use, which is sandwiched between NBM and more densely developed urban land use to the west. NGGE is the fastest-growing area of the County. It is part of a proposed sprawling, essentially single-use residential development. To date most actual development in NGGE has occurred in the western part of it, closer to more urban uses, and along Golden Gate Boulevard, which is the main east-west road in NGGE. Because the western part of NBM does not extend as far north as the eastern part, it is farther away from Golden Gate Boulevard and its development than the eastern part of NBM. In NBM, the SFWMD data showed practically all wetland cover with some upland forest interspersed in the six sections making up the southeast corner of NBM, as well as the next section to the southwest (Section 34). The section of land immediately to the north of Section 34 (Section 27) showed up as wetland cover over approximately the eastern half and agricultural use over approximately the western half of the section. The section north of 27 (Section 22) showed up as mostly wetland cover with some agricultural use in the northwest corner and some forested upland in the northeast corner. To the north of Section 22 was a section (number 15) with a mix of urban use, agriculture, wetland, and forested upland cover. Proceeding to the east, Section 14 showed up as mostly forested upland, and Section 13 in the northeast corner with mostly wetland cover with some agriculture. The opposite (far western) side of NBM was shown to have approximately eight sections of land with predominately forest land use cover, interspersed with some wetland and agricultural use. Down the center of NBM are four sections shown by the SFWMD data to have, from north to south: (1) predominately, earth mines and mine pit lakes (Section 16); (2) predominately agriculture (Section 21); (3) a mix of agricultural, forested upland, and wetland cover (Section 28); and (4) approximately half forested (the southwest half) and half wetland cover (the northeast half) (Section 33). Of importance for planning purpose, Wilson Boulevard intersects Golden Gate Boulevard and extends south to the edge of NBM at a point approximately 500 feet west of the northeast corner of Section 16. There are plans to extend Wilson Boulevard south into NBM 500 feet west of the eastern boundaries of Sections 16, 21, 28, and 33. Co-location of infrastructure within the right-of-way of the Wilson Boulevard extension would make sense from a planning standpoint. Allowing development to proceed elsewhere in NBM would exacerbate urban sprawl. It also would be possible to locate rural village North Belle Meade near the proposed Wilson Boulevard extension so that public infrastructure could be provided to both the rural village and the existing residents of NGGE. While Section 20 includes both cleared and uncleared areas, it abuts NGGE on the north and west and other Receiving Land on the east. For that reason, the County considered it to be appropriate for future development. Section 28 also includes a "mixed bag" of habitat features and agriculture. However, the remaining forested areas are less valuable as habitat because they are surrounded by agriculture. In addition, prior to the date of adoption, an application had been filed to allow mining in Sections 20 and 28, as well as in Sections 21 and 27. The permit authorizing this mining was issued in December 2002. Once land is disturbed by mining, it loses its value as panther habitat. Taking all of these factors into consideration, the County judged Section 28 to be more appropriately designated as Receiving. The designation of the western quarters of Sections 22 and 27 as Receiving resulted both from the mixture of disturbed and undisturbed property in those areas and from their location in relation to the planned extension of Wilson Boulevard. This proximity to a planned, future transportation corridor was an important factor in identifying areas appropriate for development. Initially, all of the western part of NBM was to be designated as non-NRPA Sending Lands because of the RCW data. But the County School Board and Audubon furnished additional data pertaining to the extreme northwest section (Section 24, Range 26), which resulted in the ultimate designation of the land as Neutral. Even apart from any environmental or habitat distinctions, there are other valid land use planning reasons for the County's Receiving designations. The proximity of the NBM Receiving Lands to the most populous portion of NGGE makes them appropriate for future, mixed-use development. (In contrast, the part of NGGE near the NBM NRPA is not as densely developed and is not growing as fast as the part immediately north of the NBM Receiving Area.) Since NGGE is a large, single-use residential development, residents are currently required to travel great distances for commercial and other services. By encouraging more compact, mixed-use development in the part of NBM immediately adjacent to the most populous part of NGGE, the County hopes to address this dearth of ancillary, commercial, and institutional uses for the present residents of NGGE, as well as the future residents of NBM. In addition, the NBM Receiving Area is located so as to facilitate an extension of sewer and water service along Golden Gate Boulevard and, from there, into NBM. Recognizing that, with updated data, some of these delineations may need adjustment, the County made specific provision in the amendments for owners of Sending and Neutral Lands to submit additional data in support of a change in designation. J.4 at 61. In summary, it is found that the County's delineations of Sending and Receiving Lands in the Rural Fringe, and in NBM in particular, were based on data and analysis--i.e., they reacted appropriately to the extensive data available to the County on the date of adoption--and accomplish the County's objectives, including protection of environmentally sensitive land and habitat, control of urban sprawl, and successful implementation of the TDR program, which required maintenance of an adequate ratio between Sending and Receiving Lands. See Findings 72-91, infra. At the very least, the delineations are fairly debatable; and the contentions of Coalition, Century, and the Husseys to the contrary are rejected. TDR Program The County recognized that the additional restrictions on much of the property within areas designated as Sending may have an effect on property values. As a consequence, the County included a transfer of development rights ("TDR") program in the Rural Fringe Amendments. The Amendments describe the purpose of the TDR program as follows: The primary purpose of the TDR process within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is to establish an equitable method of protecting and conserving the most valuable environmental lands, including large connected wetlands systems and significant areas of habitat for listed species, while allowing property owners of such lands to recoup lost value and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such rights to other more suitable lands. Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and within designated areas of the Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, residential density may be transferred from lands designated as Sending Lands to lands designated as Receiving on the Future Land Use Map, subject to [certain expressly delineated criteria] . . . . J.4 at 50-51. The County's TDR program is an innovative land planning technique that is intended to enhance the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, provide for cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services, and prevent urban sprawl. J.4 at 50. It is designed to give property owners an incentive to protect their property from development while receiving a return in value through the sale of development rights. In so doing, it also serves as a land management technique to direct development from areas where it is not desired, while preserving the value of that area. TDR programs balance the protection of areas incompatible with development with the preservation of private property rights. They are also recognized as a development tool for overcoming urban sprawl. Through the TDR Program, the owners of Receiving- designated property may increase the allowable residential density on their property by purchasing or otherwise obtaining development credits transferred from property designated as Sending. Forty acres of property in Sending--while assigned an allowable density of only one residential unit--is worth eight development credits (one credit for each five acres). J.4 at 58. The specifics of the TDR program, including the process for the "sale" of development rights and the tracking of these transactions, are to be established by the County in its Land Development Regulations (LDRs) within one year. The specific dollar value of a TDR credit will ultimately be decided by the marketplace. Based on a study of land sales in Collier County, the County's expert, Dr. James Nicholas, concluded that a single credit would probably be worth approximately $18,500. Dr. Henry Fishkind, the expert called by Coalition and Century, agreed that this figure is supported by sales data in the area. For example, a property owner with 40 acres in a Sending area could build one residence on that property, or he could sell eight TDR credits to someone who plans to develop a more compact development in a Receiving Area. J.4 at 58-59. If the Sending Land owner elects the latter, he retains ownership of his property and may still utilize it for certain specifically identified purposes, including agriculture, passive parks, passive recreational uses, certain essential services, and oil extraction. J.4 at 60-61. A property owner with 40 acres in a Receiving area could build eight residences on that property without purchasing any development credits, or he could purchase 32 TDR credits and build 40 residences. Once he has obtained enough TDR credits to achieve this one-to-one density, he could further increase his residential density slightly by preserving more than the minimum required native vegetation on site. J.4 at 51. Dr. Nicholas warned that an excess supply of TDR credits, relative to the amount of Receiving Land available to receive those credits, would undermine the success of the TDR program. The ratio of Receiving Land to Sending Land is critical. Dr. Nicholas prefers a ratio of at least two acres of Receiving Land to each acre of Sending. This ratio is not achieved within the Rural Fringe. Rather, the ratio is approximately 1:1 (25,729 acres of Receiving to 23,720 acres of Sending). See J.15 at 4 (which lists the acreages within each category). Taking into consideration Sending Lands that are already developed, Dr. Nicholas testified that approximately 4,100 TDR credits would be generated from the Sending Lands. Approximately 6,100 credits could be absorbed in the Receiving areas, where densities of up to one unit per acre--an increase of four additional units--can be achieved through a purchase of TDR credits. J.4 at 51. In order to bolster the demand for TDR credits, the Rural Fringe Amendments include a number of other additional markets for credits. First, the amendments provide for a limited transfer of TDR credits outside of the Rural Fringe for two purposes: (1) in-fill in the Urban Area on parcels of 20 acres or less; and (2) transfer from areas within one mile of the Urban boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe. J.4 at 34-35. These two options will create a market for approximately 1,000 additional TDR credits (250 as urban in-fill and 750 in the urban fringe.) In addition, the Amendments provide a market for TDR credits for the development of rural villages. See Findings 11-13, supra, for description of rural villages. Rural villages must be at least 300 acres in size, up to a maximum of 1,500 acres, with the exception that a rural village located south of the (South) Belle Meade NRPA, which is south of Interstate 75, may be as large as 2,500 acres. The minimum and maximum gross densities for a rural village outside NBM are two units per acre and three units per acre, respectively. J.4 at 63. Thus, a rural village outside NBM must include at least 600 residential units, but could have as many as 4,500 or 7,500, depending upon its location. For each TDR credit purchased for the development of a rural village, the purchaser receives one bonus, up to the minimum required density, and the minimum density can only be achieved through the combination of base density, TDR credits, and TDR bonuses. J.4 at 64. Additional density--up to the maximum of three units per acre--can be achieved through the purchase of more TDR credits, through the preservation of more native vegetation on site than the minimum required, and/or through the inclusion of affordable housing. J.4 at 64. Consequently, for a rural village of 1,500 acres outside NBM, the developer would need to build at least 3,000 dwellings (2 units per acre). Assuming that the rural village is surrounded by a 800-acre greenbelt,27 it would start with a base density of 460 units28 and would need to purchase 1,270 TDR credits in order to achieve his minimum density of two units per acre. The provisions applicable to the one rural village permitted in NBM differ slightly. There, the minimum gross density is 1.5 units per acre, of which at least 0.5 units per acre must be obtained through the purchase of TDRs. J.4 at Assuming the same 1,500-acre development with an 800-acre greenbelt as described above, the developer would need to acquire 1,790 units more than would be available through the combined base densities of the village itself and the greenbelt in order to achieve minimum density.29 Of these additional units, 750 would have to be obtained through the purchase of TDR credits. Recognizing that there will probably be no more than two or three rural villages developed, Dr. Nicholas estimated that rural villages will absorb between 4,000 and 7,500 TDR credits, with the greater probability that the absorption rate will be closer to the lower number. Thus, in combination with the other markets for TDR credits created by the amendments, Dr. Nicholas estimated that there will be a demand for approximately 11,100 credits, resulting in a more acceptable ratio of just under three units of demand to one unit of supply. In their PRO, the Husseys attempted to raise the specter that the Amendments create too large a market for TDR credits so as to trigger Dr. Nicholas' concerns that, in that situation, potential transfers would be frustrated because TDR prices would rise to levels making their use infeasible for potential users, including developers of rural villages. But the Husseys based their concerns on maximum potential absorption of TDR credits, raising the supposed ratio of TDR buyers to sellers to 7-to-1 (or even 8-to-1 by disregarding the Urban Fringe one-mile limitation described in Finding 82, supra). The greater weight of the evidence was that the realistic market for TDR credits will be much smaller than the maximum potential absorption rates. Taking the realistic market into account, the probable actual absorption ratio is not much more than 2-to-1, which is ideal according to Dr. Nicholas. It also should be noted that the Husseys' arguments run counter to the testimony of their own expert on the subject. Dr. Fishkind agreed with Dr. Nicholas that there will be a functioning market for TDR credits generated from the Sending Areas, that the County’s TDR program is economically feasible, and that the County has the capacity to administer it. In addition, the Amendments include specific provisions requiring the County to establish a process for evaluating the TDR program. J.4 at 62. The purpose of such monitoring will be to assess whether revisions, such as the addition of either more Sending or Receiving Land or a change in the value of TDR credits, are necessary to ensure the success of the program. In concept, the success of the TDR program in achieving the objectives of directing development away from some areas and toward others, while preserving value in the former, is at least fairly debatable. The program's actual success in achieving these objectives initially hinges upon whether the County has appropriately designated Receiving and Sending Lands. If necessary, changes can be made to improve the program and increase its chances of success.
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 finding the Collier County's Rural Fringe Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2003, 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 29th day of April, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Plan Amendments 07-L08 and 07-L39, adopted by Marion County Ordinance 07-31, are "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Intervenors are the owners and developers of 359.30 acres of land south of Ocala in Marion County north of County Road (CR) 484, between Interstate Highway 75 (I-75) and the City of Belleview (the Golden Oaks site). They also own land in Marion County in the Ocala Ranchettes subdivision, which is in the extreme northeast corner of Marion County. On November 20, 2007, the Marion County Board of County Commissioners adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendments 07-L08 and 07-L39. Plan Amendment 07-L08 changes the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for the Golden Oaks site from Rural Land to Medium Density Residential, which has an open space requirement of at least 350 square feet per residential unit. Plan Amendment 07-L39 is a text amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) limiting development on the Golden Oaks site to a maximum of 523 single-family residential units. Mr. and Mrs. Babcock own land and reside in Marion County near the 359.30 acres subject to the FLUM change. No evidence was presented during the hearing as to whether the other Petitioners own land or reside in Marion County. However, Respondents and Intervenors stipulated in their Joint PRO that all Petitioners are "affected," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners and Intervenors submitted oral or written comments on the Plan Amendments between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the Plan Amendments. Petitioners contend that, as a result of the Plan Amendments, the Marion County Comprehensive Plan fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)8. 6. Rule 9J-5.003(134) states: "Urban sprawl" means urban development or uses which are located in predominantly rural areas, or rural areas interspersed with generally low-intensity or low-density urban uses, and which are characterized by one or more of the following conditions: (a) The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; (b) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area; or (c) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided. Urban sprawl is typically manifested in one or more of the following land use or development patterns: Leapfrog or scattered development; ribbon or strip commercial or other development; or large expanses of predominantly low- intensity, low-density, or single-use development. Whether a comprehensive plan or plan amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl is determined by Rule 9J-5.006(5), which includes a complicated method for evaluating 13 primary indicators of urban sprawl. The first primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low- intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need." The Plan Amendments are not "in excess of demonstrated need" when considered on a county-wide basis because Intervenors and the County entered into a binding Developer's Agreement not to develop 475 lots in the Ocala Ranchettes subdivision (leaving just five vested lots in the subdivision).3 However, the 523 maximum allowable residential units under the Plan Amendments exceed demonstrated need in the County's Planning District 14, where Golden Oaks is located.4 The second primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Golden Oaks is in an area that is in transition. It is approximately three miles east of I-75 and approximately three miles southwest of Belleview (approximately four road miles along CR 484). It is approximately a half-mile west of the western edge of the Urban Reserve area that extends southwest from Belleview. Much of the land surrounding Golden Oaks is rural in character. The Golden Oaks site has a flag-like shape. It is narrow where it fronts on the north side of CR 484 (the "flagpole") and widens at a distance to the north of CR 484 (the "flag"). Much frontage along CR 484 is now in commercial/business use (including frontage immediately east of the "flagpole" of the Golden Oaks site and south of the "flag" part of Golden Oaks) or designated for future commercial or mixed use (including the Goolsby mixed-use development and a rural activity center, which are on CR 484 approximately two miles east and west of Golden Oaks, respectively). Several tracts in the CR 484 corridor between I-75 and Belleview are developed with residential densities as high as or higher than the densities designated for Golden Oaks by the Plan Amendments. One of these is a sprawling, non-conforming, but vested subdivision approximately a half-mile east of Golden Oaks called Belleview Heights. CR 484 is being four-laned between I-75 and the City of Belleview. Additional sewer and water capacity is being placed in the CR 484 corridor, which is transitioning into a more urban area. A new county library is being built along CR 484 approximately two miles east of Golden Oaks in the Goolsby mixed- use development. The evidence was that there is some land closer to existing urban areas than Golden Oaks that is available and suitable for development, but it was not clear from the evidence how much. There also are areas of urban infill that could be developed or redeveloped, but it was not clear from the evidence how much is available or if any would be suitable for large-scale development. The third primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments." The Plan Amendments are part of an emerging pattern of development in the CR 484 corridor. The fourth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems." Much of Golden Oaks was part of the larger Belleview Forest that has been clear-cut. There are at least two hydrated air-filled caves on the Golden Oaks site--the Belleview Formation Cave and the Loquat Cave. It has not been conclusively determined that there are no other similar caves on the site. The two known caves are worthy of preservation for scientific and other reasons. If preserved, they would have to be buffered from development by setbacks, and surface water would have to be managed to prevent contaminants from entering the caves, which likely are connected to the underlying aquifer. Care would have to be taken to strike a balance so that surface water management activities both protect water quality and do not lower the water table enough to de- hydrate the caves. The evidence was that these objectives can be accomplished under the Marion County Comprehensive Plan, which requires springs protection. The Ocala Ranchettes subdivision is in an environmentally sensitive area of wet prairie. The environmental benefits of the Developer's Agreement offset any environmental detriment from the Plan Amendments. The fifth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils." With the 523-unit maximum, it should be possible to develop Golden Oaks and adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas (mainly, horse farms and pastures) through buffers and limited road access to CR 484 (versus access through the rural areas to the immediate west, north, and east). One concern of Petitioners is the eventual conversion of more rural land to urban uses, which would be the subject of future land use decisions. The sixth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services." The seventh is the same but for future public facilities and services. The eighth primary indicator is similar--a plan or plan amendment that: "Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government." Golden Oaks is several miles from most public facilities and services. However, closer public facilities and services are planned or being built (for example, the four-laning of CR 484, sewer force mains and lines, water lines, and schools). Because the Plan Amendments limit density at Golden Oaks, they do not maximize the use of public facilities and services. Excess capacity is planned and being added for future development in the CR 484 corridor in addition to Golden Oaks. The ninth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses." Since the CR 484 corridor is in transition, urban uses are being introduced into what was a rural area. During the transition, there is not going to be a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The tenth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities." Because they allow development that is not infill or redevelopment, the Plan Amendments discourage or inhibit infill or redevelopment to a limited extent. The eleventh primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses." The Plan Amendments themselves provide for residential use only. It was not proven that they will fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Limiting access to Golden Oaks to CR 484 (versus access through the rural areas to the immediate west, north, and east) or through the existing commercial areas fronting CR 484 to the immediate south of Golden Oaks (east of the "flagpole" and south of the "flag" part of the site) could help encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. The twelfth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses." Golden Oaks is several miles from most existing linked or related land uses. As development proceeds in the emerging pattern along the CR 484 corridor, more linked or related land uses will be closer. The thirteenth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space." To the extent that the Plan Amendments result in a loss of functional open space, the loss is countered by the Developer's Agreement on the Ocala Ranchettes subdivision. Considering the extent, amount and frequency of the indicators of urban sprawl, and the presence and potential effects of multiple indicators, it is fairly debatable whether the indicators of urban sprawl collectively reflect a failure of the Plan Amendments, and the Marion County Comprehensive Plan as a whole, to discourage urban sprawl. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d) and (h).
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 Plan Amendments are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 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 19th day of November, 2009.
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Hendry County Comprehensive Plan adopted on February 25, 2014, by County Ordinance No. 2014- 03, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Respondent, Hendry County (Respondent or County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and amend a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. Petitioner, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Petitioner or Seminole Tribe), owns real property consisting of the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation and adjacent non-reservation lands located in the County. The address of the main tribal office is 31000 Josie Billie Highway, Clewiston, Florida 33440. On February 25, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing and adopted the Plan Amendment. The Seminole Tribe submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment through their counsel and several Tribal members at the adoption public hearing. Existing Land Uses and Future Designations Hendry County is approximately 1,190 square miles in size. The County is predominantly an agriculturally-based community with roughly 55 percent of the total land area in agricultural production and another 12 percent designated as preserve. Approximately 71 percent of the land area in the County is designated Agriculture on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).2/ Lands within the Agriculture Future Land Use Category (Ag FLU), some 529,936 acres, predominantly comprise the central, southern and eastern portion of the County. The Ag FLU designates those lands which “will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The County has limited property designated for future industrial and commercial use. Less than one-half percent of the land area on the FLUM is designated as Industrial. Less than two-tenths percent is designated as Commercial. Other future land use categories which allow Industrial development include Agriculture, Public, Multi-Use Development, and land within the Rodina sector plan, which authorizes a maximum of 1,900,000 square feet of Office, Civic, and Industrial uses. Industrial uses allowed within the Agriculture land use category include processing of agricultural products as Level One uses allowed as permitted uses, special exceptions, or accessory uses under the Land Development Code. A number of other uses, such as utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining, and solid waste recovery, are allowed as Level Two uses which require rezoning of the property to a Planned Unit Development, with significant review by County staff and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Less than one percent of the land area is designated for Public Use. The Public land use category designates areas which are publicly-owned, semi-public, or private lands authorized for public purposes, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. The largest industrial site in the County is the AirGlades industrial complex, which is designated as a Public land use on the FLUM. The site is approximately 2,400 acres in size, but only roughly 200 acres is in industrial use. The complex cannot be fully developed due to inadequate County wastewater facilities serving the site, Federal Aviation Authority restrictions (e.g., height limitations) on development in proximity to the Airglades airport, and lack of opportunity for fee ownership of property owned by the County.3/ Roughly one-half percent of the land area is designated Multi-Use. Designated lands are generally located adjacent to the primary transportation system and existing or programmed utilities. The purpose of this land use category is to promote new development and redevelopment of the properties located within the category. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Industrial development in the Multi-Use category is limited to 0.75. As with industrial uses, commercial uses are allowed in land use categories other than Commercial. The Agriculture category allows commercial uses such as ornamental horticulture and nurseries. Non-residential intensity is generally limited to an FAR of .40. Commercial development is allowed within both the Medium–Density and High-Density Residential FLU Categories; however, development is limited to residential-serving commercial, must be approved through the PUD rezoning process, and is limited to 15 percent of the uses within the PUD. Less than one percent of the County is designated as Rural Special Density, and, under the existing Plan, this designation cannot be expanded. The Residential Special Density category allows commercial and retail on no more than 10 percent of the designated area and with a total cap of 200 square feet at buildout. Commercial development is also allowed within the Multi-Use category, but is limited to an FAR of .25 for retail commercial, .50 for mixed-use buildings (maximum of 25 percent retail), and .30 FAR for mixed-use buildings with commercial on the first floor. The County is sparsely populated with concentrations surrounding the cities of Clewiston and LaBelle, including Port LaBelle, as well as the unincorporated areas known as Felda and Harlem. The cities of LaBelle and Clewiston and the unincorporated populated areas are located at the northernmost end of the County along State Road 80 (SR 80). The Felda Community is located in the northwestern portion of the County, south of the City of LaBelle. Most of the development in the County since 1999 has occurred in and surrounding the incorporated areas of LaBelle and Clewiston, primarily adjacent to the City of LaBelle and along SR 80 from LaBelle to the Lee County line. The vast majority of land in the County is not served by centralized public utilities, such as sewer and water. Existing public utilities, including centralized water and sewer, are limited to the northernmost areas of the County surrounding the cities of LaBelle and Clewiston, and along SR 80. South of LaBelle and Clewiston, there are only three north/south and two east/west principle arterial or collector roads in the County. All of these are two-lane roads, and only SR 29 south of LaBelle is planned to be widened to four lanes under either alternative in the County’s 2040 long-range transportation plan. Economic Conditions It is undisputed that the economic condition of the County is dire. The County ranks high in many negative economic indicators, including a 30 percent poverty rate (compared to 17 percent statewide), the highest unemployment rate in the state for 34 of the most recent 36 months, and an annual wage $10,000 lower than the state average. Roughly 80 percent of County school children qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch, and a high percentage of the County population are Medicaid recipients. The County’s ability to raise revenue through taxation is limited by the extent of property exempt from ad valorem taxation (e.g., government-owned property), and the extent classified as Agricultural and assessed at less than just value. Slightly more than half of the just value of property in the County is subject to an Agricultural classification. Another 21 percent of the just value of property in the County is government-owned, thus exempt from ad valorem taxation. More than half of the parcels in the County are taxed as vacant residential, and less than two percent are taxable commercial properties. On May 24, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a workshop on proposed new Mission, Vision, and Core Values statements for the County. On September 13, 2011, the Board adopted the following Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment was adopted in an effort to attract large-scale commercial and industrial businesses to locate in, and bring jobs to, the County. Under the Plan Amendment, a new development project that is designated as an Economic Engine Project (EEP), and “large-scale commercial and/or industrial” developments, are expressly permitted in any and all FLU categories throughout the County with the exception of Agricultural Conservation, Residential - Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. The Plan Amendment is designed to spur economic development by “streamlining” the permitting process to give the County a competitive advantage in attracting new business. By permitting EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses in nearly every future land use category, the Plan Amendment is intended to eliminate the costs (in both time and money) of processing comprehensive plan amendments for future development projects. The amount of land eligible for siting either an EEP or a large-scale commercial and/or industrial development under the Plan Amendment is approximately 580,000 acres.4/ The majority of that land area, 529,936.49 acres, is located within the Agriculture FLU category. The Plan Amendment significantly rewrites the Economic Development Element of the County’s Plan, and adds new policies to Chapter 1, Goal 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), related to “Innovative Planning and Development Strategies.” The Plan Amendment rewrites Goal 2 as follows:5/ In order to protect water resources, protect the environment and wildlife habitat, build a more sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote energy efficiency, and to permit job creation for the citizens and residents of Hendry County, the following innovative land use planning techniques should be encouraged: In order to build a sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote job creation, and support vibrant rural and urban communities, the following flexible development strategies are encouraged: Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies list in Section 163.3168, Florida Statutes. Innovative and creative planning tools. Innovative Flexible and strategic land use techniques listed and defined in this comprehensive plan. The Plan Amendment adds the following new Objective and Policies to FLUE Goal 2: Objective 2.1: Recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to economic development to meet the needs of the existing and future urban, suburban and rural areas. Policy 2.1.1: A qualifying County economic development and job creation project (Economic Engine Project) is a project that complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element, Hendry County's compatibility requirements, Policy 2.1.2, and which will have adequate infrastructure. These projects shall be allowed in any category listed in the Future Land Use Element except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre- Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Economic Development Element. Additionally, Economic Engine Projects shall be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, and the sector plan. Densities and Intensities shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Policy 2.1.2: Large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in any Future Land Use category, except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas if they meet the requirements below. In addition, large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, F.S., the sector plan, and meet the requirements below. Policy 2.1.2 does not apply to industrial development located in the industrial land use category nor commercial development located in the commercial land use category. The development is approved as a PUD as provided in the Land Development Code; The development is consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners; The project has direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development; The project has access to, will upgrade/extend existing utilities, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility's financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone; The project has access to and can provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate; The project will provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues. Large-scale Commercial and/or Industrial development must be a minimum of eighty (80) acres. The County reserves the right to require the project area to be larger if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project. The project must demonstrate that it will produce at least fifty (50) new jobs within three years after the project is initiated. The development must contribute positively to the County's economy. If the project requires that the County expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program, the developer shall cooperate with the County in obtaining the funds. This provision includes requiring the County to accelerate a programmed project. If necessary, the owner/developer of the project will work with the appropriate educational facilities to create the necessary education and training programs that will enable Hendry County residents to be employed with the Large- scale Commercial and/or Industrial development. Intensities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Densities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. Additionally, the Plan Amendment adds the following definitions to the Plan: "Economic Engine Project" means a qualifying County economic development and job creation project which complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element and means the proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry. "Target Industry" means an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness. Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida's Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries; and Agricultural Industries New Economic Development Element Policy 10.1.7, reads as follows: The County Administrator has the authority to designate a project as a County-approved Economic Engine Project provided it meets the definition of an Economic Engine Project, the criterion in future land use element Objective 2.1, and policies 2.1.1- 2.1.2. Petitioner’s Challenge Petitioner challenges the Plan Amendment as not “in compliance” with chapter 163. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment fails to appropriately plan for orderly future growth by providing measurable and predictable standards to guide and control the future growth and distribution of large-scale commercial and industrial developments and Economic Engine Projects throughout the County; is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis; is internally inconsistent with other goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan; and fails to discourage urban sprawl. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) provides, “The [local government comprehensive plan] shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations.” Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires the local government to designate, through the FLUE, the “proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for” commercial and industrial categories of use. Further, this section requires the local government to include the “approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use . . . for the gross land area in each existing land use category.” Subparagraph 163.3177(6)(a)1. requires local governments to define each future land use category “in terms of uses included” and to include “standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities.” Designated Economic Engine Projects The Plan Amendment does not define an EEP in a manner sufficient to put property owners on notice as to what use might be approved within the approximately 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment defines an EEP as a “proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry.” “Target industry” is further defined by the Plan Amendment as “an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness.” The definition continues, as follows: Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries Agricultural Industries Under Policy 2.1.1, a project that meets the definitions above may be designated as an EEP by the County Administrator, pursuant to Policy 10.1.7, if it meets the criterion in Policy 2.1.2, and if it “complies with the County’s compatibility requirements and [has] adequate infrastructure.” As adopted, the Plan Amendment provides no meaningful standard for the use or development of land for an EEP. The definition of an industry that “contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness” is essentially open-ended, defining an EEP only in the sense that it must be different from the existing predominate County industry -- Agriculture. Yet, even that distinction is eliminated by the inclusion of “Agricultural Industries” on the list of target industries “that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP. The list of industries defined as “eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP provides no meaningful standard because it incorporates by reference industries listed by, targeted by, or “aligned with,” private and quasi-government entities such as Enterprise Florida, Visit Florida, and Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative. The definition does not even fix to a specific date the list of targeted industries designated by those business development entities, thus rendering the Amendment “self-amending,” without any meaningful list of qualifying uses. Moreover, the definition of “target industry” incorporates these third-party lists with the qualification “including but not limited to.” Thus, determination of an EEP is at the sole discretion of the County Administrator. Sarah Catala, Hendry County associate planner, is the author of the Plan Amendment. Ms. Catala testified that an EEP could encompass a wide variety of uses, including ecotourism (e.g., bird-watching tours), manufacturing, and large-scale commercial development such as a Super Walmart. The Plan Amendment is essentially circular. The definition of an EEP refers to compliance with Policy 10.1.7, but Policy 10.1.7 refers back to the definition and the criteria in Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Policy 2.1.1 requires an EEP to comply with Policy 10.1.7, as well as Policy 2.1.2. Objective 2.1 and Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 lack meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of EEPs. Policy 2.1.1, as previously referenced, refers the reader to Policy 2.1.2 and further states that EEPs must “comply with Hendry County’s compatibility requirements” and must have “adequate infrastructure.” The Plan Amendment does not define either “compatibility requirements” or “adequate infrastructure.” Nor does the Plan Amendment cross-reference any specific compatibility or infrastructure requirement in either the Plan or the County’s Land Development Regulations. The County highlights Policy 2.1.2 as the measurable criterion that directs the location, timing and extent of development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments throughout the County. However, as discussed below, Policy 2.1.2 does not resolve the Plan Amendment’s failure to provide meaningful and predictable standards directing the location, amount and timing of the development of EEPs or large-scale commercial and industrial in the County. Large-scale Commercial and Industrial Developments Policy 2.1.2 adds “large-scale commercial and industrial developments” as an allowable use in every FLU category in the County with the exception of the same three categories from which EEPs are excluded: Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. Large-scale commercial and industrial developments must meet the requirements listed in paragraphs (a) through (n) of Policy 2.1.2.6/ Policy 2.1.2(a) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to undergo a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) during which time various site-specific criteria found in the land development regulations will be applied to development of a particular project. The PUD rezoning criterion in the County’s LDRs govern the location of a particular use on a specific property. The PUD requirements do not relate in any way to the appropriate location of either an economic project or large-scale commercial or industrial development within the approximately 580,000 acres open for those developments under the Plan Amendment. Thus, this criterion is not a meaningful standard that provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of land for EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial use. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to be “consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.” It is undisputed that the said siting proposals have yet to be developed by staff. Ms. Catala anticipates developing a locational matrix that will “match up locations in the County with the needs of a business.” As such, the siting proposals will provide locational standards for future EEPs and large- scale commercial and industrial developments. As written and adopted, though, the Plan Amendment contains no such standards. Policy 2.1.2(c) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have “direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development.” This criterion simply requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have access to a roadway of some sort. It does not guide developments to locate within proximity to a roadway, or require direct access to a particular class of roadway. The criterion does not preclude the developer from building a road from the project to an existing local roadway. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment neither defines the term “adequate capacity” nor cross-references an existing definition of that term elsewhere in the Plan. Without a definition, the reader is left to speculate whether a particular project site is appropriate in proximity to any particular roadway. As written, Policy 2.1.2(c) does not provide meaningful standards for the location, distribution, or extent of either EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial projects within the approximately 580,000 acres designated eligible for these uses under the Plan Amendment. Policy 2.1.2(d) relates to the provision of utilities to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial project. The Policy reads as follows: The project has access to, will upgrade/extend, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility’s financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone. This criterion provides so many alternatives, it is essentially meaningless. Boiled down, the provision requires only that the project have utilities, which is essential to any development. The criterion does not direct the location of one of these projects to areas where utilities exist or are planned, but rather allows them anywhere within the approximately 580,000 acres as long as the developer provides needed utilities, somehow, some way. Policy 2.1.2(e) requires “[t]he project [to have] access to and . . . provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate[.]” This criterion provides locational criterion to the extent that a development for which rail facilities are integral must locate in proximity thereto. However, that criterion is self-evident. The policy does not add any guidance for the location, distribution, and extent of EEPs and large- scale commercial or industrial projects which do not require rail facilities. Policy 2.1.2(f) requires the project to “provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues.” Buffers, screening, and open space requirements are addressed at the PUD rezoning stage of development and do not provide guidance as to the location of development within any particular land area. Furthermore, the language does not direct an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development away from existing uses which may be incompatible therewith. The Plan Amendment actually anticipates incompatibility and requires development techniques to address incompatibilities at the rezoning stage. Policy 2.1.2(g) requires a minimum of 80 acres for a large-scale commercial or industrial development. The policy allows the County to increase that minimum size “if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project.” The policy has a veneer of locational criterion: it excludes development or redevelopment of parcels, or aggregated parcels, which are smaller than the 80 acre threshold. However, the policy provides an exception for the County to require larger parcels solely at its discretion. Again, the policy anticipates incompatibility between large- scale commercial or industrial development and the existing land uses. Policies 2.1.2(h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m) bear no relationship to location, distribution, or extent of the land uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment neither provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for commercial and industrial purposes nor meaningful standards for the future development of EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development. Section 163.3177(1) requires local government plan amendments to establish meaningful guidelines for the content of more-detailed land development regulations. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires large-scale commercial and industrial developments to be consistent with “siting proposals,” which Ms. Catala testified are anticipated to be adopted in the County’s land development code. Ms. Catala generally described a matrix that would help industry “get the best fit for their needs in the County.” The Plan Amendment does not provide any guidelines for adoption of a matrix or any other siting proposals to be adopted by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Policy 2.1.2.(b). Lastly, section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the FLUE establish the general range of density and intensity of the uses allowed. Ms. Catala testified that the intent of the Plan Amendment is not to change the density or intensity of uses from those already allowed in the plan. The plain language of the Plan Amendment does not support a finding that densities and intensities of use remain the same under the Plan Amendment. The intensity of non- residential development allowed under the Plan Amendment is, at best, unclear, and in some cases left entirely to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 2.1.1 provides that the densities and intensities of EEPs “shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories.” The County argues that a fair reading of the Policy restricts non-residential development to the intensities established in the underlying category for non-residential development. Under Policy 2.1.2, intensities of large-scale commercial and industrial developments “shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial Uses established in their respective land use categories.” While a fair reading of Policy 2.1.1 restricts the intensity of commercial or industrial development to the density established in the underlying land use district, Policy 2.1.2 does not. The pronoun “their” refers back to the Commercial and Industrial land use categories. Thus, under Policy 2.1.2, commercial and industrial uses can develop in other land use categories at the intensities established in the Commercial or Industrial category. Further, both Policy 2.1.1 and Policy 2.1.2 cap EEP intensity at 0.25 FAR in residential FLU categories. This language overrides the existing cap on non-residential development in those categories established in the FLUE. It also overrides those FLU categories, such as Residential Low- Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. Finally, Policy 2.1.2 contains no intensity cap on development of commercial and industrial development within residential FLU categories. The County explains that large- scale commercial and industrial developments are simply not allowed in FLU categories, such as Residential Low-Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. The County’s interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the policy. Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows large-scale commercial and industrial development in all land use categories except Agricultural-Conservation, Residential/ Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. If the County intended to exclude other FLU categories, they would have been included in the list of exceptions. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment does not establish the general range of intensity of large-scale commercial and industrial development. Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. requires local government FLUE amendments “to be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable” including the following: The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. The character of the undeveloped land. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. The compatibility of uses on land adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. The discouragement of urban sprawl. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. County staff did not collect data or perform an analysis of the character of the undeveloped land affected by the Plan Amendment. County staff did not perform any analysis of the suitability of the land area affected by the Plan Amendment for either a large-scale commercial or industrial development nor for an EEP. County staff did not perform an analysis of the availability of the County water supplies, wastewater treatment, or other public facilities, to serve large-scale commercial or industrial development or an EEP located within the area affected by the Plan Amendment. In fact, County staff acknowledged that wastewater treatment facilities are inadequate to support full buildout of the industrial sites available at the Airglades airport facility. County staff did not perform an analysis of the compatibility of large-scale commercial or industrial development adjacent to the Airglades airport facility. In preparing the Plan Amendment, County staff clearly relied upon data reflecting the County’s needs for job creation, economic development, and a diversified economy, including the Department of Revenue Property Tax Overview for Hendry County, and the fact that the County is designated a Rural Area of Critical State Concern. County staff also considered, in support of the Plan Amendment, the County Commission’s recently-adopted Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” No evidence was introduced to support a finding that County staff analyzed whether the Plan Amendment would achieve the goals of strengthening and diversifying the County’s economy. The County introduced the testimony of Greg Gillman, the County’s Economic Development Director, regarding his efforts to attract new business to the County, as well as the obstacles the County faces in these efforts. Mr. Gillman testified regarding five particular scenarios in which he worked with companies to find a suitable location in the County. In one scenario, the price was too high for the potential buyer. In another, the potential buyer was put off by the wooded acreage. In another, the seller would not subdivide. In another, the property is undergoing a PUD rezoning process. In the final scenario, Mr. Gillman testified the potential buyer rejected all proposed sites without explanation. Mr. Gillman did not give a single example of a scenario in which a potential business opportunity was lost due to the need to change the FLUM designation of a property. In fact, Mr. Gillman testified that he does not even show sites without appropriate land use classifications to potential buyers. While there is a plethora of data on the limited amount of land in the County classified for commercial and industrial uses, County staff gathered no data regarding, and conducted no analysis of, the vacancy rate of sites on which commercial and industrial uses are currently allowed. Mr. Gillman provided anecdotal evidence regarding recent efforts to redevelop vacant sites, some of which have been successful. Ms. Catala testified that, in addition to relying on the County’s Vision statement and economic data, she reviewed the comprehensive plans of other jurisdictions. From that review, she gleaned the idea of an EEP. The County introduced no evidence to support a finding that the threshold of 80 acres for an EEP was based upon data at all. Mr. Gillman’s testimony revealed that Ms. Catala originally proposed a higher threshold (perhaps 120 acres), but that he recommended a smaller acreage. Mr. Gillman gave no explanation of the basis for his recommendation. Section 163.3177(f) provides, “To be based on data means to react to it an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” Given the lack of evidence linking the Plan Amendment to spurring economic development, the County failed to demonstrate that it reacted appropriately to the economic data on which it relied. Even if Mr. Gillman’s anecdotes were accepted as data, they do not support eliminating plan amendments to allow commercial and industrial development in a variety of other land use categories. Internal Inconsistency Section 163.3177(2) provides as follows: Coordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process. The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent. The Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment changes to the FLUE and Economic Development Element are inconsistent with a number of goals, objectives, and policies found within the FLUE and in other plan elements. Each one is taken in turn. Future Land Use Element First, Petitioner alleges internal inconsistency within the FLUE, specifically between the Plan Amendment and FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.1.11, and 1.1.13. Policy 1.1.1 governs land uses allowed within the Agriculture FLU category. The policy states, in pertinent part, as follows: Purpose The purpose of the Agriculture Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040. * * * Location Standards Areas classified as Agriculture are located within the rural areas of Hendry County. Lands in this category are not within the urban area, but may be adjacent to the urban area. Some of these lands may be converted to urban uses within the 2040 planning horizon. However, the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040. The Plan Amendment affects more land designated as Agriculture than that designated in any other category. Slightly more than 70 percent of the County, almost 530,000 acres, is designated as Agriculture, and all of it is subject to development for an EEP or an 80-acre minimum commercial or industrial project under the Plan Amendment. Development of ill-defined EEPs and 80-acre minimum large-scale commercial and industrial projects is not consistent with designating lands “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state” through 2040. Respondent counters that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 1.1.1 because that Policy already allows a number of non-traditional agricultural uses which are commercial and/or industrial in nature, and may be sited through the PUD rezoning process, just as the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Policy 1.1.1 authorizes the use of Agriculture lands for utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining and earth extraction and processing operations, solid waste facilities, resource recovery facilities, and other similar uses. The County’s argument is not persuasive.7/ The non- agricultural uses allowed under the existing plan are agriculturally-related or agriculture-dependent uses, such as bio-fuel, mining, and resource recovery, or uses which, by their nature, are best suited to less-populated rural areas, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. In contrast, large-scale commercial and industrial uses are not limited to agriculturally-related or utility uses. Under the Plan Amendment, anything from an auto parts manufacturing plant to a Super Walmart could be developed in areas designated Agriculture. Any number of urban uses could be developed under the auspices of an EEP or large-scale commercial. Under the Plan Amendment, no amendment to the County’s comprehensive plan will be needed to allow such urban uses in the Agriculture category. Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5 govern land uses in the following FLU categories: Residential – Rural Estates, Residential – Medium Density, and Residential – High Density, respectively. According to Policy 1.1.3, the purpose of the Residential – Rural Estates category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which have been or should be developed at lower density in order to promote and protect the rural lifestyle through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy permits only residential and customary accessory uses within the category. The Policy specifically sets a FAR of 0.00 for non- residential development. According to Policy 1.1.4, the purpose of the Residential – Medium Density category is “to identify those areas within Hendry County which currently, or should be, encouraged to become the primary location of residential development offering a mixture of residential products at suburban/urban style density through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits single- and multi-family development, as well as mobile homes, and customary accessory uses. Commercial development is allowed only as an element of mixed-use developments, of which commercial is limited to 15 percent. Additional limitations on commercial apply, including limits on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.4 establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. According to Policy 1.1.5, the purpose of the Residential – High Density category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which are or should become higher density residential development through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits all types of residential development and customary accessory uses. As with medium-density category, Policy 1.1.5 allows some commercial development within mixed-use developments subject to limitations on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering. The policy establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. Under the Plan Amendment, each of these three Residential categories is available for siting an EEP. New Policy 2.1.2 allows for development of EEPs in these categories at an FAR of 0.25. The Plan Amendment allows EEPs within the Residential Rural Estates category directly in contravention of Policy 1.1.3, which limits uses to residential, recreational, and limited agricultural, and provides zero intensity for non- residential uses. As previously noted, the Plan Amendment broadly defines EEPs, and the record supports a finding that such a project could encompass anything from a manufacturing facility to a Super Walmart. The broad array of uses to diversify the County’s economy is in conflict with the County’s previous decision, reflected in Policy 1.1.3 to designate these areas for future development at low-density residential “to promote and protect the rural lifestyle.” Likewise, the Plan Amendment opens up the Residential Medium Density and Residential – High Density categories for location of ill-defined EEPs in contravention of Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit development in those categories to primarily residential, only allowing commercial within a mixed- use development and limited to a maximum of 15 percent. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment allows these developments at a greater intensity than the FAR of 0.10 established for non- residential density in those categories. The parties disagreed as to whether the Plan Amendment authorizes large-scale commercial and industrial development in the Residential – Rural Estates category governed by Policy 1.1.3. The argument primarily turns on interpretation of new Policy 2.1.2, as discussed in the previous section herein titled “Meaningful and Predictable Standards.” The County contends that the correct interpretation of Policy 2.1.2 allows a large-scale commercial or industrial development at the maximum intensity established in the underlying land use category. In other words, if the underlying land use category establishes an FAR of 0.00 for industrial development, no industrial development is allowed. However, if the same category establishes an FAR for commercial development, the Plan Amendment allows commercial development in that category limited to the intensity established by the FAR. The undersigned has rejected that interpretation as discussed in the prior section herein. Petitioner contends that the language allows commercial and industrial development in every non-exempt land use category at the intensities established in the Commercial and/or Industrial land use category, as applicable. Petitioner’s interpretation is the correct interpretation, and indeed the only possible reading of the plain language of Policy 2.1.2(l).8/ Policy 1.1.9 governs uses in the Commercial land use category. The Policy allows non-residential development at the following intensities: Retail Commercial – 0.25 FAR Office – 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR for mixed-use building with a maximum of 25% retail and a minimum of 75% office 0.30 FAR for mixed-use development with commercial on the first floor and residential on stories above the first floor. Allowing large-scale commercial development at the stated intensities directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; Policy 1.1.4, which caps intensity at 0.10 for commercial in Residential – Medium; and Policy 1.1.5, which provides an FAR of 0.10 in Residential – High. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.2.1 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.10 governs uses in the Industrial land use category. The Policy allows industrial development at an intensity of 0.75. Allowing large-scale industrial development at an intensity of 0.75 directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; and Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit non-residential uses to commercial and recreation in the Residential – Medium and Residential – High land use categories. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.1.2 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 governing development within the Commercial and Industrial categories, respectively. The allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Plan Amendment does not alter either the uses allowed in those categories or the intensity of development allowed therein. Those policies are essentially unscathed. However, because the Plan Amendment allows the types and intensities of development described in the Commercial and Industrial categories to occur in residential and other categories in which those uses and intensities conflict, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the policies governing those residential and other categories. Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 are merely the conduits through which Policy 2.1.2 is found to be inconsistent with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.11 governs land uses in the Public category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Public Future Land Use Category is to establish regulations relative to use and location of publicly- owned lands, semi-public lands, and private lands authorized for public purposes which currently exist or which may become public through the planning horizon 2040. Description/Uses Lands in this category are areas designated for public and semi-public uses, including governmental buildings, schools, churches, and worship centers, utilities, solid waste handling and disposal facilities, airports, logistic centers when operated on public property, recycling facilities, and similar public and semi-public uses. This category may also include publicly-owned parks and other public/semi-public recreational facilities. There is no dispute that the Plan Amendment would allow both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses within the Public land use category. Large-scale commercial and industrial development is inconsistent with the purpose of the Public land use category adopted in Policy 1.1.11 and the uses established therein. Because the Plan Amendment provides no clear definition of an EEP, and leaves the determination solely to the County Administrator, it is impossible to determine whether allowing said development in the Public land use category would necessarily be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.11. Policy 1.1.13 governs uses in the Leisure/Recreation category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Leisure/Recreation Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which are used or may become used for free standing/independent leisure/recreation activities through the planning horizon 2040. * * * Description/Uses Leisure/Recreation areas are sites which are currently developed for leisure/recreation facilities or undeveloped sites which are designated for development as leisure/ recreation facilities. . . . Uses allowed within this category shall be limited to sports facilities whether individually developed or in sports complexes, active and/or passive parks, recreation vehicle parks, campgrounds (whether primitive or improved), marinas, golf courses, equestrian centers and riding areas, sporting clay facilities, eco tourism activities, and similar leisure and recreation facilities and ancillary facilities. Large-scale industrial and commercial development would directly conflict with the purpose and types of use allowed within this category pursuant to Policy 1.1.13. As the Plan Amendment provides a very broad definition of EEP, it is impossible to determine that every such use would be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.13. In fact, since an EEP may include eco-tourism uses, location within Leisure/Recreation may be entirely suitable. Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17, which provides, as follows: The County’s development regulations shall specifically encourage redevelopment, infill development, compatibility with adjacent uses, and curtailment of uses inconsistent with the character and land uses of surrounding area, and shall discourage urban sprawl. No evidence was introduced regarding whether the County’s land development regulations fall short of this Policy mandate. The County’s expert testified that he had not reviewed the County’s land development regulations to determine whether they met this requirement. Petitioner’s expert provided no testimony on this issue. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17. Other Plan Elements Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Infrastructure Element Objective 7.A.3 and Policy 7.A.3.1, which read as follows: Objective 7.A.3: The County shall maximize use of existing sewer facilities and discourage urban sprawl within infill development. In addition, limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map. This Objective shall be implemented through the following policies: Policy 7.A.3.1: The Future Land Use Element and Map allows density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer connections than the more remote areas. The Plan Amendment allows development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial projects regardless of the availability of existing sewer facilities to the project site. The Plan Amendment expresses no preference between, and alternately allows said development with either, access to existing sewer facilities, or provision of on-site wastewater treatment. The Plan Amendment does not change the land use designations on the existing Future Land Use Map. Nearly 580,000 acres opened up for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development under the Plan Amendment is designated on the FLUM as Agriculture. Policy 1.1.1 specifically defines the Agriculture category for those areas of the County “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy clearly characterizes the Agriculture designations on the FLUM as “rural areas of Hendry County,” and, while it recognizes that “some of these lands may be converted to urban uses” within the planning horizon, “the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040.” Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows a public or private provider to “extend and/or expand” utilities in order to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development. Thus, the Plan Amendment does not “limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map” as required by Objective 7.A.3. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not “allow the greatest density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer extensions than the more remote areas.” Indeed, Ms. Catala testified consistently that one of the main objectives of the Plan Amendment was to provide more flexibility for development than allowed under the existing plan. Next, Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Traffic Circulation Element Policy 8.5.3, which reads as follows: Revisions of the roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map shall be coordinated with and connect or directly serve existing development areas or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. The Plan Amendment does not revise any roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. No evidence was presented that the said revisions would not be coordinated with existing or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 8.5.3. Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Concurrency Management Element Policy 9.2.1, which reads, as follows: The Future Land Use Map is developed to coincide with the availability of public facilities and/or natural resources such that new facilities are not necessarily required for new development. The Plan Amendment allows both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development to occur without regard to availability of public facilities. Although Policy 2.1.2 recognizes the importance of serving these new projects by adequate utilities of all types, it specifically allows public providers to build new, or extend existing, infrastructure to serve those developments. Further, the Plan Amendment anticipates the construction of new facilities to serve these developments, even requiring the County to accelerate projects in its Capital Improvements Program. The Plan Amendment conflicts with Policy 9.2.1 by authorizing development in areas on the FLUM for which public facilities are neither available nor planned. Future Land Use Map Series Finally, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the maps adopted in the current plan, specifically the FLUM and Conservation Map series. Because the Plan Amendment allows large-scale commercial and industrial developments in land use categories with which those uses are inconsistent, the location and distribution of uses shown on the FLUM are no longer accurate. The Conservation Map series indicates the generalized location in the County of eight different environmental categories, including soils, panther habitat, and historical resources. Very little evidence was adduced relative to whether the Plan Amendment directly conflicted with any one of the maps in the series. The evidence presented related more to the issue of whether the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment directly conflicts with the Conservation Map series. Urban Sprawl Petitioner’s final challenge to the Plan Amendment is that it does not discourage urban sprawl as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b. provides as follows: The future land use element or plan amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following: Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. Promotes the efficient and cost- effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available. Promotes conservation of water and energy. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including siliviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes urban sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented development or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164. Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment does not meet any of the listed criterion, thus the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County maintains the Plan Amendment meets at least four of the foregoing indicators, and, thus, must be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County’s expert witness testified that, in his opinion, the Plan Amendment meets indicators I, II, IV, V, VII, and perhaps VI. In making the following findings, the undersigned considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses and found Petitioner’s expert opinions to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets indicator I if it directs or locates EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment contains no locational criteria for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments within the 580,000 acres of land opened up for these uses under the Plan Amendment. County staff had data, in the form of the existing conservation land use map series and the soils map, to draw from in determining areas inappropriate for these types of development. Ms. Catala did not rely upon that data, however, explaining instead that her knowledge of the location of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural resources within the subject area was derived from her day-to-day work. Ms. Catala performed no analysis of the impact of potential large-scale commercial or industrial uses on the natural resources and ecosystems which are present in the affected area. The County argues that the Plan Amendment meets criterion I because it does not allow the subject developments in the Agriculture Conservation Land Use Category, thus the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources located in that category. Policy 1.1.1(b). states the purpose of the Agriculture Conservation category is to define those areas within the County which are predominantly jurisdictional wetlands or contain a large portion of wetlands. Land in this category also includes state projects designed to meet the water quality and quantity goals related to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The policy strictly limits both the type and intensity of development which may be located within this category. For example, non-agricultural development is limited to large-lot single-family homes, clustered developments, and rural PUDs, at an intensity no greater than 0.10. The County’s argument misses the mark. The issue is not whether the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment are excluded from land in protected categories, but whether the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources present in the 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Conservation Element Map Series documents the location of wetland, floodplains, primary and secondary panther habitat, and hydric soils within the County, including the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Because the Plan Amendment allows the subject development to occur anywhere within the 580,000 acres without regard to location of natural resources, it cannot be found to direct or locate development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion I. Criterion II applies if the Plan Amendment promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. The Plan Amendment allows the subject development to locate without regard to the availability of public infrastructure or services. The Plan Amendment acknowledges that the development must be served, but anticipates that a public or private provider may have to extend services to the property, and does not discourage location of said projects in remote areas where said services are neither available nor planned. Further, the Plan Amendment acknowledges that the County may have to “expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program” to serve the development. Extending services to remote areas of the County is neither efficient nor cost-effective, especially in light of the fact that development could occur in multiple far-flung areas under the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion II. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet sprawl criterion IV because it does nothing to promote conservation of water and energy. The Amendment allows on-site utilities, including wells, to service new development. By allowing development in remote areas of the County, the Plan Amendment does not promote energy conservation. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion V, “[p]reserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique and prime farmland and soils.” The Plan Amendment does not relate to the soils map and direct development away from prime farmland and soils. Further, the Plan Amendment allows conversion of some 580,000 acres of land designated “Agriculture” to non-agricultural uses. Lands in the Agriculture land use category have been designated by the County to “continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Plan Amendment meets criterion VI if it “preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs.” The County’s expert testified that the Plan Amendment will increase the County’s tax base so that more public open space and recreation can be provided. Petitioner’s expert testified that the subject developments will intrude into rural open spaces and natural lands and “could change the scenic landscape” of the County. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VI. Criterion VII applies if the Plan Amendment creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the non-residential needs of the area. Neither party introduced any evidence regarding the amount of commercial or industrial development needed to serve the residential population of the County. Certainly the unemployment statistics indicate a need for employment opportunities. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VII. Criterion III and VIII do not apply to the Plan Amendment. Having determined that the Plan Amendment does not meet four or more of the criterion to be determined not to promote the proliferation of urban sprawl, the analysis then turns to the primary indicators of urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. lays out 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Again, the evidence conflicted as to whether the Plan Amendment meets any of the indicators. In making the following findings, the undersigned has considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses, and found the testimony of Petitioner’s expert to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets several of the primary indicators of the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment allows loosely-identified EEPs and large-scale commercial development to occur in roughly 580,000 largely rural acres currently designated for Agriculture. The Plan Amendment does not limit location of these developments within the Agriculture designation. Thus, the Plan Amendment “[p]romotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development” which is indicator II. Promoting these areas for development is, in fact, the main purpose of the Plan Amendment. Indicator IV is triggered if the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to adequately protect and conserve” a litany of natural resources and natural systems. The Plan Amendment meets this indicator because it does not direct development away from natural resources which may be located within the 580,000 acres in which it promotes development. Under the Plan Amendment, vast areas currently in, or designated for, agricultural uses, are allowed to convert to urban uses without a plan amendment. The Plan Amendment does not direct development away from existing agricultural uses. Thus, the Plan Amendment meets indicator V: “Fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.” Similarly, the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses[,]” thus triggering indicator IX. On the issue of public facilities, the Plan Amendment meets both criterion VI and VII. The Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities because it does not direct development to areas where public facilities, including roads, sewer, and water, are available. Likewise, the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of future public facilities, because it allows development to occur in areas where public facilities are not planned. In addition, the Plan Amendment anticipates the extension of facilities to serve potentially far-flung development, but would not require subsequent future development to locate where the new service was available (i.e., infill development). For this same reason, the Plan Amendment discourages infill development, triggering indicator X. Similary, because it allows scattered large-scale development, the Plan Amendment triggers indicator VIII: “Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining” a litany of public facilities and services. Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment triggers indicators I, III, XI, XII, and XIII. Petitioner proved that the Plan Amendment meets indicators II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X. On balance, the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Coniglio through a profit sharing plan owns property in Sumter County which is affected by the plan adoption at issue here. He submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the plan review and adoption proceedings. He is a person affected by the plan adoption. Similarly Pownall, Cherry, Jones, the Turners and the Dixons as property owners and individuals who submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the plan review and adoption proceedings are affected persons. Moreover, Pownall, Cherry, Jones and Turner reside in Sumter County. The Dixons own and operate mining sites within Sumter County. Their residence and business interests in Sumter County create additional bases for determining that those individuals are affected persons. The department is the state land planning agency which has the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans in accordance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. That function was performed on this occasion associated with the comprehensive plan submitted by the county. The county is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan in accordance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. This county is a non-coastal county located in central Florida which is bordered by Citrus, Hernando, and Pasco counties to its west, Polk county to the south, Marion county to the north and Lake county to the east. It has within its boundaries five incorporated municipalities, Bushnell, Center Hill, Coleman, Webster and Wildwood. The unincorporated area of the county include approximately 350,000 acres. The 1991 unincorporated population of the county was 25,030 and was projected to increase to 30,773 within the ten-year planning horizon contemplated by the plan, in the year 2001. Plan Preparation, Adoption and Approval On March 27, 1991, the county submitted its proposed plan to the department for review as contemplated by Section 163.3184(3)(a), Florida Statutes. By such submission the county did not commit itself to the terms found within the proposed plan. Chapter 163, Part II, contemplates that the text within the proposed plan may change through the review, adoption and approval process that follows that submission. As anticipated by Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes, the department forwarded copies of the proposed plan to other agencies for review. The department in accordance with Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes, took into account the comments received from the other governmental agencies and prepared and transmitted its report of written objections, recommendations and comments (the ORC). The transmittal date for the ORC was July 2, 1991. The purpose of the ORC was to acquaint the county in detail concerning the department's objections, recommendations and comments. It was left over to the county to decide whether the suggested modifications recommended by the department would be adopted in an effort at establishing a plan which would be found "in compliance". The county considered the ORC report, to include the recommendations and made revisions to the text in the proposed plan when it adopted its plan on February 3, 1992. The adopted plan was transmitted to the department on February 28, 1992, for final review. In preparing and adopting the plan the county gave appropriate notice and provided the opportunity for public participation envisioned by law. On March 31, 1992, the department's secretary determined that the adopted plan met the requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Thus, the plan was found "in compliance". The determination finding the plan "in compliance" was memorialized through a memorandum dated March 24, 1992. On April 9, 1992, the department gave notice of its intent to find the plan "in compliance". The Coniglio Petition The Coniglio profit sharing plan owns 19.44 acres in Sumter County which Coniglio claims should be classified on the future land use map to the plan as industrial property not commercial property as the plan now describes. In particular, Coniglio asserts that the 19.44 acres that were designated as commercial was not by a decision based upon a survey, studies or data concerning that parcel and that the designation as commercial is inconsistent with the character of other parcels found within the immediate area. Coniglio argues that the analysis that was performed in classifying the property for designation in the future land use map has resulted in a land use which does not allow the best use or highest economic use of the subject property. This 19.44 acres is depicted on map VII-19 and is located to the north and east of the City of Wildwood. There is commercial acreage in the plan immediately adjacent to the property in question, all of which is part of a triangular shaped piece of land. There are present commercial uses adjacent to the property. Generally, the triangular shaped property, to include the 19.44 acres, is surrounded by other properties whose classification is municipal, industrial and rural residential. The property is further detailed in a sketch which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 and a Joint Exhibit No. 2. The property is south of County Road 462, west of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad line and east of U.S. 301. The southern boundary of the property is adjacent to an overpass which is 40 to 45 feet high. Coniglio's property has its longest axis fronting the railroad, contact with County Road 462 but no immediate contact with U.S. 301. The railroad line which is adjacent to the parcel is a principal track for the Seaboard Coastline Railroad carrying north/south traffic between Jacksonville and Tampa and Jacksonville and Orlando. The track splits in the City of Wildwood with some traffic going to Tampa and some traffic going to Orlando. A manufacturing plant is located east of the railroad in the vicinity where the subject property is found. This plant is Florida Corrugated which makes corrugated boxes. West of U.S. 301 in the vicinity of the property in question is found a company known as AST that manufactures steel pipes. In the vicinity of the property in question at the junction of County Road 462 and U.S. 301 a business is located known as McCormick Electric. In the immediate vicinity of the property is also found a convenience store and what previously was a motel that has been turned into rental units. Northeast of the intersection of County Road 462 and the railroad is property owned by Florida Power Corporation which is classified as industrial. The corrugated box plant is also on property classified as industrial, again referring to classifications in the future land use map. The AST property where stainless steel pipes are manufactured is on a parcel which is classified as industrial on the future land use map. As stated, the parcel in question is part of a larger triangular shaped parcel, that had been the topic for establishing an industrial park. In the proposed plan the subject parcel, a part of the larger parcel, had been classified as industrial. That designation of the parcel in the proposed plan was through the future land use map. Arrangements were made to provide water service to the industrial park. At present that service is available at the property in question. Arrangements, though not consummated, have also been made to extend sewer service from the City of Wildwood to the subject parcel. In anticipation of the use of the subject property under an industrial classification, Coniglio expended large sums of money. That included $85,000 for a railroad spur and in addition; $12,000 for track extensions, $8,500 for a water line and contribution of right-of-way for water service, sewer service and a road. All this effort was made by Coniglio's in the anticipation of the opening of the industrial park. Sumter County had been involved in the industrial park project through the process of an application to the Florida Department of Commerce seeking appropriation of $96,000 to construct a road associated with the industrial park. The county administered construction of the road and it is that road which Coniglio had donated right-of-way for. The railroad spur, water and sewer services would serve parcels other than the subject parcel owned by Coniglio. The county in preparing its proposed plan had worked with the Sumter County Development Council and other persons in the community in establishing the location for commercial and industrial classifications. One reason for designating the parcel in question as industrial was based upon its proximity to the railroad and as part of the overall industrial park which was being projected in the planning efforts by the county, the development council and others. Chemical Development Corporation appeared before the Sumter County Board of Adjustments to seek approval to operate its business of storage and treatment of hazardous waste on the subject property. The need to appear before the Sumter County Board of Adjustments, which operates independent of Sumter County and its governing board, the Sumter County Commissioners, was to gain a special exception to operate that type business in the county. A special exception needed to be granted by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments because the business to be engaged in involved hazardous waste. The decision by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments was upon a vote of 8 to 2 to grant the special exception following visitation to a plant similar to those activities the applicant for special exception hoped to be engaged in. That approval was granted in May, 1991 by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments. Following that approval the plan was adopted on February 3, 1992, and it changed the classification from industrial in the proposed plan to commercial in the adopted plan. Chemical Development Corporation the prospective tenant for the parcel in question was not granted an occupational license by the county and could not proceed with its operations. One of the enterprises that located in the proposed industrial park was Dairyman's Supply. It had completed construction and was ready for business before the plan was adopted. It began its operations in July, 1991. The decision to change the designation in the parcel in question from industrial to commercial was upon the recommendation of Glen Nelson, Director of Public Services for Sumter County. Among other reasons for the change, according to Nelson, was to thwart the purposes of Chemical Development Corporation in recognition that the change in classification from industrial to commercial would prohibit activities by that company. Notwithstanding the decision by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments to grant the special exception, that prohibition existed because industrial zoning was necessary for the would be tenant to proceed with its business at the site in question. By way of history, following the decision by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments to grant the special exception there was some opposition to the activities envisioned by the Chemical Development Corporation. That is to say, the establishment of a hazardous waste treatment facility. This community opposition predated the recommendation by Mr. Nelson, the decision by the Sumter County Commissioners to reject the application for an occupational license issued from the county, and the determination to present the subject parcel on the future land use map in the adopted plan as a commercial classification. The principal planner whom the county relied upon in preparing its plan was Jack Sullivan. He did not participate in the decision to change the subject parcel from industrial to commercial as reflected on the future land use map in the adopted plan. As explained by Mr. Nelson, other reasons for changing the plan related to the overall attempt by the county to meet perceived needs for balancing the amount of commercial and industrial acres within its adopted plan. To that end the March, 1991, proposed plan had contained approximately 200 acres on State Road 44 east of Wildwood designated as commercial that had been put there at the request of the Sumter County Development Council based upon the Council's discussions with a company that was considering the establishment of a distribution center. Between the time the proposed plan had been transmitted and the plan adoption took place the potential project located in Pasco County or some county south of Sumter County. Therefore, as stated by Mr. Nelson, the commercial designation was no longer needed. The commercial designation at that site changed to rural residential in the plan as adopted. To compensate for the loss of commercial on that 200 acres Mr. Nelson requested that an approximately 40 acre tract of land adjacent to Wildwood on the east side of State Road 44 be placed in the adopted plan as commercial together with 30 to 35 acres including the subject parcel. In making his recommendation to place the subject parcel as commercial Mr. Nelson was aware of those industrial activities in the general area surrounding the parcel in question that have been described. Mr. Nelson made his recommendation for change in the classification one or two months before the February 3, 1992 plan adoption. At the plan adoption hearing on February 3, 1992, Mr. Nelson indicated that the reason for changing the classification for the subject parcel was that the existing uses there were commercial and that the future land use map should reflect that reality. At the hearing no mention was made, by the provision of details, that the reason for changing was to compensate for the loss of the aforementioned 200 acres of commercial acres between the time of the proposed plan and the adoption of the plan on February 3, 1992. As Mr. Nelson explains, the action by the Sumter County Board of Adjustments in granting a special use exception to Chemical Development Corporation did not preclude the necessity to acquire the proper zoning on the parcel before proceeding with the business. That zoning had to be industrial and not commercial. In the more ordinary course the industrial zoning would have been sought first before the Sumter County Commissioners and the Sumter County Board of Adjustments would then have considered the special use. In this instance the Board of Adjustments acted first and the county made its determination second. Bill Keedy who sells industrial real estate expressed the opinion that the 19.44 acres would not be saleable as commercial real estate at least in the foreseeable future. Jim Morton who sells commercial, residential and agricultural properties expressed the opinion that the parcel in question has limited commercial value. Willard Peeples who owns a number of commercial rental properties did not believe that the subject property had commercial value due to limited access to road frontage. None of these individuals are certified in real estate appraisal. Mr. Keedy pointed out that the majority of commercial activity in the Wildwood area is in the middle of the town. Mr. Peeples observed that the commercial activity in Wildwood was located south of the city hall and on U.S. 301 and east and west on State Road 44. Mr. Morton expressed the belief that the highest and best use of the subject property was industrial. Mr. Keedy expressed the belief that an industrial use was promoted by the fact that the property on its east side was bordered by the railroad track. Mr. Nelson in making his recommendation to classify the property in question as commercial made that choice outside any experience in selling, owning or dealing in commercial property. There had been no commercial development north of the City Hall in Wildwood in the preceding ten years prior to hearing. Tony Arrant is an expert in land use planning employed by the department. He had significant involvement in the plan review performed by the department. He pointed out that the department's concerns about the plan and its land use classifications were based upon distribution of land uses throughout the entire county. The ORC did not offer objections to classification of any particular parcel. In the ORC there had been objection as to the extent and distribution of land uses based upon the belief that inadequate data and analysis had been provided to support the extent and distribution of land use. Moreover, the ORC found the plan in its proposed form deferred the establishment of densities and intensities for some land use categories within the plan. The ORC expressed concern about data and analysis supporting the future land use map. Therefore, objection was directed to the future land use map. However, the impression of the proposed plan was not based upon a policy to avoid commenting on specific parcels when occasion arose for such criticism. Mr. Arrant did not perceive that a change in classification of land use between the time that the proposed plan was reviewed by the department and the adoption of a plan was an irregular outcome. In fact, that possibility is a normal expectation. Mr. Arrant recalls the explanation by Mr. Nelson on February 3, 1992, when the plan was adopted concerning the change from the proposed plan to the adopted plan affecting the parcel in question, to have been based upon existing circumstances, existing land uses at that place and a movement in the distribution of parcels in the overall county associated with commercial and industrial classifications. Mr. Arrant pointed out, in the final perception he held about the adopted plan, that if the suitability analysis provided would support a commercial classification, that is to say, that it was equally suitable for commercial development or industrial development and there was data and analysis providing the need and extent of distribution for the classification, then it is the local government's choice to determine which site will be designated commercial and which site will be designated industrial. With that in mind, Mr. Arrant found no reason to take issue with the county in its commercial classification for the subject parcel. Mr. Arrant in his knowledge of the parcel in question found no wildlife habitat, wetlands, topographical, geographical or geophysical constraints which would limit the use of this property as commercial or industrial. Consequently, the choice in classification was left to the local government. Having in mind the facts previously found, it is recognized that the reasons for changing the land use classification on the subject parcel from industrial to commercial had a political component, stopping Chemical Development Corporation from doing business in Sumter County, unrelated to appropriate land use planning. Nonetheless other reasons the county gave for changing the classification from industrial to commercial when compared to the criticisms directed to the classification do not convince, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the county should be required to change the plan to reflect an industrial classification for the parcel in question. This finding is supported by review directed to the overall plan for land use classification within the county which is supported by appropriate data and analysis. Finally, Coniglio's expenditures associated with this parcel are not an appropriate topic for disposition in this case. Mining Policy 1.9.1 at pages VII-48 and 49 states the following in its preamble: Mining uses shall be provided for in areas designated as agricultural on the Future Land Use Map and shall be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit and approval of an operating permit pursuant to a mining site plan as provided for in the Land Development Regulations. It was not proven to the exclusion of fair debate, in fact, no proof was offered to suggest that the approval of a conditional use permit as opposed to a zoning permit should be the proper approach in describing this policy. Consequently, that allegation concerning the county's policy choice in the mining element is without merit. Policy 1.9.1 at page VII-49 goes on to describe the guidelines for controlling land allocation for mining purposes where it states: The following guidelines shall be used to control land allocation for mining: Allocation of mining land use shall be based on a projected average need of 100 acres per year or a total of 1,000 acres during the ten year time period of the Plan and may be permitted pursuant to the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan as needed up to 1,000 acres. Allocation of mining land use above this projected need shall require a Plan amendment. For purposes of determining the amount of mining land permitted, the Board of County Commissioners shall issue a finding with each operating permit that clearly delineates the amount of land dedicated to the actual mined area plus ancillary uses such as processing plants, overburden piles, roads, administrative offices and other buildings necessary for the actual mining of land. Areas allocated for wetlands, buffers and other lands required in the application to insure compatibility with adjacent land uses or protection of resources shall not be counted toward the ten-year allocation of land for mining purposes. To ensure that an equitable balance among applicants is maintained in allocation of mining land, the following criteria shall apply: Within each calendar year, no individual mining operation shall receive more than 10% of the ten year allocation; No individual mining operation shall receive more than 25% of the ten year allocation within any five year period; Any land allocation requirement for mining purposes larger than those indicated in 1-2 above shall require a plan amendment. The calculation concerning the number of acres per year and total acreage allocated during the ten year review is based upon data collected from the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council field survey of 1975 incorporated into the county's 1976 comprehensive plan which showed 2190 acres in mining effective 1975. That constitutes the base point for calculation and is related to a further data point in 1986 taken from the county tax assessor's data which established that 3082 mining acres existed in the county upon that date. The use of the data points is described in the data and analysis at page VII-104 where it states: The 1991 acreage was assumed to be the same as the 1986 analysis. The following methodology was used to calculate mining growth to the year 2001: Assume an additional 100 acres per year from 1986-2001 including buffer area. This estimate is based on 2,190 acres in mining in 1976 (1976 Comprehensive Plan) and 3,082 acres in 1986 (See Appendix A). This yields an average of 89 acres per year for the ten year period. This has been rounded upward to 100 acres per year to allow for market fluctuations. Mining shall be a permitted activity in agriculture districts. Applicants shall secure a conditional use permit to mine in agriculture areas; then a mining operating permit will be secured to delineate the exact location of the mined area. 100 acres/year X 15 years = 1,500 acres. 3. 3,082 + 1,500 = 4,582 acres mining in 2001. The goals and policies concerning allocation of mining acreage is clearly based upon appropriate data. The methodology utilized for data collection was appropriately applied and the use of the methodology to derive the allocation was a professionally acceptable methodology. The Petitioners challenge to the county's treatment of the future land use element related to mining would substitute a methodology which examines the amount of land devoted specifically to the mining activity as contrasted with the methodology here which takes into account the mined areas plus ancillary uses such as processing plants, overburden piles, roads, administrative offices and other buildings. In addition, the methodology that the challengers would employ does not take into account that the 100 acre per year allocation excludes wetlands, buffers, and other land required to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and protection of resources. This attempt at comparison of methodologies is not allowed in the compliance review. In criticizing the data supporting the allocation process, the challengers question whether that data is the best available existing data. They have failed to prove beyond fair debate that the data used in the plan element is not the best available existing data. The decision to exclude areas allocated for wetlands, buffers and other lands required to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and to protect resources from the mining acreage count is not part of the allocation methodology. It is an appropriate planning decision in protecting wetlands and other resources and ensuring compatibility with adjacent land uses. In further describing the manner in which the county will ensure compatibility of the mining uses with adjacent land uses and the preservation of natural resources, Policy 1.9.2 at page VII-49 states: Sumter County shall insure compatibility of mining uses with adjacent land uses and preservation of natural resources through the following requirements: Sumter County shall regulate mining to control buffer areas, maintenance of the mining area, groundwater withdrawals, unpermitted deposition of materials, soil stabilization, disturbance of wetlands, noise, vibration, air quality, security and reclamation of mined lands pursuant to Sumter County Ordinance 90-12(1990). Blasting shall be regulated pursuant to Sumter County Ordinance 81-11(1981). All mining lands permitted pursuant to these policies must be adjacent to existing legally permitted mine sites with no intervening non-compatible uses. Lands proposed for mining that are not adjacent to an existing permitted mine site shall require a plan amendment prior to approval of zoning and the mining plan. Enforcement of mining regulations shall be funded through operating permit fees levied against mining operators. The Petitioners challenging the mining element take issue with the term "adjacent" found at Policy 1.9.2c. They note that Sumter County Ordinance No. 90-12(1990), the mining ordinance, uses the term "contiguous". They argue that this difference in terminology between the ordinance and the plan describes an inconsistency between that ordinance and the plan. Moreover, the challengers claim that there is an internal inconsistency between Policy 1.9.2 and Policy within the conservation element. Policy 1.7.1 in the conservation element at pages III-13 and 14 states: Sumter County shall insure compatibility of mining uses with adjacent land uses and preservation of natural resources through the following requirements: Sumter County shall regulate mining activities to control buffer areas, maintenance of the mining area, groundwater withdrawals, unpermitted deposition of materials, soil stabilization, disturbance of wetlands, noise, vibration, air quality, security and reclamation of mined lands pursuant to Sumter County Ordinance 90-12 (1990). Blasting shall be regulated pursuant to Sumter County Ordinance 81-11 (1981). All mining lands permitted pursuant to these policies must be adjacent to existing legally permitted mine sites with no intervening non-compatible uses. Lands proposed for mining that are not contiguous to an existing permitted mine site shall require a plan amendment prior to approval of zoning and the mining plan. Enforcement of mining regulations shall be funded through operating permit fees levied against mining operators. The challengers claim that Policy 1.9.2 is inconsistent with the Land Development Code for Sumter County, Chapter 13 as it discusses mining activities. Finally, the challengers take issue with the decision to change policy 1.9.2 in its use of the word "contiguous" in a plan draft and the final decision to use the word "adjacent". In Webster's New World Dictionary the word "adjacent" is defined as: near or close to something; adjoining, joining. "Contiguous" is defined as: 1. in physical contact; touching. 2. near; adjoining. To the extent that the county chose to change the previous terminology in policy 1.9.2 found within the earlier draft from the word "contiguous" to the word "adjacent" in the adopted plan, there is no impropriety in that choice. Such changes are anticipated as being involved in the process. The plan as adopted in its use of the terminology "contiguous" or "adjacent" in the conservation and future land use elements as they discuss mining activities is not an internal inconsistency. The terms adjacent and contiguous taken in context are the same. The use of those terms affords no greater nor lesser protection for the benefit of adjacent land owners or in the protection of resources. Treatment of the mining issue within Sumter County Ordinance 90-12 and the Land Development Code for Sumter County, Chapter 13, when compared to the plan does not point to some inconsistency in using the terms "contiguous" and "adjacent". On balance the treatment afforded the mining element within the plan has adequately responded to the need for proper allocation for future land use compatible with adjacent land uses and the protection of resources.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds the plan for Sumter County to be "in compliance" and dismisses the petitions. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of February, 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 26th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-2683GM The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding of the parties: Coniglio: The proposed facts are accepted with the exception that Paragraph 4 is contrary to facts found. and Paragraph (w) is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Department: Paragraphs 1-12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is contrary to the facts in its suggestion that there is a lack of significant industrial activity in the area of the subject parcel. Otherwise, that paragraph is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 14 through 18 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that the latter sentence in Paragraph 18 is not accepted in its suggestion that the allegation of political considerations has not been proven. Paragraphs 19 and 20 constitute legal argument. Paragraphs 21 through 23 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 24 through 27 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 28 and 29 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraphs 30 and 31 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 32 and 33 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 35 constitutes conclusions of law. Paragraphs 36 through 40 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 41 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 42 is subordinate to facts found. Pownall, Cherry, Jones and Turner: Paragraph 1 is contrary to facts found in its suggestion that appropriate notice and opportunity for public participation was not afforded. Paragraph 2 through 4 are contrary to facts found. The County and Intervenors: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 constitutes conclusions of law. Paragraphs 9 through 13 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 14 and 15 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraphs 17 through 22 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 23 constitutes conclusions of law. Paragraphs 24 and 25 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 26 constitutes conclusions of law. Paragraphs 27 through 31 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 32 and 33 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraphs 34 through 39 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 C. John Coniglio, Esquire P. O. Box 1119 Wildwood, Florida 34785 Bill Pownall 202 W. Noble Street Bushnell, Florida 33513 Randall N. Thornton, Esquire P. O. Box 58 Lake Panasoffkee, Florida 33538 Theodore R. Turner Nancy Turner Carousel Farms Route 1 Box 66T Post Office Box 1745 Bushnell, Florida 33513 Frances J. Cherry 3404 C R 656 Webster, Florida 33597 Kenneth L. Jones 3404 CR 656 Webster, Florida 33597 Steven J. Richey, Esquire P.O. Box 492460 Leesburg, Florida 34749-2460 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513 Randal M. Thornton, Esquire Post Office Box 58 Lake Pnasoffkee, Florida 33538 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
