The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments CPA 10-4 and CPA 10-5 adopted by Martin County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 on August 10, 2010, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State and has the responsibility of administering its Comprehensive Plan (Plan). It adopted the two amendments being challenged. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners all reside or operate a business in the County, and they submitted oral or written comments to the County during the adoption process. Intervenors are limited liability corporations owned by King Ranch Florida Operations, LLC, an agricultural operation with offices in Florida and Texas. Intervenors own the subject property, which is more commonly known as Sunrise Groves. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that Intervenors are affected persons. The Plan Amendments The amendments concern a 1,717-acre parcel of land located immediately west of, and adjacent to, Interstate 95 (I-95) in the northern part of the County. Southwest Martin Highway (also known as County Highway 714), which runs in an east-west direction, is situated on the south side of the parcel, while the site is separated by a canal on its northern boundary from the City of Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie County. Aerial photographs reflect that undeveloped land lies to the west of the property. See Intervenors' Exhibit 18. At least four large and very urban Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) have been approved in Port St. Lucie, immediately north of the parcel, including a planned regional mall on the immediate northern boundary of the parcel. From the mid-1960's until the mid-2000's, the parcel was an active orange grove. Due to damage from citrus canker and "greening," which is an incurable, aggressive, and deadly virus affecting citrus plants, the parcel has become a literal wasteland of dead orange trees. The property is now desolate and unprofitable and cannot be converted to any other profitable or feasible agriculture use. Around the same time that the citrus grove was being destroyed, the County commissioned Urbanomics, Inc., and Leak- Goforth Company, LLC, to perform an economic study to determine how the County could better compete in the Florida market. In November 2006, the results of that study were released. See Intervenors' Ex. 11. The study indicated that the County should be pursuing various types of industrial development, with a focus on recruiting firms and institutions with 50 to 100 or more employees, or those that have capabilities and are on pace to reach this minimum employment threshold in three to five years. The study also concluded that in order to accommodate the types of industries that the County would need to pursue, it would need more space designated for industrial use. Based upon the study, the County has adopted policies in the Economic Element of the Plan regarding future economic development in the County. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 15. On September 30, 2009, Intervenors applied to the County for a new land use designation to be added to the Plan, allowing industrial uses to be combined with commercial and agricultural uses on their parcel of land. See Intervenors' Ex. 2. Intervenors also applied for a change in the land use category on their property from Agricultural to the new land use category. The re-designated parcel would become a "freestanding urban service district," which requires that the property be served by water and sewer services from a regional supplier rather than individual wells, septic tanks, or on-site package treatment plants. It would be one of two freestanding urban service districts (USDs) in the County.1 When Intervenors initially applied to the County for the amendments, the proposed future land use category was titled "I-95 Agricultural Technology & Employment Center." As the amendment evolved in subsequent months, however, a decision was made to shorten the name to something less cumbersome, which ultimately became "AgTEC," an acronym for Agriculture and Targeted Employment Center. As proposed, the AgTEC designation was significantly different from other land use designations in the Plan in a number of ways. AgTEC is a "site-specific" land use designation, tailored for a specific parcel of property, the 1,717 acres owned by Intervenors. It allows for agricultural uses to continue indefinitely on 817 acres of the parcel, if a viable agricultural use can be found in the future. It also permits new uses on a maximum of 900 acres of the parcel, but limited to certain "Primary Targeted Employment" uses and others which are ancillary to them. Residential is not an allowable use. Finally, it imposes a strict requirement that all future development of the parcel must be subject to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval process. On April 14, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approved the application and voted to transmit Amendments 10-4 and 10-5 to the Department. On June 25, 2010, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report recommending that the two amendments not be adopted unless additional data were supplied and certain revisions made. See Petitioners' Ex. 4B, pp. 26-47. The Department's objections related to urban sprawl, a failure to demonstrate need, transportation deficiencies, lack of access to public facilities, and a failure to preserve agricultural lands. On July 17, 2010, Intervenors submitted a response to the ORC report, which included an update to the original application addressing the Department's concerns. They also provided additional data and analysis concerning the structure of the County's economy; location quotient data (ratios by type of economic activity in the region), which were consistent with a report submitted by Dr. Nicholson, an economist employed by Intervenors; and environmental information. On August 10, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted the FLUM amendment as Ordinance No. 881 and a revised version of the text amendment as Ordinance No. 882. See Joint Ex. 4 and 5. On October 6, 2010, the Department issued its notice of intent to find the amendments in compliance. See Joint Ex. 6. On October 7, 2010, the Department published notice of its intent to find the amendments in compliance in The Stuart News. Petitioners then timely filed their Petition, as later amended. Ordinance No. 881 refers in its title to a parcel of land known as "Sunrise Groves," which is described in the main body of the ordinance as 1,717 acres of land located west of I-95 and north of Southwest Martin Highway. The site is also defined by legal description attached as Exhibit A to that ordinance. See Joint Ex. 4, pp. 4 and 5. The title indicates that the land designation on the FLUM is being changed from Agricultural to AgTEC. Ordinance No. 882 also refers in its title to a parcel of land as "Sunrise Groves," and that a new site-specific land use category, AgTEC, is being created for that parcel. The text amendments, which are attached as Exhibit A, provide further site-specific indicators of where the new land use designation applies. See Joint Ex. 5, pp. 5-17. They describe an area that is 1,717 acres in size, state that AgTEC uses may be no closer than 300 feet from any existing residential use, and require provision of the right-of-way for a multi-lane arterial north-south roadway "connecting Martin Highway [in Martin County] to Becker Road [in adjoining St. Lucie County], providing the opportunity for a regional parallel reliever road to I-95 . . . ." Id. at pp. 6 and 7. This roadway (an extension of Village Parkway) is specifically depicted on a conceptual map showing the general location where it is to be built. See Joint Ex. 5, AgTEC Long Range Transp. Map. Petitioners contend that the text amendment does not clearly identify the location of the property or Intervenors' parcel as the subject of the amendments, partly because the ordinance title and conceptual map will not become a part of the Plan. However, Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 clearly refer to the same specific parcel of land intended for designation as "AgTEC" and subject to the requirements of the AgTEC future land use category. When reading the two ordinances, a reasonable person would not be confused as to which property designated for the new land use category applies. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that no other parcel of land within the County could be similarly designated as "AgTEC," absent an amendment to the AgTEC future land use category in the Plan. Petitioners' Objections As narrowed by their stipulation and the withdrawal of certain issues at hearing, Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions within the Plan; that the amendments encourage urban sprawl; that the amendments impermissibly convert land designated for agricultural purposes to other uses; that the text amendment is based upon the Plan that was in effect prior to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments that became effective in January 2011, thereby creating internal inconsistencies; that there is no demonstrated need for the amendments; that the amendments are not supported by adequate data and analysis; and that the amendments fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards for implementation. A contention that the text amendment includes unauthorized self-amending language is not addressed in Petitioners' proposed recommended order and is presumed to be abandoned. Internal Inconsistency Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with other FLUE provisions in numerous respects. Some of these consistency arguments are based on the fact that the text amendments in Ordinance No. 882 use the numbering system for the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUE that was in effect when Ordinance No. 882 was adopted on August 10, 2010, rather than the new numbering system that became effective on January 3, 2011.2 As described in Endnote 2, infra, the new numbering system was adopted by the County during the months- long process of amending the Plan during the EAR process. The new text added to the Plan during that time-frame will simply be re-numbered by the Municipal Code Corporation, which publishes the codified version of the Plan, to conform to the new numbering system. This is consistent with the publisher's authority under Part 6 of Ordinance No. 882, which states in relevant part: "CODIFICATION. The word 'ordinance' may be changed to 'article[,]' 'section[,]' or other word and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered." Joint Ex. 5, p. 3. This codification provision is found in every ordinance adopting a text amendment. By way of example, the content in section 4.4.g.1.n(3) in Ordinance No. 882 (on page 17 of Joint Exhibit 5) will be recodified in new policy 4.7A.14, which replaces the old section. Except for the new number, the content of both provisions is the same. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 4, p. 50. There was no evidence that the new EAR- based amendments create an inconsistency with these amendments. Petitioners also contend that an internal inconsistency in the Plan arises due to two references to "I-95 AgTEC" in Ordinance No. 882 (on pages 7 and 11), and a single reference to "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 (on page 2). They also argue that the "I-95 AgTEC" category lacks "meaningful and predictable standards for implementation" as a land use designation if it is distinct from the "AgTEC" category. However, they failed to present any evidence that Intervenors or the County intended to create two different future land use categories. The evidence supports a finding that both references to "I-95 AgTEC" in Ordinance 882 were merely "vestigial" references (i.e., references made during an early stage of the amendment process) to the initial title proposed for the land use category when Intervenors first applied to the County. The evidence shows that the County staff simply missed the two references when it conducted an electronic "find and replace" search intended to convert all references in the ordinance to "AgTEC" before presenting the final draft to the Board for adoption. Except for these two references to "I-95 AgTEC," the ordinance consistently uses the "AgTEC" title for the land use designations. Both references are merely scrivener's errors. The single reference to "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 is simply a misspelling of the proper title of the new future land use category to be applied to the property. The simultaneous adoption of the two ordinances, the application for both ordinances by the same applicant, and the obvious similarity between the correct spelling and the misspelling support a finding that the use of "AgTech" in Ordinance No. 881 is also a scrivener's error. Historically, after securing Board approval, the staff has been authorized to correct errors in the FLUM without a formal amendment; however, the County Growth Management Director could not recall a situation where a scrivener's error in a text amendment had occurred and was unsure as to how that type of error would be corrected. More than likely, these scrivener's errors will be corrected by another plan amendment. In any event, these non-substantive, minor scrivener's errors do not render the amendments not in compliance. Petitioners further contend that the amendments are inconsistent with the County's stated policy of preserving agricultural lands. See Joint Ex. 1, FLUE policy 4.12A.1. However, the amendments preserve almost one-half of the land (817 acres) for agricultural purposes even though the entire parcel is now unproductive. Petitioners also argue that the amendments are internally inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 4.13A.1.(2)(a) and (b), which provide that the conversion of agricultural land to another land use may be done only when it does not affect the hydrology or productive capacity of adjacent farmlands, and only when it is a "logical and timely extension of a more intense land use in a nearby area." As noted above, there are four approved DRIs immediately north of the parcel in the southwestern quadrant of Port St. Lucie, including a large regional mall on the parcel's northern boundary. The new land use is a logical extension of a more intense land use in a nearby area. Also, there is no evidence that the new land use will affect the hydrology or productive capacity of adjacent farmlands. To the contrary, the evidence shows that any adjacent agricultural areas to the west are protected by a requirement that 75 percent of the common open space be along the western border. It is fairly debatable that the amendments are consistent with the cited policies. Petitioners contend that the amendments are internally inconsistent with a series of FLUE policies that, in general terms: (a) require the availability of services and facilities before expanded urban development may be approved (FLUE policies 4.1B.2., 4.1B.3., and 4.13A.1.(b)); (b) prohibit any regional utility from serving customers outside the Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD) (FLUE policies 4.7A.2.-4., 4.7A.10., 4.7B.8.(6)-(7), and 4.7B.9.); and (c) prohibit urban development outside the PUSD (FLUE policy 4.13A.9.). Although couched differently, the essence of the argument is that the amendments allow development in an area that is not presently within any PUSD or SUSD, thereby creating an issue of internal inconsistency with other provisions of the Plan. The existing Plan establishes two main types of "urban service districts" in the County: a PUSD and a SUSD. See Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 4. There is an "eastern" PUSD that includes most of the unincorporated coastal area of the County, surrounding the Cities of Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park. Adjacent to the eastern PUSD is a much smaller eastern SUSD. See Joint Ex. 3. Several miles west of the boundaries of the eastern PUSD and SUSD there is a smaller "Indiantown" PUSD that consists of the unincorporated inland area of the County known by that name, and an adjacent Indiantown SUSD. Id. The County's purpose for having USDs is to "regulate urban sprawl by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to areas with urban public facilities and services, where they are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in the Plan." Joint Ex. 1, FLUE Goal 4.7. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is generally limited by the Plan to the land inside the County's USDs. The term "public urban facilities and services" is defined as "[r]egional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." Joint Ex. 1, Ch. 2, § 2.2(127). The Plan also contains numerous provisions that establish a broad prohibition against all industrial uses and most commercial uses on land outside the County's USDs. The Plan expressly provides for the creation of so- called "Freestanding Urban Service Districts" within the County. See Joint Ex. 1. Ordinance No. 882 includes an amendment to FLUE section 4.4.M.1.h.(5) to establish that land designated as AgTEC shall be a freestanding USD. See Joint Ex. 5, p. 8. It also amends FLUE section 4.4.g.1.n.(3) to include land designated AgTEC as one of several enumerated "exceptions to the general prohibitions on development outside of the [PUSD]." Id. at p. 17. This means that the amendment creates its own exception from restrictions in the Plan that might otherwise apply to development outside the PUSD. Therefore, the prohibitions against a regional utility serving a customer outside the PUSD and SUSD, or expanding urban development outside a PUSD, do not apply. As noted above, these amended section numbers will be renumbered in the codification process to conform to the numbering in the new EAR-based amendments. However, the content remains the same. See Finding of Fact 18, supra. Petitioners presented no evidence that the freestanding USD for the AgTEC-designated land would lack the urban public facilities and services that would be necessary under the Plan. Utility services do not have to be physically available at the property boundary before a change in land use can be approved; they must only be planned or programmed. To be programmed, the services may be identified in the capital improvement element of the Plan or appear in a DRI approval. According to Mr. Dulin, County Senior Planner, the utility services for the parcel appear in "one or a number of the [DRIs] approved in the southwestern quadrant of Port St. Lucie." This type of arrangement for services is not unusual, as the County now provides services to some areas in St. Lucie County, while Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County provide services to certain areas in the County. The evidence shows that Port St. Lucie has the capacity to meet the requirements of the development, and that those services will be paid for by the developer, and not the County. At the amendment stage, the lack of a formal written agreement between the developer and Port St. Lucie is of no concern, as one is not required until the Intervenors seek a development order from the County. It is fairly debatable that the amendments are consistent with the FLUE. Urban Sprawl Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) identifies 13 "primary indicators" of urban sprawl to be considered in the review of plan amendments to determine whether the presence of multiple indicators "collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(5)(d). Petitioners' expert, Charles G. Pattison, contends that, with the exception of four indicators (1, 4, 11, and 13), all other indicators are triggered by the changes effectuated through the amendments being challenged. However, indicator 3 was not raised in the Amended Petition or stipulation. Therefore, only the remaining eight indicators will be addressed. See Heartland Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Dep't of Community Affairs, Case No. 94-2095GM (Fla. DOAH Oct. 15, 1996), modified in part, Case No. DCA-96-FOI-GM (Fla. DCA Nov. 25, 1996), 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 163 at *63. Indicator 2 requires a determination as to whether the amendments promote, allow, or designate "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." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. As noted above, large and very urban DRIs have been approved in neighboring Port St. Lucie just north of Intervenors' property, including a planned regional mall on the immediate northern boundary of the property. Also, some of the infrastructure for these developments has been constructed immediately north of Intervenors' parcel, to which the infrastructure on Intervenors' parcel is required to connect. It is unreasonable to ignore this development simply because it lies within an adjacent local government, rather than viewing the existing and approved development in the area as a whole. A more reasonable approach is to consider the existing urban areas immediately to the north of the parcel. Indicator 5 requires an analysis to determine whether the amendments fail to "adequately 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." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)5. Because the parcel is bordered on the east by I-95 and on the north by DRIs in Port St. Lucie, the only areas of concern affected by this indicator would be to the south or west of the parcel. Petitioners failed to prove, however, that the AgTEC requirements for buffers on the east and south boundaries and required open space on the western border of the site constitute inadequate protection for any adjacent agricultural areas or activities within the meaning of the rule. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and facilities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)6.-8. Urban sprawl is generally indicated when new public facilities must be created to serve a proposed use. As noted above, the provider of water and sewer services to Intervenors' parcel (Port St. Lucie) has ample capacity to meet its projected needs and the capability of doing so from adequately sized lines located within a quarter of a mile from the parcel. Also, there is no credible evidence that there will be a lack of transportation infrastructure to meet the demand expected to be placed on the parcel. Indicator 9 requires an analysis to determine if the amendments fail "to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)9. Through the use of setbacks, buffers, and other site design criteria, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments create a sufficiently clear separation between the industrial/commercial uses that would be allowed and any rural uses to the south and west of the site. Petitioners did not identify any adjacent rural uses that would require such separation. Indicator 10 requires that the amendments do not discourage or inhibit infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. While Petitioners pointed out that there are other parcels in the County currently designated for industrial use, those parcels are either too small or too scattered to attract the types of industrial development desired by the County, which are described in the Economic Element of the Plan. Further, there was no evidence that the other smaller and scattered parcels would be adversely affected by the large-scale development envisioned on the AgTEC land. Finally, indicator 12 requires an analysis to determine if the amendments result "in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(g)12. The evidence shows that the AgTEC requirements for new transportation infrastructure, coupled with the existing access from two adjacent interchanges on I-95, provide ample accessibility for the parcel and other related land uses. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that none of the primary indicators of urban sprawl at issue are triggered by the amendments. Other Issues Petitioners assert that Intervenors failed to demonstrate a need for commercial or industrial land outside the USDs. They also contend that the economic study performed by Dr. Nicholson failed to consider other vacant parcels of land designated for industrial use, including large amounts of acreage in Palm City and Indiantown. However, Dr. Nicholson established that of the 2,590 acres of available industrial land in the County, the vast majority of these sites are small, less than five acres in size, and are inadequate. He also established that the County lacks any well-planned, amenity- oriented industrial, office, or business parks, which would be the type of development contemplated on Intervenors' parcel. It is fairly debatable that the needs analysis submitted by Intervenors is adequate to support the amendments. Although raised as an issue, there was no evidence that the amendments are internally inconsistent with any provisions within the Economic Element of the Plan. All other contentions not specifically addressed herein have been considered and rejected. Improper Purpose Because they did not substantially change the outcome of the Department's determination that the amendments are in compliance, Petitioners are non-prevailing adverse parties. See § 120.595(1)(e)3., Fla. Stat. Therefore, it is necessary to make a determination as to whether Petitioners participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose," as that term is defined in section 120.595(1)(e)1. Petitioners generally alleged that the amendments were internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions in numerous respects, that they encouraged urban sprawl, that they contain substantive errors that cannot be corrected in this proceeding, and that there is no needs analysis to support the amendments. Each of these contentions was ultimately found to be without merit, and contrary evidence on these issues submitted by the County and Intervenors was credited. However, when taken as a whole, the record does not support a finding that Petitioners participated in this proceeding "primarily" to harass the applicants, increase the cost of litigation, or cause them unnecessary delay. The Amended Petition was not frivolous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 881 and 882 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) properly denied application(s) for an advertising sign permit.
Findings Of Fact On September 27, 2005, Petitioner Lamar submitted two permit applications (Nos. 55595 and 55596) to FDOT for two signs to be attached to one monopole, one sign to be facing north and one sign to be facing south. The applications stated that the proposed location of the monopole is the west side of State Road 85 (SR 85), 200 feet (or .042 miles) south of Barnes Road in Okaloosa County, Florida. SR 85 is a Federal-aid primary highway. (See Stipulated Facts 1 and 4.) The proposed sign structures met the size, height, and spacing requirements of Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. (See Stipulated Fact 3.) The proposed sign location is in an unincorporated area of Okaloosa County, Florida. (See Stipulated Fact 5.) Okaloosa County is the only local entity involved herein. The 42.5 acre parcel of land for the proposed billboard has significant frontage on SR 85, north of Crestview, Okaloosa County. A residence is located on a portion of the parcel. The permit application form used by Petitioner was composed and authorized by FDOT. Petitioner's submitted application was complete, and the appropriate fee was paid to FDOT. (See Stipulated Fact 2.) Upon request, FDOT provides a published "Instruction" pamphlet to assist applicants for outdoor advertising sign permits. Pages 12-13 thereof provide, in pertinent part, as follows: Land Use/Zoning: Outdoor advertising signs must be located in areas where the land use category allows properties which lie within 660 feet of the controlled road and which are within the contiguous land use designation area to be developed with primarily commercial or industrial uses. This information is found in the Land Development Regulations and on the Future Land Use Map of the City or County’s Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. The City or County or other local government must certify that the current zoning (Land Development Regulations) and the Future Land Use Map designation allow for commercial/industrial uses and that outdoor advertising signs are allowed for that designation. When the Land Development Regulations [zoning] or the Future Land Use Map do not specifically designate the parcel as commercial or industrial, but allow for multiple uses on the parcel, including commercial or industrial, a “use test” will be employed to determine whether an outdoor advertising permit may be issued. The use test requires that there be a minimum of three (3) conforming businesses within 1600 feet of each other, and that the sign be on the same side of the highway and within 800 feet of one of the businesses. The Department will not approve an outdoor advertising sign permit when local regulations prohibit outdoor advertising at the proposed location. (Emphasis supplied.) In preparation of Petitioner’s application(s), Chad Pickens, Petitioner’s Lease Manager, read FDOT’s Instruction pamphlet as guaranteeing Petitioner a “use test” if either the County land use map or the zoning for this parcel provided for mixed or multiple uses. He conducted extensive site location and ownership searches; made contacts with the potential lessor; submitted photographs of three businesses within 1600 feet of the proposed outdoor advertising sign location; filled out the permit application; proceeded to the appropriate Okaloosa County government officials for County approval; surveyed and staked out the proposed outdoor advertising sign location; and took photographs of the proposed site. He then submitted this information on FDOT-approved forms, along with a letter of authorization and the application fee. Petitioner Lamar leased the property site from the owner, with no lease payments due from Petitioner to the landowner unless FDOT approved its sign permits. At the time of the application, the three commercial businesses closest to the proposed sign location were: Dogwood Veterinary Clinic - approximately 118 feet south of the proposed sign site. This business specializes in treating house pets. The clinic makes no farm calls, but horses may be treated if brought into the clinic. This business also contains a retail outlet; Billy's Trade Store, approximately 463 feet south of the proposed sign site, is a convenience store; and Plantation Farms Pet Grooming, approximately 780 feet northeast of the proposed sign site. This business, in addition to retail sales of pet items and food, incorporates a section for the grooming and boarding of household pets. This business does not handle livestock. (See Stipulated Fact 9.) These three business establishments, submitted by Petitioner for FDOT’s application of a "use test," were businesses one could actually walk into and purchase goods or services. In addition to information regarding the proposed sign site, the proposed construction on the site, and where the proposed construction was to occur, the permit application required the applicant to secure Okaloosa County’s local certification of the proposed site’s future land use designation and its current zoning, which Petitioner did. Although FDOT requires that local government entities sign off on advertising sign applications to FDOT, the State Agency does not rubber stamp those approvals. Ultimately, FDOT administers State statutes and regulations in conjunction with its Federal agreement. The State is not bound by the County’s permitting of signs. In January, 1972, the State of Florida entered into an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, in which the State agreed to implement and carry out the provisions of Section 131 of Title 23, United States Code (1965), commonly referred to as "The Highway Beautification Act." Through this agreement, Florida agreed to limit the permitting of outdoor advertising signs adjacent (within six hundred sixty feet of the nearest edge of right-of-way) to Interstate or Federal-aid primary highway systems, to areas which are zoned industrial or commercial or are located in unzoned commercial or industrial areas. Failure of FDOT to comply with the terms of this agreement could result in a loss of 10 percent of federal-aid highway funds. Lynn Holschuh, FDOT Outdoor Advertising Administrator, testified that since the January 1972, agreement with the Federal Department of Transportation, Florida local governments have been required to “zone” all property. Therefore, the 1972 Agreement’s use of the term, “unzoned commercial or industrial areas,” is an anachronism, because all Florida property should now be zoned. Still, the term remains in the Florida Statutes, and FDOT uses this term to grapple with areas where specific land use is not very well defined. Zoning designations arise from county land development regulations, i.e. zoning ordinances. Future land use designations come from a Land Use Plan, adopted by the local entity or entities, pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and placed on a future land use map. The proposed sign location is on a parcel with a land use designation of “Agricultural 1” (AA1). (See Stipulated Fact 6.) In other words, the parcel is zoned for agriculture. Okaloosa County Code 8.02.02 provides that permanent off-site outdoor advertising signs are a permitted use within agricultural areas. (See Stipulated Fact 7.) Counties may allow off-site advertising along county roads, but interstate and federal primary-aid highways, such as SR 85, are within FDOT’s jurisdiction. The applicable Future Land Use Map designates the proposed site for “rural mixed land use” (RMU). (See Stipulated Fact 8.) This multiple use future land use map designation includes residential and non-residential uses. Non-residential uses may include commercial or business uses, although the parcel being designated “rural” suggests otherwise. There is no evidence herein that the terms used in the current zoning or on the future land use map do not comport with the same or similar terms used in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or in 23 C.F.R. Section 750.703(a) or 750.708. At all times material, Billy Wayne Strickland, Florida Department of Transportation Outdoor Advertising Senior Agent, processed all outdoor advertising applications, statewide, on behalf of FDOT. He testified that if the current land development regulations (current zoning) and the future land use designation (future land use map) differ, FDOT considers both. If the current zoning and future land use map are both a "mixed use" designation, FDOT performs its own use test, sometimes delegated to an outside consultant. Ms. Holschuh testified that “agriculture” is a “rather specific” zoning term/designation. However, if a zoning category authorizes more than one use, FDOT looks at the current primary uses of the parcel. FDOT’s intent is not to go by the label that has been applied to the zoning category, but “to go beyond the label to determine whether or not the area really has the characteristics of a commercial or an industrial area,” and that with regard to the characteristics of commercial zoning, the use test would be employed to determine if there were bona fide commercial or industrial activities within the specified footage of a proposed sign location. In processing the application(s) in this case, Mr. Strickland accepted the future land use designation “AA1”, for “agricultural,” as certified by Planner Tim Durbin on behalf of Okaloosa County. He also researched Okaloosa County’s land development regulations, which described the permitted uses for property designated "agricultural." The Okaloosa County Land Development Code specifically designated three zoning categories as “Commercial.” They are “Business Retail,” Business General,” and “Business Tourism”. In the Code, commercially zoned areas, under the categories of "Business Retail" and "Business General," states: "[t]his is a Commercial (C) and Mixed Use Development (MU) Future Land Use Map Category." Under the category of "Business Tourism," the Code states: "[t]his is a High Density Residential (HDR), a Commercial (C), and a Mixed Use Development (MU) Future Land Use Map Category." Each of these business categories allows for traditional commercial uses such as retail stores, filling stations, banks, restaurants and mini- warehouses. The Okaloosa County Land Development Code specifically designated two zoning categories as “Industrial.” They are “Protected Industrial Districts” and “Airport Industrial Park Districts.” The Okaloosa County Land Development Code, under “Industrial” uses, has zoning categories of "Protected Industrial Districts" and "Airport Industrial Park Districts." The Code provides: "[t]his is an Industrial (I) Future Land Use Map Category." No similar reference to either “commercial” or “industrial” zoning is made under the zoning for “agricultural” areas. The agricultural zoning does not mention “filling stations.” The Okaloosa County Land Development Code lists the following (with some restrictions not material to these proceedings) in areas zoned “agricultural”: Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: -Dwellings -Commercial and non commercial agricultural [structures] -Sawmills -Places of worship, schools, publicly owned and operated community structures and land, nursing homes, charitable or philanthropic institutions; public or private golf courses; public lands; public or private cemeteries, private lodges and fraternal orders. -Privately operated day nurseries, pre- schools, and kindergartens. -Private airstrips -Private Airports -Public or private fishing clubs, and other similar enterprises. -Recreational areas for public use, campgrounds, travel trailer parks, including golf driving ranges, swimming pools, fishing lakes, and similar recreation uses. -Public or private stables -Commercial kennels and the raising of other small animals for sale -Community residential homes -Radio, television and commercial towers and antennas. -Terminals for petroleum products -Public Utility Structures -Municipal solid waste transfer stations and recycling facilities. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: Uses and structures which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to permitted or permissible uses and structures. Home Occupations. Special Exception Uses and Structures: Activities that are agricultural or support agricultural activities and are in keeping with the rural character of the area Public or privately operated gun clubs Borrow Pits Construction and Demolition Debris landfills Prohibited Uses and Structures: Any use or structure not of a character indicated under permitted accessory uses and structures, or permitted as a special exception. Class I, II and III landfills are prohibited, along with other types of solid waste disposal facilities except as identified in Permitted Uses and Special Exceptions. [Boldface in original; underlining supplied] Mr. Strickland opined that a terminal for storing petroleum products, transported to that location in tanker trucks, for use by machinery on a farm, which use is allowed by the County’s zoning code to be located on land zoned agricultural (see Finding of Fact 29), would not be the same as a gas/filling station for cars, permitted under the County’s commercial or industrial classification. Mr. Strickland’s interpretation is reasonable, and it was not credibly refuted by Mr. Durbin, the County’s planner, whose testimony that the County would allow a filling station on the parcel in question did not comport with the clear designations under the County’s zoning. (See Findings of Fact 24-29 and 35-36.) In processing the applications in this case, Mr. Strickland reasonably interpreted the current zoning to permit only commercial uses "tied to agriculture" on this parcel. Mr. Strickland also used the Okaloosa County Tax Appraiser’s records. The County Appraiser listed the parcel whereon the signs were intended to be erected as improved agricultural land containing a single family dwelling for which a homestead exemption was taken/granted. A residential use clearly is not a commercial use. Mr. Strickland took this to mean that the “rural mixed use” for that parcel implied a “residential” use, as opposed to a “non-residential” and potentially commercial use, under the RMU designation on the future land use map. FDOT never permits billboards on residential property unless the parcel is currently zoned commercial and the parcel merely contains a private residence that has been grandfathered- in. On October 18, 2005, FDOT, through Mr. Strickland, issued a Notice of Denied Application stating: Location is not permittable under land use designations of the site [s. 479.111(2), FS] Location does not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial area [s. 479.01(23), FS] At the same time, FDOT returned Petitioner’s application fee checks. (See Stipulated Fact 10.) At hearing, County Planner, Tim Durbin, testified that based upon Okaloosa County’s current zoning and future land use, the proposed sign site met Okaloosa County standards and would support an outdoor advertising sign. He further testified that the County no longer considers "AA1”, which once referred to parcel size, "to have any significance,” and that the County plans, in the future, “to remove that designation from its Land Development Code.” According to Mr. Durbin, the County now considers all agricultural land to be "AA." However, as of the date of hearing, more than a year after the sign permit application review by FDOT, the County still has not changed its AA1 category. According to Mr. Durbin, Okaloosa County currently would permit the following non-residential uses of the parcel at issue: "small scale agricultural, civil uses of churches and houses of worship, public or private primary or secondary schools, small scale neighborhood commercial or business uses, general commercial uses. Small scale neighborhood commercial and business includes neighborhood-serving offices, neighborhood-serving retail activities.” He opined that any classification that contains “residential” and “non-residential” uses, as do both the AA1 zoning category and the land use map ”RMU-rural mixed uses” designation, may contain commercial projects within the “non-residential” areas. He equated “filling stations” with “terminals for petroleum products." Herein, because the zoning and land-use map designations were not identical, Mr. Strickland did not consider, in making his decision to deny the sign permit, the three businesses listed near the parcel. He did try to discover how the actual parcel in question was currently regarded locally. In doing so, he used reasonable methods. He denied the sign application(s) on the basis of the future land use designation (rural mixed use-residential) and the agricultural zoning current when these applications were submitted and considered between September 27, 2005, and October 18, 2005, (AA1-agricultural). Petitioner has not demonstrated that any change in the zoning or land use designation has occurred since that time. However, when asked at hearing how he would consider those three nearby businesses (a veterinary, a convenience store, and a pet groomer), which had been submitted for a use test, Mr. Strickland testified that he would consider the veterinary and the store to be commercial uses and would consider Plantation Farm Pet Grooming to be not commercial because it contained a family residence with a homestead exemption. Petitioner did not refute that the pet groomer’s building primarily constitutes a residential use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ratifying the October 18, 2005, denial of sign application. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 4th day of April, 2007.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 843, 845 (as amended by Ordinance No. 847), 846, 847, 851, 853, and 854 are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether they are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in the Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Martin County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time. Groves Holdings, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company. Groves Holdings, LLC operates a real estate management and investment business in the County that manages the leasing, entitlement, and disposition of lands owned by its related subsidiaries Groves 12, LLC, and Groves 14, LLC. Groves 12, LLC, and Groves 14, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies wholly owned by Groves Holdings, LLC. Groves 12, LLC, owns 2,800 acres of citrus grove. Groves 14, LLC, owns 1,700 acres of land being developed as a residential community and equestrian club known as Hobe Sound Polo Club. The land owned by Groves 12, LLC, is located in the rural area of the County, approximately one mile from the closest boundary of an urban service district. The land being developed by Groves 14, LLC, is also located in the rural area. Groves 14, LLC, also owns 450 acres not being developed that are located partially within the rural area and partially within an urban service district The Groves submitted written comments regarding the Plan Amendments to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. Donna Melzer and Eliza Ackerly each owns real property in and resides in Martin County. Melzer and Ackerly each submitted comments regarding the Plan Amendments to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. MCCA is a not-for-profit Florida corporation incorporated in 1997 for the purposes of conserving the natural resources of Martin County, and maintaining and improving the quality of life for residents of the County. Its members include individuals and corporate and non-corporate entities. A substantial number of its members reside, own property, or operate a business in Martin County. MCCA engages primarily in lobbying, public advocacy, and litigation in Martin County regarding the CGMP. MCCA conducts membership meetings, sends a newsletter to members and others, and sometimes hosts meetings open to the general public. MCCA is also involved in environmental preservation activities in Martin County, including educational meetings, field trips, and lobbying for public purchase of lands for conservation. No evidence was presented to show that MCCA owns property in the County, maintains an office in the County, or holds a business or occupational license. MCCA submitted comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments, on behalf of its members, during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. Hereafter, MCCA, Donna Melzer, and Eliza Ackerly will be referred to collectively as MCCA. The Plan Amendments Section 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes, requires each local government to conduct an evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan every seven years and to prepare an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (“EAR”). Martin County initiated its second evaluation and appraisal process in 2007, culminating in the adoption of an EAR in July 2008. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires a local government to adopt comprehensive plan amendments based on the recommendations in the EAR in a single amendment cycle within 18 months after adopting the EAR. The County’s proposed EAR-based amendments were sent to the Department in September 2009. The Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (“ORC”) Report the next month. After considering and responding to the ORC Report, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 842 through 856 on December 16, 2009, amending all the elements of the CGMP. The Department reviewed the Plan Amendments and determined that a new “Essential Services Nodes” policy of the FLUE adopted by Ordinance No. 845 was not in compliance. The Department determined that all of the other amendments adopted by Martin County were in compliance. The County adopted Ordinance No. 857, which rescinded the Essential Services Nodes policy to which the Department had objected. The decision to rescind the policy was made unilaterally by the County. The rescission was not pursuant to a compliance agreement with the Department. Based on the County’s rescission of the Essential Services Nodes policy, the Department determined that Ordinance No. 845, as amended by Ordinance No. 857, was in compliance. All of the Plan Amendments are text amendments. The Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) is not changed. Urban Service Districts The CGMP establishes urban service districts (USDs) in the County. There is an Eastern USD and an Indiantown USD. These USDs are subdivided into a primary USD and a secondary USD. About 87 percent of the County’s population resides east of the Florida Turnpike in the Eastern USDs. The Indiantown USDs, which are west of the Florida Turnpike, are separated from the Eastern USDs by more than 20 miles of mostly agricultural lands. The primary purpose of the USDs is to prevent urban sprawl by directing growth to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available or are programmed to be available at appropriate levels of service. The provision of urban public facilities and services is generally limited to USDs. The term “public urban facilities and services” is defined in the CGMP as “regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network.” Under FLUE Policy 4.7A.2, urban development, including commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and urban residential land uses may only be located within the Primary USDs. FLUE Policy 4.7B.1 permits low density residential use (half-acre lots or greater) in the Secondary USD. No urban or suburban uses and no utility services such as water and sewer may extend outside the USD boundaries. Most of the lands outside the Primary and Secondary USDs are designated Agricultural, but there are also lands designated Public Conservation and Public Utilities. MCCA’s Issues Section 1.10 Chapter 1 of the CGMP is entitled “Preamble” and addresses general topics such as the legal status of the CGMP, the continuing evaluation of the CGMP, and amending the CGMP. The Preamble contains no goals, objectives, or policies. MCCA objects to a sentence in Section 1.10 of the Preamble, adopted by Ordinance No. 843, which states, “This Plan shall be adopted by ordinance and shall supersede the 1990 Comprehensive Plan and all related amendments.” MCCA contends that this sentence will create problems and confusion if some of the Plan Amendments are determined to be in compliance, but other amendments are determined to be not in compliance. There is no confusion. The reference to “This Plan” in Section 1.10 is reasonably interpreted to refer to the entire CGMP, as amended by the latest EAR-based amendments that are either already in effect or will become effective following the conclusion of these consolidated cases.2/ Chapter 2 Definitions MCCA objects to several definitions added in Chapter 2 of the CGMP, but the evidence presented does not show an internal consistency or other "in compliance" issue. FLUE Goal 4.7 MCCA objects to the changes in FLUE Goal 4.4G, which would be re-designated Goal 4.7. Existing Goal 4.4G states: 4.4G Goal (encourage urban development in urban service areas) Martin County shall regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in this Growth Management Plan. (italics in original) New Goal 4.7 states: Goal 4.7. To regulate urban sprawl by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to areas with urban public facilities and services, where they are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in this Plan. (italics in original) MCCA contends that the removal of the word “shall” in the new goal “removes the mandatory restriction.” The County did not intend to make a substantive change to Goal 4.4G. In this particular context, the removal of the word “shall” does not require a different interpretation or application of the goal. It is not a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.12A.2 MCCA’s major objection to Ordinance No. 845 is with new FLUE Policy 4.12A.2. Most of the objections raised by MCCA to other changes in the CGMP are directly related to MCCA's objection to Policy 4.12A.2. MCCA contends that this new policy, which allows “small-scale service establishments” outside the USDs, fails to include reasonable controls on commercial development and will adversely affect agricultural uses and the quality of life of rural residents.3/ Policy 4.12A.2 states: Restrictions outside urban service districts. Outside urban service districts, development options shall be restricted to low-intensity uses, including Agricultural lands, not exceeding one unit per 20 gross acres; Agricultural Ranchette lands not exceeding one unit per five gross acres; and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses. (italics in original) Martin County contends that this policy is not a substantive change because nearly the same wording already exists as Section 4.6.D.4 in a part of the FLUE entitled “Implementation Strategies,” and the section was merely re- located and re-designated as Policy 4.12A.2. Section 4.6.D.4 provides: Development outside the urban services district shall be restricted to low intensive development in order to promote cost-effective practices in the delivery of public services. Outside Urban Service Districts development options shall be restricted to low intensity uses including agriculture and agricultural ranchettes, not exceeding one unit per 5 gross acres, and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses as provided by section 6.4.A.5.e., Housing Service Zones in the Housing Element. (italics in original) The reference in this policy to Housing Service Zones is an error. Sometime in the past, the County deleted provisions in the CGMP regarding Housing Service Zones, but overlooked this particular reference. Comparing Section 4.6.D.4 with new Policy 4.12A.2, the significant changes appear to be that Section 4.6.D.4 is transformed from a “strategy” to a “policy,” and the new policy no longer ties small-scale service establishments to Housing Service Zones. However, the determination of whether a substantive change was made in the replacement of Section 4.6.D.4 with new Policy 4.12A.2 also requires consideration of Policy 4.4.G.1.e, which states: Martin County shall provide reasonable and equitable options for development outside of Primary Urban Service Districts, including agriculture and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses. Policy 4.4.G.1.e is already designated as a policy and it does not tie small-scale service establishments to Housing Service Zones. Therefore, although Section 4.6.D.4 differs from new Policy 4.12A.2, there is no substantive difference between new Policy 4.12A.2 and existing Policy 4.4.G.1.e. MCCA asserts that Policy 4.12A.2 and Policy 4.4.G.1.e differ substantively because the former does not have the “agricultural land use designation limits on uses allowed” that are in Policy 4.4.G.1.e. However, as shown above, both policies allow for small-scale service establishments that support rural uses as well as agricultural uses. In support of its arguments about small-scale service establishments, MCCA also points to existing FLUE Policy 4.4.G.1.b (re-designated Policy 4.7A.2) and “implementation strategy” 4.6.D.3 (to be deleted) which require commercial uses to be located in the Primary USDs. The policy and implementation strategy that restrict commercial uses to the Primary USDs co- exist in the CGMP with Policy 4.4.G.1.e, which allows small- scale service establishments outside the Primary USDs. Therefore, in whatever manner the County currently reconciles these policies and strategies, that reconciliation pre-dates the EAR-based amendments. The FLUE amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 845 do not alter the situation. MCCA refers to the County planning staff's report associated with another proposed plan amendment known as "Becker B-4" in support of MCCA's argument that the amendments at issue in the present case have substantively changed the FLUE with regard to small-scale service establishments. However, none of MCCA's allegations regarding the relevance of the Becker B-4 staff report are borne out. If the Becker B-4 amendment is adopted by the County, it will be subject to its own "in compliance" review. In summary, when all relevant provisions of the CGMP are taken into account, the changes made by Ordinance No. 845 that are related to small-scale service establishments are not substantive changes to the CGMP. MCCA’s claims of internal inconsistency that are based on MCCA’s objections to new Policy 4.12A.2 must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. MCCA’s claim that the County did not demonstrate a need for more commercial uses outside the USDs (based on the allowance for small-scale service establishments) must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. MCCA’s claim that the allowance for small-scale service establishments constitutes a failure of the County to discourage urban sprawl must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.5F.4 MCCA objects to the changes to Policy 4.5F.4, which allows planned unit developments (PUDs) designed to preserve open space, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural land uses. These PUDs can be located in areas currently designated Agricultural and can include residential lots greater than two acres in size if certain criteria are met. MCCA contends that this policy is inconsistent with Policy 4.13A.1, which restricts residential densities in agricultural areas to 20-acre residential lots. The allowance in Policy 4.5F.4 for PUDs with residential lots smaller than 20 acres already exists. Therefore, in whatever manner the County currently reconciles Policies 4.5F.4 and 4.13A.1, that reconciliation pre-dates the EAR-based amendments. The FLUE amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 845 do not alter the situation. Furthermore, a PUD created under Objective 4.5F requires a plan amendment. It appears that one of the purposes of this requirement is to re-designate any agricultural lands to a residential future land use designation.4/ FLUE Objective 4.7A MCCA objects to the removal of the word “shall” from existing FLUE Objective 4.4.G.1 (which would be re-designated as Objective 4.7A). MCCA argues that the existing objective prohibits commercial uses outside the Primary USDs and that the removal of the word “shall” will allow commercial uses outside the USDs. However, the objective does not prohibit commercial uses outside the Primary USDs. The objective states that the County “shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development” in the Primary USDs. To concentrate a land use in one location does not mean to prohibit it elsewhere. It is Policy 4.7A.2 that requires new commercial uses to be located in the Primary USDs. In this particular context, the removal of the word “shall” does not require a different interpretation or application of Objective 4.7A. It is not a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.9H.2 MCCA objects to new Policy 4.9H.2, regarding residential PUDs, because the policy indicates that commercial uses can be included in a residential PUD, even if the PUD is located outside the Primary USDs. Policy 4.7A.2 requires all new commercial development to be located in the Primary USDs. Objective 4.5F and its associated policies allow for residential PUDs in agricultural areas outside the USDs, but do not indicate that the PUDs in agricultural areas can include commercial uses. Policy 4.9H.2 conflicts with Policy 4.7A.2 and with Objective 4.5F and its associated policies FLUE Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d) MCCA objects to new Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d), which allows one “accessory dwelling unit” on a residential lot. Accessory units cannot be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit and are not counted as separate units for purposes of density calculations. MCCA's argument regarding accessory dwelling units assumes that the new policy allows accessory units in the rural areas of the County, outside the Primary USDs. However, Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d) appears under the heading "General policies for all urban Residential development." The term "urban" is not defined in the CGMP, but there are several FLUE policies that direct urban residential densities to the Primary USDs, such as Policies 4.7A.2 and 4.7A.3. Objective 4.7A directs densities greater than two units per acre to the Primary USDs, which indicates that densities greater than two units per acre are urban densities. In order to maintain internal consistency, accessory units would have to be confined to areas of the FLUM designated for urban residential density. See FLUE Objective 4.13A.7. The County's proposal to not count accessory uses for density purposes was shown to be a professionally acceptable planning practice. Accessory units are similar to residential additions, converted garages, and other changes that can add bedrooms and residents on a residential lot, but which traditionally have been disregarded when calculating density. FLUE Policy 4.13A.8.(5) MCCA contends that changes made to Policy 4.13A.8.(5), regarding Expressway Oriented Transient Commercial Service Centers ("Expressway Centers"), combined with the proposed deletion of Section 4.6.D.3 of the "Implementation Strategies," allows for more commercial development without data and analysis to support the need for additional commercial development. Policy 4.13A.8.(5) creates Expressway Centers at three large Interstate 95 interchange locations in the County as a special land use designation to accommodate the unique needs of people traveling through the County. Section 4.6.D.3 (which ordinance No. 845 would delete) allows a waiver for Expressway Centers from the general requirements applicable to the USDs if an applicant for a waiver meets certain criteria. MCCA contends that the waiver process weighs "the traveling public’s needs against the value of the urban boundary." That is not an accurate description of the waiver process, because none of the criteria mentions the urban boundary. MCCA contends that the waiver process has been replaced with a "market need test" in Policy 4.13A.8.(5) without supporting data and analysis and that the change encourages urban sprawl. Policy 4.13A.8.(5) requires a market feasibility analysis to show that "the uses proposed are warranted by the traveling public they are intended to serve." MCCA presented no evidence on the County's past applications of Section 4.6.D.3 and Policy 4.13A.8.(5). MCCA failed to show how the demonstration required for a waiver under Section 4.6.D.3 is substantively different and more protective than the demonstration required to establish an Expressway Center under Policy 4.13A.8.(5). MCCA failed to show how the creation of Expressway Centers or the specific amendments to Section 4.6.D.3 and Policy 4.13A.8.(5) will lead to more commercial uses outside the Primary USDs, so as to encourage urban sprawl. State Comprehensive Plan MMCA failed to present evidence or argument to demonstrate that any of the Plan Amendments is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Other Issues MCCA raised other issues in its petitions for which it did not present evidence at the final hearing. With regard to all the issues raised by MCCA that are not specifically addressed above, MCCA failed to prove an inconsistency. The Groves' Issues The Groves’ principal objection to the Plan Amendments is with the County’s methodology for determining the need for residential dwelling units, which is based in large part on the a residential capacity analysis (RCA) set forth in FLUE Policy 4.1D.4, adopted by Ordinance No. 845. The Groves contend that the RCA overestimates the capacity or supply of dwelling units on vacant lands that can be used to meet projected population growth. Because need is derived from a comparison of supply and demand, the Groves contend that the RCA’s overestimation of supply will always cause the County to underestimate the need for additional dwelling units. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 provides: The County shall consider the following factors in its residential capacity analysis: The current peak population, based on the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) medium population, shall be used to demonstrate the unit need in the fifteen year planning period; A market factor of 125 percent shall be applied to the unit need; The Eastern Urban Service District and the Indiantown Urban Service District shall be considered separately; Maximum density shall be calculated for Future Land Use categories in which residential development is allowed; Wetland acreage shall be subtracted from the vacant, undeveloped acreage; Because some land will be taken up by non-residential uses such as roads and utilities, a reduction of 8.5 percent shall be calculated to account for such uses. In the past, Martin County used a similar methodology for determining residential need, but it was not a part of the CGMP. New FLUE Policy 4.1D.3 requires that a new RCA be performed every two years. The RCA is to be used to evaluate future plan amendments and future changes to USD policies. The Groves did not dispute the County’s calculation of residential demand, the number of dwelling units needed to serve the projected population through the planning period 2010 to 2025. As stated in FLUE Policy 4.1D.4, demand is based on mid- range population projections from the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research, which is then adjusted by a 125 percent market factor. A market factor is a multiplier that is applied to account for factors that prevent the full or efficient use of densities allowed by a FLUM. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 requires that the Eastern USDs and the Indiantown USDs be considered separately. This requirement is based on an historical pattern of higher population growth east of the Florida Turnpike and the expectation that the pattern will continue into the foreseeable future. The County projected an increase of 17,598 new residents in the Eastern USDs and an increase of 754 in the Indiantown USDs by 2025. When these figures are divided by average persons per household (2.21), the result is a demand for 7,963 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs and 341 dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs. Applying the market factor of 125 percent results in a demand for 9,954 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs, and 426 units in the Indiantown USDs for the 2010-2025 planning period. To calculate the residential supply of dwelling units that can be developed on existing vacant lands, FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 directs that the calculation begin by determining the maximum density allowed under each future land use category of the vacant lands. In the following discussion, the maximum density allowed under a future land use designation will be referred to as the “theoretical” maximum density. It is the general practice of the Department to require local governments to use theoretical maximum densities in a need analysis unless there are policies in the comprehensive plan preventing landowners from attaining the theoretical maximum densities. However, like the Department's general practice to accept a market factor no greater than 125 percent, these are not requirements explicitly stated in Department rules from which the Department never deviates. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 incorporates two limiting factors that prevent the attainment of theoretical maximum densities: (1) wetlands and (2) roads rights-of-way and utility easements. Development is generally prohibited in wetlands. However, landowners whose lands contain wetlands can transfer half of the “lost” density associated with the wetland acreage to the uplands. Therefore, in calculating the acreage of vacant lands that are available for residential development, the RCA subtracts half the wetland acreage. The County also reduces the total vacant land acreage by 8.5 percent to account for the loss of developable acreage due to the presence of road rights-of-way and utility easements within which development is prohibited. After reducing the total acres of vacant lands in the USDs to account for wetlands and for rights-of-way and utilities, the County determined that there is a supply or vacant land capacity of 5,790 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs and 5,335 units in the Indiantown USDs. The County then adjusted these numbers to account for approved residential developments that have not yet been constructed. This adjustment resulted in final calculation of the existing supply in the Eastern USDs of 9,339 dwelling units and an existing supply in the Indiantown USDs of 6,686 dwelling units. The Groves' Critique of the RCA The Groves argue that the RCA overestimates supply by failing to account for other policies of the CGMP that restrict development and prevent a landowner from attaining the theoretical maximum density. Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 9.1G.4 requires the preservation of a wetland buffer around a wetland. There was conflicting evidence about whether the County credits the landowner for the acreage set aside as a wetland buffer. The Groves contend that no credit is given and cites Table 4-2 of the FLUE, which indicates that wetland buffer acreage is not subtracted to arrive at the total available acreage that can be developed. The Groves also point to the testimony of a County planner, who stated that the County intended to subtract buffer acreage from vacant land acreage, but ultimately did not do so "based on adamant public comment." However, the County's planning director, Nicki Van Vonno, stated that "[Y]ou do get the full density off of the buffer land." It would be logical for the County to not subtract wetland buffer acreage when calculating residential capacity if the landowner is getting full credit for the buffer acreage. Therefore, it is found that the County allows a full transfer of the density associated with wetland buffer acreage to the uplands. COSE Policy 9.1G.5 requires that 25 percent of upland native habitat on a site be preserved. The landowner is allowed to transfer density from these native upland habitat areas to the unaffected areas of the property. Nevertheless, the Groves contends that COSE Policy 9.1G.5 impairs the ability of landowners to attain the theoretical maximum density. The CGMP also requires a portion of the site be set aside for sufficient water retention and treatment. The RCA does not account for any loss of density caused by water retention and treatment areas. The County had proposed to reduce the theoretical maximum density by 15 percent to account for "surface water management and required preservation,” but abandoned the idea when the Department objected to it as not adequately supported by data and analysis. The evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to establish that the requirements of the CGMP associated with surface water management and preservation reduces the theoretical maximum density of residential lands by 15 percent. The County has a mixed-use land use category called Commercial-Office-Residential (COR). The County allows only a third of a COR parcel to be developed for residential uses and this practice reduces the theoretical maximum density of COR lands. However, the RCA assumes 100 percent of the COR acreage is available for residential use. The County attempted to justify this discrepancy by pointing out that the limitation of residential uses on COR lands is not incorporated into the CGMP. However, it is an undisputed fact (datum) that the County's practice reduces residential capacity on COR lands. The RCA fails to account for this fact. If the RCA accounted for the limitation of residential development on COR lands, the supply of dwelling units in the Eastern USDs would be reduced by 733 units. FLUE Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(a) establishes a 40-foot height limit countywide which sometimes prevents a landowner from attaining the theoretical maximum density. The RCA does not account for any loss of density caused by building height restrictions. FLUE Policies 4.1F.1 through 4.1F.3 require transitional density zones when land is developed at a higher density than adjacent lands. FLUE Policy 4.1F.2 establishes a zone (or “tier”) abutting the adjacent land, equal to the depth of an existing adjacent residential lot in which development is restricted, to the same density and compatible structure types (e.g., height) as on the adjacent property. The RCA does not account for any loss of density due to the tier policies. Although the landowner is allowed to transfer density to the unaffected portion of the property in the case of some development restrictions imposed by the CGMP, there is not always sufficient acreage remaining to make full use of the transferred density. The Groves' expert witness, Rick Warner, reviewed residential development projects that had been approved or built during the past 15 years in the Eastern USDs and compared the actual number of approved or built units to the theoretical maximum density allowed by the applicable land use designation for the property at the time of approval. Warner determined that, on average, the projects attained only about 45 percent of the theoretical maximum density. The Groves presented the testimony of Morris Crady, who testified that, of the 14 development projects in the County that he was involved in, CGMP policies caused the projects to be developed at 1,285 units fewer than (about 41 percent of) the maximum theoretical density. Comparing the County’s estimated demand for 9,954 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs through 2025 with the County’s estimated supply of 9,339 dwelling units, indicates a deficit of 615 dwelling units. Comparing the County’s estimated demand for 426 dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs through 2025 with the County’s estimated supply of 6,686 dwelling units, indicates a surplus of 6,260 dwelling units. The County decided to make no changes to the FLUM because it believes the projected population can be accommodated with existing land use designations. The Groves argue that, because the RCA overestimates supply, the deficit in the Eastern USDs is actually substantially larger.5/ For example, taking into account the County's policy regarding limiting residential uses on COR lands, the deficit would be 1,348 units in the Eastern USDs. The deficit would be enlarged by the effects of the other factors discussed above that reduce a landowner's ability to attain the theoretical maximum density. The County contends that there is additional residential capacity outside the USDs that should be considered. The County also points to the large surplus of available dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs. The County asserts that there is excess supply to meet the need when all the available dwelling units in the County are considered. These other considerations, however, are not a part of the RCA and, therefore, are in conflict with the RCA. Acres vs. Dwelling Units The Groves assert that County's determination of residential does not identify the amount of land needed for each category of land use as required by law, but, instead, expresses need solely in terms of total dwelling units. The Department has accepted residential need analyses expressed in dwelling units. Dwelling units can be converted into acreages, but only if one is told what density to apply. A local government must determine how many dwelling units it wants in each land use category in order to convert a need expressed in total dwelling units into a need expressed in acreages. Martin County believes that it has a sufficient supply of dwelling units to meet the projected population through the planning period. Apparently, the County is also satisfied with the existing size and distribution of future land use categories as depicted on the FLUM. The existing vacant land acreages for each land use category, set forth in the CGMP, represents the amount of land in each land use category that the County believes is needed to meet the projected population. However, there is an imbalance in the various types of residential land uses in the Eastern USDs. For example, there are only 13 acres of high density residential land and 57 acres of medium density residential land remaining in the Eastern USDs. In contrast, there are 2,950 acres of rural residential lands. The County has acknowledged that its past emphasis on low-height and low-density has contributed to a lack of affordable housing. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council noted that the small amount of vacant land in the County available for medium and high residential development contributes to the lack of affordable housing in the County. The Plan Amendments include policies which are designed to address the imbalances in land uses and the lack of affordable housing. These policies include permitting accessory dwelling units for urban residential development; allowing a 10 du/ac density bonus and an affordable housing density bonus in Medium Density Residential developments; reducing the criteria for an affordable housing density bonus in High Density Residential developments; and reviewing residential capacity in the Indiantown USDs. Commercial Need There is no state-wide standard for the amount of commercial, industrial, institutional, conservation, or agricultural lands that a local government must identify in its comprehensive plan in order to accommodate its projected population. The County acknowledges that there is a deficit of commercial land necessary to accommodate economic needs, but no changes in the FLUM are proposed as part of these EAR-based amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Plan Amendments are “in compliance,” except for the following policies adopted by Martin County Ordinance No. 845, which the Department should determine are not "in compliance": FLUE Policy 4.1D.4; and FLUE Policy 4.9H.2. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether comprehensive plan future land use map amendment (FLUMA) 07-L25, adopted by Marion County Ordinance 07-31 on November 20, 2007, which changed the FLUM designation on 378 acres of Urban Reserve and on 17.83 acres of Rural Land to Medium Density Residential, is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The parcel that is the subject of the FLUMA at issue (the Property) is approximately 395.83 acres in size. The existing FLUM designation for 378 acres of the Property is Urban Reserve, and the remaining 17.3 acres are designated as Rural Land. Both designations allow a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. The FLUMA would change the designation of the entire parcel to Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR generally allows up to four dwelling units per acre. However, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 12.5.k, which also was adopted as part of County Ordinance 07-31, limits the maximum density on the Property to two dwelling units per acre. FLUE Policy 12.5.k also requires: that development on the Property "be served by central potable water and central sanitary sewer services available concurrent with development" and be a Planned Unit Development "to address site design, buffering, and access issues"; and that NW 90th Avenue be reconstructed from U.S. Highway 27 north to the north-eastern corner of the Property and that all traffic facility improvements needed at the NW 90th Avenue/U.S. 27 intersection, including signalization if approved by the Florida Department of Transportation, be constructed prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Property. Finally, with respect to the 17.3 acres formerly designated as Rural Land, FLUE Policy 12.5.k defers compliance with the County's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program until application for assignment of a zoning classification for the land. Petitioners' Challenge Intervenors own the Property. Petitioners own property nearby in Marion County. Intervenors and Petitioners commented on the proposed FLUMA between transmittal to DCA and adoption by the County. Petitioners contend: The FLUMA is not consistent with the stormwater drainage, retention, and management policies contained in Policies 1.1.a. and 1.1.d. of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Comprehensive Plan. MDR is not suitable or compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity, as required by FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of County Commissioners failed to evaluate the FLUMA's impact on “the need for the change” as provided in FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on “water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding,” as required by Section 187.201(15)(b)6., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA is not consistent with Transportation Policy 1.0 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states: "Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in a safe and efficient manner within an established level of service." The FLUMA is not consistent with the State's Comprehensive Plan in that it does not "ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and regional water supplies," as required by Section 187.201(7)(b)5., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA does not direct development away from areas without sediment cover that is adequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer and does not prohibit non-residential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature, in violation of FLUE Policy 4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA does not comply with Section 187.201(7), Florida Statutes, concerning the protection of surface and ground water quality in the State. Recharge Sub-Element Policy 1.1.a. and d. Policy 1.1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan provides in part: The County’s land development regulations shall implement the following guidelines for stormwater management consistent with accepted engineering practices by October 1, 2007: Stormwater retention/detention basin depth will be consistent with the water management district's storm water requirements for Karst Sensitive Areas so that sufficient filtration of bacteria and other pollutants will occur. Avoidance of basin collapse due to excessive hydrostatic pressure in Karst Sensitive Areas shall be given special consideration. * * * d. Require the use of swales and drainage easements, particularly for single family residential development in Karst Sensitive Areas. These are requirements for land development regulations (LDRs); they do not apply to comprehensive plan amendments. In any event, the evidence did not prove that the site is unsuitable for the density allowed under the adopted FLUMA due to karst features. The admissible evidence presented by Petitioners regarding stormwater management in karst topography generally related to flooding problems on the property contiguous to the Property, and to a karst feature referred to as the “63rd Street Sinkhole,” which is located in the general vicinity of the Property. Fay Baird, an expert hydrologist called by Petitioners, testified that the 63rd Street Sinkhole allows stormwater run- off to enter the upper aquifer. Ms. Baird testified generally of the problems and concerns regarding development and stormwater management systems in karst topography. She testified that the Property should be properly inventoried, that specific karst features should be identified, and that any stormwater system designed or developed should take into account karst features to protect against groundwater contamination and flooding. She testified that she had not been on the Property, had not seen or reviewed core borings or other data to determine the depth and nature of the sub-surface, and was not in a position to provide opinions as to whether or not a particular stormwater management system would or could adequately protect against her concerns. Intervenors’ expert, Richard Busche, testified that a stormwater management plan like the one recommended by Ms. Baird was being developed. Compatibility under FLUE Policy 12.3 FLUE Policy 12.3 provides in pertinent part: Before approval of a future land use amendment, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed future land use is suitable, and the County will review, and make a determination that the proposed land use is compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity . . . . Petitioners argued that the proposed MDR development of the Property is incompatible with surrounding agricultural uses. Actually, the Property is surrounded by a mixture of agricultural and residential uses, including residential subdivisions, a golf course, and scattered large-lot residential and equestrian uses. The properties immediately to the south and east of the Property are developed residential properties and are designated MDR. Before the FLUMA, most of the Property was designated Urban Reserve under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Such land "provides for expansion of an Urban Area in a timely manner." FLUE Policies 1.24.B and 2.18. "For an Urban Reserve Area to be designated an Urban Area, it must be compact and contiguous to an existing Urban Area, and central water and sewer must be provided concurrent with development within the expanded area." FLUE Policy 2.18. The Property is compact and is contiguous to existing Urban Area designated MDR. This indicates that the County already has planned for timely conversion of the Urban Reserve land on the Property to urban uses, including MDR. It also means that the County already has determined that at least certain urban uses, including MDR, are compatible with adjacent agricultural uses. The Property is in the receiving area under the County's Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Program in FLUE Objectives 13.0 and 13.01 and the policies under those objectives. This means that the County already has determined that residential density can be transferred to the Property from the Farmland Preservation sending areas to increase residential density up to one dwelling unit per acre. See FLUE Policy 13.6. This would constitute Low Density Residential, which is an urban use under the County's Comprehensive Plan. See FLUE Policy 1.24.A. By establishing the Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Programs, the County already has determined that Low Density Residential is compatible with adjacent Rural Land. In addition, Low Density Residential clearly is compatible with MDR. Although not raised in the Petition, Petitioners argued that the Urban Reserve and Farmland Preservation eastern boundary was improperly moved west to NW 90th Avenue. However, that change was made prior to the adoption of Ordinance 07-31 and the FLUMA at issue in this case and is not a proper subject of this proceeding. Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3 FLUE Policy 13.2 provides: The Transfer of Development Rights program shall be the required method for increasing density within receiving areas, unless, through the normal Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle, an applicant can both justify and demonstrate a need for a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. FLUE Policy 12.3 provides: Before approval of a future land use amendment, . . . the County . . . shall evaluate its impact on: The need for the change; The availability of facilities and services; The future land use balance; and The prevention of urban sprawl as defined by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence proved that the County interprets FLUE Policy 12.3 to require need and future land use balance to be assessed within the planning districts it has established. There is no need for additional MDR in the County's Planning District 5, where the Property is located. To accommodate the projected population increase in Planning District 5 by 2010, which is the planning horizon for the County’s Comprehensive Plan, an additional 644 dwelling units are needed. There are 1,893 vacant acres of MDR available in Planning District 5. At four units per acre allowed in MDR, the County has an available supply of 7,572 MDR dwelling units in Planning District 5. In the absence of a need in Planning District 5, the County relied on a need demonstration prepared for the Intervenors by Fishkind and Associates.6 Besides being a County-wide analysis instead of a planning district analysis, the Fishkind analysis assumed a planning horizon of 2015, rather than the 2010 horizon established in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the Fishkind analysis applied an allocation factor to the total projected need for residential use, most of which already is supplied, resulting in a projection of residential far in excess of the incremental need for additional residential land by 2015, much less by 2010. The result of the Fishkind approach was to allocate enough land for residential use to meet the County-wide projected incremental need for additional residential land use for approximately 45 years, which is five times the calculated incremental need for 2015. Even assuming that a County-wide demonstration of need complied with Marion County's Comprehensive Plan, this is much too high an allocation ratio to use to meet the incremental need projected for a 2015 plan, much less for a 2010 plan. The expert for Intervenors, Stanley Geberer, defended the Fishkind analysis in part by stating that it was comparable to demonstrations of need accepted by DCA in other cases. However, there was no evidence that the facts of those other cases were comparable to the facts of this case. Mr. Geberer also asserted that holding the County to its 2010 planning horizon would make it impossible for the County to plan for the future. However, nothing prevents the County from revising its Comprehensive Plan to plan comprehensively for a longer timeframe. There was no evidence of any other circumstances that would demonstrate a need for the FLUMA at issue in this case. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(15)(b)6. Petitioners did not prove that the FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on "water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding." To the contrary, the evidence was that those items were taken into account as part of the FLUMA. (However, as to the FLUMA's impact on the availability of land to meet demands, see "Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3," supra.) Transportation Element Objective 1.0 Transportation Element Objective 1.0 provides: Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in an efficient and safe manner within established levels of service. Petitioners presented no expert testimony or admissible evidence that the FLUMA will change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. Intervenors presented the testimony of Jonathan Thigpen, an expert traffic engineer, who prepared and submitted to the County a Traffic Impact Study and testified that the FLUMA would not change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. The ultimate need for transportation improvement, such as turn lanes and traffic lights to mitigate the impacts of development under the FLUMA, will be determined at later stages of development. Petitioners suggested that the FLUMA will result in delays caused by additional traffic, frustrate drivers waiting to turn east on U.S. 27, and induce large numbers of them to seek an alternative route to the north through agricultural areas, some of which have inadequate slag roads. However, Petitioners failed to prove that this result is likely. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(7)(b)5 Petitioners presented no evidence that the designation of MDR on the Property is incompatible with existing local and regional water supplies. The evidence was that adequate local and regional water supplies exist. Even if they did not exist, the consequence would be less development than the maximum allowed by the FLUMA. FLUE Policy 4.2 FLUE Policy 4.2 provides in pertinent part: In order to minimize the adverse impacts of development on recharge quality and quantity in high recharge Karst sensitive and springs protection areas, design standards for all development shall be required and defined in the LDRs to address, at a minimum, the following: * * * f. Directing development away from areas with sediment cover that is inadequate to protect the Floridian [sic] Aquifer. * * * h. Prohibiting nonresidential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other Karst feature. This policy sets forth requirements for the content of LDRs, not FLUMAs. Petitioners presented no evidence that sediment cover on the Property is inadequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer or that any non-residential uses would be constructed within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature under the FLUMA. Marion County has adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan to protect springs and karst features.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department determine the FLUMA at issue in this case to be not "in compliance" and take further action as required by Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments adopted by Respondent in Ordinance No. 5-1998 are not in compliance, for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Intent that is incorporated into the Petition of the Department of Community Affairs.
Findings Of Fact The Plan and the Adoption Ordinance Petitioner challenges Respondent's redesignation of a 198-acre parcel (Parcel) from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial on the future land use map (FLUM) of Respondent's comprehensive plan. This is the Plan amendment that is the subject of the present case. Respondent's comprehensive plan consists of a document that was restated through 1990 (Petitioner Exhibit 22) and a set of plan amendments adopted on October 13, 1997 (Petitioner Exhibit 13). This recommended order will refer cumulatively to the 1990 restated plan and the 1997 plan amendments as the Plan. Two conditions govern reliance upon Petitioner Exhibits 22 and 13 as the sources of Plan provisions. First, Petitioner Exhibits 22 and 13 do not contain all of the textual Plan amendments adopted by Respondent between 1990 and 1997. For example, Text Amendment T-1 in Plant City Plan Amendment 95-1, as adopted by Ordinance 34-1994 on October 10, 1994, is missing from Petitioner Exhibit 22. It is unlikely, though, that the missing Plan provisions would have a bearing on the present case. Second, and more important, Petitioner Exhibit 13 contains proposed plan language that Respondent never adopted. Similarly, Respondent did not adopt the plan language or recommendations for the addition, deletion, or amendment of plan language contained in Petitioner Exhibits 6 and 8. Petitioner Exhibit 6 is Respondent's evaluation and appraisal report (EAR). Required by law to be prepared at stated intervals, the EAR is the document by which a local government assesses the performance of its comprehensive plan and recommends needed amendments. In this case, Petitioner objected to portions of the EAR, so Respondent adopted a revised EAR (REAR), which is Petitioner Exhibit 8. After Petitioner determined that the REAR was sufficient, subject to the conditions noted below, Respondent adopted Plan amendments by Ordinance 23-1997, as adopted October 13, 1997; these amendments are contained in Petitioner Exhibit 13, which, as already noted, is part of the Plan. However, Petitioner Exhibit 13 is a composite exhibit and contains plan language that Respondent did not adopt. It is not entirely clear from the exhibit exactly what Respondent is adopting because Ordinance 23-1997 does not contain, identify, or describe the Plan amendments, nor is a copy of the Plan amendments attached to the ordinance. As incorporated into Petitioner Exhibit 13, the adopted Plan amendments precede the ordinance. These amendments change the Public Facilities Element (PFE), Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Capital Improvements Element (CIE), including the schedule of capital improvements, and substitute a comprehensive set of definitions for the sets of definitions that previously were contained in several of the elements. Incorporated into Petitioner Exhibit 13 between the adopted Plan amendments and the ordinance are a small number of pages concerning legal advertising and regional plan review, but these pages, which are irrelevant to the present case, were not adopted. Following the ordinance are additional pages concerning advertising and county plan review and a set of documents entitled, "Section A, Summary of Proposals for Plan Amendment Group 97-01." It is unclear to what Section A is supposed to be attached, but most likely Section A contains the proposed amendments that Respondent submitted to the Hillsborough County Planning Commission. In any event, Respondent never adopted Section A, as such. About six months later, Respondent adopted the Plan amendment that is the subject of this case. By Ordinance 5-1998, adopted April 13, 1998, Respondent adopted "amendments" to the Plan. The finding that this ordinance contains the subject Plan amendment is not entirely free of doubt because it is based on inference and implied stipulation; as is apparently Respondent's practice, the actual amendment is in no way identified in Ordinance 5-1998. The ordinance states only that a "copy of [the] amendment is filed in the office of the City Clerk . . .." Nothing in the record actually describes the contents of Ordinance 5-1998, but the parties and reviewing agencies, such as the Hillsborough County Planning Commission, have treated this ordinance as the one that adopted the redesignation of the Parcel, so the administrative law judge will too. The title of the adoption ordinance is: "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PLANT CITY, FLORIDA; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (97-1)." This is the only reference to "97-1" in the ordinance. Respondent attached several documents to the submittal package to Petitioner. The amendment is identified as Amendment 97-2 in the minutes of the City Commission meeting at which Respondent adopted the ordinance; however, the ordinance does not mention this amendment number. The amendment is identified as Amendment 97-2, Map Amendment 1, in the resolution of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, which approved an amendment changing the designation of 198 acres on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. The amendment is identified as proposed Amendment 98-1 in Respondent's responses to the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of Petitioner, although the context of these responses reveals that they pertain to the redesignation of 198 acres from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. The submittal package also includes a map that shows the area to be redesignated Industrial from Suburban Density Residential and a staff report that includes a textual and graphic analysis of the land uses surrounding the Parcel. Background The west boundary of the Parcel abuts Jim Johnson Road and a main north-south railroad line, the south boundary abuts an east-west railroad line, and the east boundary abuts Coronet Road. The Parcel is designated Suburban Density Residential, although, according to the staff report, a poor legal description leaves some doubt as to whether the westernmost part of the Parcel might already be designated Industrial. This recommended order treats the entire Parcel as Suburban Density Residential. The Parcel lies at the extreme southeast corner of Plant City. The surrounding land in Plant City is entirely Industrial. The Parcel lies at the southeast corner of one of the two largest areas designated Industrial in Plant City. Both of these areas are in the city's southern half, which is otherwise devoted to medium- and high-density residential and commercial uses. The vast portion of low-density residential, which is designated Suburban Density Residential, is in the city's northern half, which also includes some commercial, medium- and high-density residential uses. The staff report analyzes the surrounding existing land uses within this Industrial area of Plant City. On the eastern half of the north border of the Parcel is "expansive wooded fenced pasture land" with one single-family home and some stored mobile homes. On the western half of the north border and the northern half of the west border is a Food Lion distribution center on a 150-acre parcel. Immediately west, across Jim Johnson Road, is a developed industrial park. On the east border is a golf course, a power plant, and vacant, wooded land. On the south border, within Plant City, is a small area of Suburban Density Residential not proposed for redesignation. This area appears to be wooded and adjoins another wooded area that adjoins a residential area a short distance to the east. On the south border, within unincorporated Hillsborough County, of which Plant City is a part, are low- density residential uses in an area designated in the Hillsborough County plan for up to six dwelling units per acre. (All references to density shall state a ratio with the number of dwelling units followed by the number of acres; in this case, the density is 6:1). The Parcel contains fenced pasture land, one single- family residence, and a rail spur leading from the south border to the south boundary of the Food Lion distribution center. The Parcel contains three areas of wetlands totaling about 37 acres. The wetlands are at the south and west side of the Parcel, the middle of the Parcel, and the east side of the Parcel. The wetlands are contiguous and convey water to the upper part of the Howell Branch, which empties into the South Prong of the Alafia River. The Alafia River runs west through Hillsborough County and empties into Hillsborough Bay or upper Tampa Bay. The record provides no basis to infer that the railroad track running along the southern boundary of the Parcel has impounded stormwater runoff. To the contrary, the presence of culverts and elevated tracks suggest that the spur crossing the Parcel and ending at the Food Lion property does not cut off the flow of surface water. However, the record does not contain much detail as to the level to which the onsite wetlands function as natural drainage or habitat. The economic value of the Parcel would be enhanced if its designation were Industrial rather than Suburban Density Residential. However, the record does not permit the inference that development would take place sooner in the event of such a redesignation. Jim Johnson Road is scheduled to be expanded to four lanes from a point to the north down to nearly the south end of the Food Lion parcel. At this point, Jim Johnson Road, which continues farther south as a two-lane road, intersects the eastern terminus of the four-lane extension of Alexander Street. The Parcel is not presently served by central wastewater, but, by 2000, such service should be extended to within one-half mile of the Parcel. The nearest lift station operated at only nine percent of capacity in 1988. The unadopted text accompanying the Plan states that Plant City, which is about 20 miles east of Tampa and 10 miles west of Lakeland, has experienced "steady industrial growth over the past years with almost total utilization of its industrial park . . .." Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 20. The central business district of Plant City is at the intersection of State Road 39 and U.S. Route 92. When this central business district began to form over 100 years ago, it occupied the intersection of important rail lines traveling north-south and east-west--the two lines that continue to operate in the vicinity of the Parcel. Decades later, the interstate highway system added to Plant City's industrial development. Interstate 4, which runs east-west, passes just north of the central business district. Interstate 75, which runs north-south, is a little over 10 miles west of Plant City. In the 1970s, Respondent annexed the land in the southwest part of the city for the mixed-use planned residential development known as Walden Lake. In the same decade, Respondent annexed the land in the western part of the city for industrial uses in the vicinity of the city airport. Ensuing industrial development in the Walden Woods Business Center, of which the Parcel is a part, has resulted in the location of a distributor of bottled detergents on a two-acre parcel, a boxmaker on a 20-acre parcel, and an automated operation to upgrade used cars on another 20-acre parcel. In the 1980s, as the western industrial lands developed, Respondent facilitated the industrial development of land in the eastern part of the city. Recent industrial development has shifted toward the east, absorbing land between Plant City and Lakeland. The unadopted text in the Plan predicts strong industrial growth in the future: Recent events have indicated that Plant City will have a significant expansion in its industrial base through the location of major industrial employers to the east of the city providing jobs and revenue to Plant City. This will, of course, have an effect upon the facilities of Plant City in maintaining current levels of service and the concurrent provision of facilities with the impacts of development as the City's currently adopted plan requires. Due to the impact that industrial developments have upon adjacent land uses, including residential areas, the City will require all future industrial developments to be planned development. Plant City is expected to maintain a suburban, commuter and local job market through the planning period. Job growth in the reserve area will create more nearby employment opportunities for the city's residents with the workforce travelling shorter distances to employment centers in the immediate area. Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 20. The testimony at the hearing established that Plant City occupies the I-4 technology corridor. Aided by the efforts of the University of South Florida, in Tampa, and the University of Central Florida, in Orlando, this corridor is designed to attract high-tech manufacturing. Plant City and Lakeland are important segments of this corridor because they have sufficient utilities to serve such manufacturers. Persons involved in the marketing and developing of industrial land contend that, from a marketing standpoint, there is a shortage of affordable, usable industrial land in Hillsborough County. Land in Tampa is expensive, and relatively little land exists in unincorporated Hillsborough County. One broker/developer estimated that there has not been so little land of this type in this area since the early 1980s--a situation exacerbated by the conversion of some industrial office parks to office and residential uses. Respondent has enjoyed favorable newspaper publicity concerning its industrial growth. In its Responses to Petitioner's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments, dated March 23, 1998 (ORC Response), Respondent's staff summarized numerous newspaper articles noting the number of high-paying jobs attracted to Plant City by its proximity to Interstates 4 and 75, the Tampa port and railroad lines, 75 percent of all food- distribution sites in Florida, a new technical-education center, major universities in Tampa and Orlando, and Respondent's pro- industrial policies, including reduced fees on new construction to pay for infrastructure. ORC Response (part of Petitioner Exhibit 4), pp. 9-12. The unadopted text in the Plan analyzes the relationship of allocations to future needs by residential and nonresidential categories. As of 1990, the projected population for Plant City for 2010 was 27,700, and the residential designations on the FLUM accommodated a buildout population of 29,921. For nonresidential calculations, Respondent determined the potential employment-generating capacity of Respondent's available Commercial and Industrial land by considering square feet per acre, vacancy rates, and employees per square foot. Respondent concluded that the Commercial and Industrial future land use designations could accommodate an additional 36,694 employees to its employment base by 2010. Referring to the employment capacity stated in the preceding paragraph, the unadopted text concludes: This capacity is significantly greater than the estimated employment growth potential for the city and could potentially contribute to a dramatic change in the city's future socio- economic profile. Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 32. As Petitioner considered the subject FLUM amendment, it became readily apparent that Petitioner and Respondent differed as to the extent of analysis required to support the conversion of 198 acres of Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. In its REAR, Respondent updated its acreage allocations by future land use category, showing 1989 and 1995 acreages. From 1989 to 1995, Suburban Density Residential increased from 1215 acres, or 9.8 percent of the City, to 2272, or 15.7 percent of the City. (Annexations raised the total acreage in the City from 12,344 acres to 14,452 acres.) During the same period, Industrial increased from 3573 acres, or 28.9 percent, to 4385 acres, or 30.2 percent. After Suburban Density Residential, the largest percentage change during this period was Environmentally Sensitive, which decreased from 1958 acres, or 15.9 percent, to 1433, or 9.9 percent. Addressing wetlands-protection issues, the REAR states that the Conservation Element in the Plan, "as implemented through the City's Land Development Code and the requirements and processes of the Environmental Protection Commission," is "consistent with the new State requirements." Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 9. The REAR asserts that the Conservation Element protects wetlands through discussion in the unadopted text of the Plan and "outlines wetlands protection strategies in the adopted portion of the [Conservation Element], Objective C and Policies C.1-C.9. Wetlands protection is also addressed in the FLUE [Future Land Use Element]." Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 9. However, the REAR promises an expanded Conservation Element with mapping of the wetlands on the FLUM. The REAR contends that: [u]pon adoption of revised [Plan] provisions, all wetlands in the City will be protected by the [P]lan, by existing or revised Land Development Code provisions, by the [Environmental Protection Commission's] Wetlands Rule (which includes more stringent protection for more types and sizes of wetlands than that available at any other level of government), by the state through its Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) process, and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and various other laws and procedures. The City believes that this system will ultimately offer an extremely high level of [P]lan-based wetlands protection. Petitioner Exhibit 8, pp. 9-10. The REAR contains a table showing proposed changes to the Plan. Among the proposed changes is FLUE Policy 6.B.4, which was proposed to provide: The City may allow wetland encroachment as a last option only when other options to avoid wetland impacts are unavailable. When this occurs, the City in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, shall ensure the permitted activities are compatible with maintaining the area as a viable productive vegetative and wildlife habitat that protects its natural function based on the following criteria: allow only minimum impact projects such as piers, docks, walkways in wetlands; require development to be transferred to adjacent uplands outside wetland areas; restrict density in wetland areas to one residential unit for each identified wetland area. Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 32. Petitioner determined that the REAR was in compliance, although on the condition that Respondent agree to work on the issues of wetlands, urban sprawl, and transportation. The Plan amendments adopted on October 13, 1997, did not address many of the issues discussed in the EAR and REAR. Notably, the Plan amendments did not include the revised FLUE Policy 6.B.4, quoted above. Following Respondent's transmittal of the subject Plan amendment, Petitioner submitted objections, recommendations, and comments. In its ORC Response, Respondent stated: The consideration of this plan amendment does not rest on a need to show a demand generated by residents of the City for more industrial land. The City has shown that it has provided for, and can continue to provide for, adequate provision of residential and other uses. ORC Response, p. 3. Using updated figures, the ORC Response states that Respondent had an excess residential designation of over 12,000 persons by 2015. The designation change of the Parcel would still leave an excess residential capacity of 10,443 persons. Using an updated population projection of 36,300 persons by 2015, the removal of the Parcel from Suburban Density Residential reduces Plant City's residential overallocation, in 2015, from 33.1 percent to 28.77 percent--which is still in excess of Petitioner's 25-percent guideline for residential overallocations. Addressing wetlands-protection issues, the ORC Response states that a developer could not develop Industrial land until it showed that "environmental damage would not occur" and compliance with the requirements of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, County Environmental Protection Commission, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. ORC Response, p. 5. Citing a provision of Respondent's land development regulations, the response adds that Respondent would require a "detailed site plan." Id. The ORC Response acknowledges that Petitioner was seeking the adoption of additional Plan provisions, in accordance with Rule 9J-5.013, Florida Administrative Code, to "exclude future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland function." ORC Response, p. 5. The ORC Response assures that Respondent will propose language requiring the developer to document the environmental conditions at the time of a proposed Plan amendment, rather than at the time of the issuance of a development permit, as the Plan reportedly provides at present. The ORC Response adds that, at the time of the issuance of a development permit, the new language will require that "an environmental review would ensure than the proposed development, under the applicable land use category, does not impact any natural resources located on the site. The protection rests with the site plan review process, detailed in the City's Land Development code." ORC Response, p. 5. Addressing transportation issues, the ORC Response relies on the concurrency provisions of the Plan to ensure that adequate traffic capacity will exist to serve the industrial development of the Parcel. Addressing buffering issues, the ORC Response assures that adequate buffering with nearby residential areas will result from the requirement, in the land development regulations, that the developer provide adequate buffering through a "detailed site plan." The Plan The definitions define Industrial as: The future land use plan category used to designated geographically on the Future Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element those areas in the City that are potentially suitable for industrial activities that create a minimal degree of impact to the surrounding area, particularly in terms of non-objectionable levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor, and for convenience commercial uses that are limited to serving the development. All new development and major expansions of existing uses are subject to site plan review with the intent to integrate and minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent land uses. No new residential development is allowed. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Polices of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations pursuant thereto which allows [sic] up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of .50 and a maximum commercial area limited to 10 [percent] of the planned development industrial building square footage. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-21. The definitions define Suburban Density Residential as: The future land use plan category generally used to designated geographically on the Future Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element those areas that are best suited for single family detached residential uses although other housing approaches and compatible related uses such as churches and public utilities serving the neighborhood can be integrated in the area, subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations pursuant thereto. A density range of 0-4 dwelling units per gross acre may be achieved within SDR. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-39. The definitions section defines "Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Areas (E), Future Land Use Category" as: The future land use plan category is generally used to designate, geographically on the Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element, those areas in the City that are potentially environmentally sensitive and thereby subject to classification as Conservation or Preservation areas under the provisions of the Conservation . . . Element The Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Areas future land use plan category on the Future Land Use map is generalized and not exhaustive of all environmentally sensitive sites. Therefore, actual on-site environmental evaluations must occur for any specific project review, and development of any lands containing environmentally sensitive areas is restricted by applicable federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations and by the applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer also to the definitions of Preservation Area and Conservation Area and to the polices, land use category description, and density computation provisions related to environmentally sensitive areas). In conjunction with on- site environmental evaluation, the adjacent land use designation shall provide guidance as to the development potential that may be considered once environmentally sensitive areas are surveyed and mapped on site. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-16. The definitions define "Environmentally Sensitive" as: Descriptive of lands which, by virtue of some qualifying environmental characteristic (e.g., wildlife habitat) are regulated by either the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), or any other governmental agency empowered by law for such regulation. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-15. The definitions do not define "Preservation Area," except to refer to "Conservation Area." Petitioner Exhibit 13, B9-31. For "Conservation Area," the definitions state: Means land designated to: protect the following preservation areas from any further development, except in extreme cases of overriding public interest: --Critical habitat for species of endangered, threatened, or rare status; --Class I and II waters; --Unique environmental features such as springs, steep natural slopes, cavernous sinkholes, and major natural rock outcrops. be environmentally sensitive areas in the Comprehensive Plan and the City's Land Development Code. Development of these areas is limited to conservation uses. be set aside specifically for the protection and safekeeping of certain values within the area, such as game, wildlife, forest, etc. Preserved areas may or may not be outdoor recreation areas, depending on the use allowed therein. Petitioner Exhibit 13, pp. B9-10 and 11. The definitions define "Conservation Uses" as: Activities within the land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources or environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of natural vegetative communities or wildlife habitats. [F.A.C. 9J-5.003(30)] Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-11. The definitions define "Wetlands" as: those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and a duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances, do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Soils present in wetlands generally are classified as hydric or alluvial, or possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. The prevalent vegetation in wetlands generally consists of facultative or obligate hydrophytic macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having soil conditions described above. These species, due to morphological, physiological, or reproductive adaptations, have the ability to grow, reproduce or persist in aquatic environments or anaerobic soil conditions. Florida wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bayheads, bogs, cypress domes and strands, slough, wet prairies, riverine swamps and marshes, hydric seepage slopes, tidal marshes, mangrove swamps and other similar areas. Florida wetlands generally do not include longleaf or slash pine flatwoods with an understory dominated by saw palmetto. The delineation of actual wetland boundaries may be made by any professionally accepted methodology consistent with the type of wetlands being delineated but shall be consistent with any unified statewide methodology for the delineation of the extent of wetlands ratified by the legislature. [F.A.C. 9J-5.003(149)] Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-43. The definitions define "Planned Development" as: "Development governed by the requirements of a site plan zoning district." Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-31. FLUE Policy 1.C.3 states: Higher intensity non-residential land uses that are adjacent to established neighborhoods shall be restricted to collectors and arterials and to locations external to established and developing neighborhoods. FLUE Goal 2 is: To sustain the viability of existing and emerging commercial and industrial park areas to achieve an integrated land use fabric which will offer a full range of employment, shopping, and leisure opportunities to support the city's residential areas. FLUE Policy 2.A.3 provides: Buffer residential uses from the negative impacts of non-residential development (physical, visual, or auditory), through the use of walls, berms, landscaped areas. FLUE Objective 2.E is: Support the downtown, stadium, community college, hospital, airport and the industrial areas of the city as the major employment and regional attractors of the Plant City area. FLUE Policy 2.E.1 states that Respondent will ensure that "adequate transportation, water, sewer, solid waste, and drainage facilities will be provided concurrent with the impacts of development " FLUE Policy 6.A.4 provides: The City shall regulate land use and development in all areas subject to flooding by prohibiting all development within the 100 year floodplain which is not in strict conformance with the provisions of the City of Plant City Flood Hazard Ordinance. FLUE Policy 6.A.6 is: The City shall investigate incentives to encourage the clustering of development away from environmentally sensitive lands. FLUE Objective 7.A states: In all actions of the City, urban sprawl shall be discouraged and a compact urban pattern of development shall be provided for in a manner which will promote the full utilization of existing public infrastructure and allow for the orderly extension and expansion of municipal facilities in a fiscally responsible manner. FLUE Policy 7.A.3 provides: The City shall permit new development which lies contiguous to existing urbanized lands only if public facilities are available or can be provided concurrent with the impacts of the development. All development shall be consistent with and maintain the adopted levels of service. FLUE Objective 7.B restates the concurrency requirement at the time of "approving new development and redevelopment." FLUE Policy 7.B.1 prohibits the issuance of "development orders or permits" that would result in "a reduction of the level of service (LOS) established for public facilities as adopted in the Capital Improvements Element." FLUE Objective 7.E restates the commitment to serve all new development and redevelopment with public facilities at or above the adopted LOS standard. FLUE Objective 7.F again restates this commitment, as it pertains to roads. The Goal of the Conservation Element is to: Preserve, conserve, restore, and appropriately manage the natural resources of the City of Plant City, in order to maintain or enhance environmental quality for present and future generations. Acknowledging the role of land-use planning in protecting natural resources, the Conservation Element states: In past decades, land use decisions were based primarily upon socio-economic and demographic factors, with little consideration given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land. As a result, urban land uses were often allowed to replace or permanently alter environmentally sensitive lands and natural systems. With a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions if the natural attributes and functions of the environment are to be maintained for future generations. Policies and regulations that appropriately preserve or conserve valuable natural resources, while allowing for orderly economic growth, are needed. Petitioner Exhibit 22, Conservation Element, pp. 63-64. The Conservation Element contains 12 objectives under eight categories--air quality, surface water, soil, hazardous materials, flora and fauna, natural preserves, land uses, and minerals. The objectives are specific and measurable. However, the policies in the Conservation Element are vague and unlikely to contribute significantly to the attainment of the Conservation objectives. Only 11 policies (A.7, B.1, B.7, C.2, E.2, E.6, E.7, F.6, H.2, H.4, and L.1) specifically describe a program or activity that will assist in the attainment of any objective. The remaining policies require Respondent only to "cooperate" (14 times), "promote" (9 times), "participate" (5 times), "request" (4 times), "support/encourage" (4 times), "assist" (3 times), and even "consider requiring" (1 time). Other policies promise compliance with the law, public education, and recommendations. Six policies promise some action in the land development regulations or the "land use planning process"-- evidently referring not to the preparation of the Plan, but to some part of the permitting process that may be described in the land development regulations, but is not described in the Plan. Several of the Conservation provisions more directly affect the present case. Acknowledging that "more stringent regulations for stormwater discharges should be considered," Conservation Objective B states: By 1990, discharges to all natural surface water bodies in the City of Plant City shall meet or exceed State water quality standards . . .. Cognizant that increased growth will continue to pressure wetlands, a "significant percentage" of which have already been lost, Conservation Objective C states: "By 1992, no net loss of natural wetland acreage and 100-year floodplain storage volume shall occur in the City." However, Conservation Policy C.3 implements this promise through reliance on the activities of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission and the previously described, unspecified permitting process that appears to be part of Respondent's land development regulations. Conservation Policy C.4 defers to "appropriate environmental regulatory agencies" the responsibility of developing a comprehensive wetland mitigation and restoration program. Conservation Policy C.9 states that Respondent will cooperate with Hillsborough County and the Southwest Florida Water Management District to develop comprehensive floodplain management regulations for the 100-year floodplain. In the restated 1990 plan, Public Facilities Element (PFE) Objective 1.C provided: By 2000, the City will implement mandatory requirements for discontinuing the use of all septic tanks[,] providing sanitary sewer facilities for the affected residents is available. In the 1987 amendments, Respondent weakened this objective by substituting for it the following: The City shall encourage the discontinuance of all on-site wastewater systems and private water wells upon the availability of public sanitary sewer facilities and public water utilities for the affected residents. However, PFE Policy 1.C.1, also part of the 1987 amendments, somewhat limits the circumstances under which landowners may continue to use onsite wastewater disposal systems. PFE Objective 1.A states: By February 1, 1990, the City . . . will implement procedures to ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, capacity consistent with the level of service standards is available or will be available when needed to serve the development. PFE Policy 1.A.1 adopts LOS standards of 89 gallons per capita per day for residential sewer, 7 gallons per employee per day for commercial sewer, and 43 gallons per employee per day for industrial sewer. Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) Policy A.1 adopts LOS standards for city roads. TCE Objective B requires Respondent to adopt land development regulations to ensure that transportation improvements further the provisions of the FLUE. TCE Policy D.1 is to provide transportation infrastructure to accommodate the impacts of growth consistent with the requirements of the provisions of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). CIE Objective 1 is to set LOS standards for each public facility and identify the capital improvements needed to ensure that the adopted LOS standards are met. CIE Objective 2 is to provide needed public facilities that are within Respondent's ability to fund. CIE Policy 2.B attempts to allocate the costs of additional public facilities between existing and new development; ensuing policies largely assign the responsibility for curing deficiencies to existing development and adding capacity to new development. CIE Objective 3 is to provide needed public facilities to compensate for depletion and to accommodate new development and redevelopment. Ultimate Findings of Fact Adequacy of Ordinance On its face, Ordinance 5-1998 provides no basis whatsoever for inferring that it implements a change in the Parcel's designation on the FLUM. The contents of the ordinance presumably emerges only upon examination of the original ordinance file kept in the City Clerk's office. Supporting Data and Analysis--General Need for Conversion from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial Designation As for the need for more Industrial land, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis fail to support this Parcel's redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. Petitioner contends that this change in designation is not supported by the data and analysis because it results in an overallocation of Industrial. This argument fails for several reasons. First, Petitioner failed to prove any standards by which to determine an overallocation of Industrial, at least given the circumstances of this case. Already characterized by considerable industrial development, Respondent has successfully promoted more industrial development. Perhaps most important, Respondent's unique locational advantages promise more industrial development, given Respondent's proximity to the major population areas of East Central Florida, the Tampa Bay area, and Southwest Florida and its proximity to the large-scale transportation facilities of two major interstates, two rail lines, the Tampa port, and the airports of Tampa and Orlando. Second, under these unique circumstances, Petitioner failed to prove that market demand coupled with the need for larger blocks of land do not justify the new Industrial designation for the Parcel. Third, Petitioner failed to prove that the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial is not supported by the data and analysis because this redesignation reduces an overallocation of residential land while adding to employment opportunities for present and future residents of Plant City. 2. Wetlands and Conversion from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial Designation As for the protection of wetlands, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis fail to support the Parcel's redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. This finding is not based on the strength of the wetland-protection provisions in the Plan. To the contrary, the Plan is remarkably free of such provisions. Rather, this finding is based on the lack of evidence that an Industrial designation would more greatly imperil the wetlands than does the Suburban Density Residential designation. The record provides little basis to compare the effects on the wetlands of the Industrial intensity of .5 FAR as opposed to the Suburban Density Residential density of 4:1. Respondent's contentions that it permits only light industrial are more notable for their recurrence, rather than their support, in the record. The Plan contains no such limitation. In fact, the Plan's definition of Industrial minimally limits uses only in terms of common-law nuisance--e.g., noise, vibration, sound, and dust; nothing in the definition or elsewhere in the Plan limits Industrial uses in terms of effects on wetlands or other natural resources. Perhaps Respondent's land development regulations may further restrict industrial uses, but such easily-amended land use restrictions are irrelevant to a Plan case. Respondent also contends that Industrial requires site- planning. The Plan permits Respondent to require site-plan review, but does not require it to do so. Presumably, Respondent would be free to do so for a large-scale residential development, even though its Plan does not expressly mention the possibility. Although the Plan does not prohibit Industrial use of septic tanks, it is more likely that 4:1 residential development would rely on septic tanks than would .5 FAR industrial development. The three wetlands in question would likely fare better in the absence of a proliferation of nearby septic tanks, as would be permitted under Suburban Density Residential. Internal Inconsistency Future Land Use Element Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 7.A, 7.B, 7.E, and 7.F, and the policies supporting these objectives, as well as FLUE Policies 2.A.3 and 2.E.1. These Plan provisions address buffering residential uses from nonresidential uses, urban sprawl, the efficient provision of public facilities, conformance to adopted LOS standards, and concurrency. As for buffering, the buffering requirement of FLUE Policy 2.A.3 is sorely tested by the presence of a railroad line running through the Parcel. Converting the designation of the Parcel from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial, to the railroad track, serves the purpose of this policy. The problem here is not the railroad track, but the Suburban Density Residential designation; if anything, FLUE Policy 2.A.3 militates for the elimination of an arguably inappropriate residential designation immediately south of the railroad line. As for urban sprawl, the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial does not encourage the kind of inefficient land uses targeted by the Plan provisions discouraging urban sprawl, nor does the redesignation encourage an inefficient or costly extension of infrastructure. This recommended order has already found a viable functional relationship between the Parcel, if designated Industrial, and the larger region of which the Parcel and Plant City are a part. This is the key finding on the urban-sprawl issue. This order cites Petitioner's rule as it identifies the indicators and relevant development controls that are relevant to an urban-sprawl analysis. Although the Plan is nearly free of useful development controls, all of the urban- sprawl indicators suggest either that the new Industrial designation, as compared to the Suburban Density Residential designation, will discourage urban sprawl or have no effect on urban sprawl. The greater weight of the indicators suggests that the new designation will discourage urban sprawl. These indicators are the encouragement of a functional mix of uses, absence of excessively large areas of single use, absence of Industrial uses in excess of demonstrated need, absence of development forms (such as leapfrog and radial) suggestive of premature development, absence of poor accessibility among related uses, and achievement of a separation of rural and urban uses. Inconclusive indicators involve the protection of natural resources, agriculture, and open areas, the effective use of existing and future public facilities, and the discouragement of infill development. The commitment of FLUE Objectives 7.B, 7.E, and 7.F and FLUE Policy 2.E.1 to provide each public facility at its adopted LOS concurrent with new development is not compromised by either designation. A designation of Suburban Density Residential or Industrial is merely a future land use designation; it is not a development order. When Respondent issues a development order for the Industrial Parcel, the Plan's adequate concurrency provisions ensure that public facilities must be available at the time of the impacts of development. However, Petitioner correctly contends that concurrency is no substitute for the correlation or coordination of future land uses with the planned availability of public facilities. If Respondent's planning strategy were to rely on concurrency to time the issuance of development orders for the Parcel, then Respondent would be inviting a sudden and possibly catastrophic disruption of its real estate market and economy. At its worst, such a planning strategy would probably cause the plan to fail to achieve consistency with the criterion of financial feasibility, but Petitioner makes no such allegation in this case. On the present record, though, it is equally possible that Respondent will timely revisit its schedule of capital improvements in order to serve the Parcel with the necessary public facilities, such as roads, or Respondent may timely exact money from its taxpayers, the developers, or the ultimate purchasers through the wide variety of means available to fund infrastructure. In any event, Respondent's planning strategy for public facilities is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with the cited Plan provisions under the present circumstances, including the unambiguous requirements of the Plan's concurrency provisions, relatively small area involved (198 acres), economic likelihood in a tight market for industrial land that Respondent can exact from the developer and/or purchasers sufficient contributions to meet the demands of concurrency, and planned extension of central wastewater into the general area by 2005. Another distinguishing factor is that, according to Respondent's unrebutted analysis, only a worst-case development scenario would violate the traffic LOS standards and trigger concurrency. 2. Conservation Element Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with Conservation Objectives C and J, and the policies supporting these objectives. Conservation Objective C is to ensure no net loss of natural wetlands or 100-year floodplain storage, and Conservation Objective J is to ensure the protection of the functions of the natural environment. The policies under these objectives are so vague as to be irrelevant. The focus in this case is not on the Plan itself, but on the Plan amendment; the sole question is therefore whether Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial is inconsistent with objectives to ensure no net loss of natural wetlands or floodplain and to ensure the protection of the functions of the natural environment. As already noted, despite clear deficiencies in the Plan in its treatment of these natural resources, Petitioner has failed to prove how this redesignation negatively impacts any of these natural resources. 3. Traffic Circulation and Capital Improvements Elements For the reasons already discussed, Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with TCE Objective B, the TCE policies supporting this objective, TCE Policy D.1, CIE Objectives 1, 2, and 3, or the CIE policies supporting these objectives. Inconsistency with Other Criteria Future Land Use Map Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of depicting on the future land use map conservation uses (Rule 9J-5.006(4), Florida Administrative Code) and wetlands and floodplains (Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code). The FLUM does not depict any conservation uses or floodplains. As for wetlands, the FLUM, according to its legend, depicts only those larger than 40 acres. Placing these omissions in the context of the entire Plan does not alter this inconsistency finding. When not omitted, Plan provisions addressing natural-resources criteria are vague. Many of such Plan provisions repeatedly relegate to the land development regulations or delegate to federal, state, regional, or local agencies the responsibility for protecting wetlands and other natural resources. Especially for a relatively small municipality like Respondent, the entire FLUM must contain these required natural resources. Even if Respondent had added the missing natural resources to the 198-acre area subject to this amendment, the omission of these natural resources from the rest of the FLUM would have rendered the Plan amendment inconsistent with the criteria covered in this section. The requirement of depicting on the FLUM wetlands, floodplains, and conservation uses includes the requirement that FLUM graphically inform as to their size, scale, and proximity--relative to all other items required to be depicted on the FLUM and relative to the site that is the subject of a plan amendment. Provisions Protecting Wetlands and Floodplains Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of an objective ensuring the protection of natural resources (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)4, Florida Administrative Code), an objective protecting and conserving the natural functions of floodplains and wetlands (Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)6, Florida Administrative Code), and a policy protecting wetlands (Rule 9J- 5.013(3), Florida Administrative Code). Although stronger Plan provisions protecting natural resources might have saved this flawed FLUM amendment, a FLUM amendment does not raise issues concerning the consistency of other Plan provisions, as such. As already noted, Conservation Objectives C and J ensure the protection of wetlands and floodplains and their natural functions. Although no policy provides effective protection of wetlands, this is a deficiency of the Plan, not the Plan amendment. The failure of the Plan to contain the required policy protecting wetlands does not affect the change in designations. 3. Urban Sprawl Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of supporting data and analysis because it fails to discourage urban sprawl, establish an efficient land use pattern, coordinate land uses with the availability of facilities and services, protect agriculture and natural resources, ensure a separation between urban and rural land uses, promote a mixed-use development or compact urban form, and avoid the designation of vast areas of single-use development, overallocation of Industrial land, and leap-frog development of rural areas at great distances from urban areas. Petitioner has alleged that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of objectives to discourage urban sprawl (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)8, Florida Administrative Code) and to use innovative land development regulations and mixed uses (Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)10 and (4)(c), Florida Administrative Code) and a policy to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code). Petitioner has alleged that the Plan amendment does not discourage urban sprawl (Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code). For the reasons already discussed, the Plan amendment is not inconsistent with these urban-sprawl provisions. 4. Transportation Facilities Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the failure to update the Capital Improvements and Traffic Circulation elements at the time of adopting the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of basing the Plan amendment on a land use suitability analysis (Rule 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code); including all of the required elements in a future land use map (Rule 9J-5.006(4), Florida Administrative Code) (except with respect to the omitted items already found to result in an inconsistency); basing the Plan amendment on data concerning needed transportation improvements (Rule 9J-5.016(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code); basing the Plan amendment on analysis concerning the fiscal implications of public-facility deficiencies and a prioritization of needed public facilities by type of facility (Rule 9J-5.016(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code); including objectives to use the capital improvements element to accommodate future growth (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)1, Florida Administrative Code), to coordinate land use decisions and available or projected fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements that maintains adopted level of service standards and meets the existing and future facility needs (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)3, Florida Administrative Code), to demonstrate the ability to provide or require the provision of the improvements identified as necessary elsewhere in the Plan and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously issued development orders or future development do not exceed Respondent's ability to fund and provide or require provision of the needed capital improvements (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code); and to coordinate the transportation system with the FLUM and ensure that existing and proposed population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services proposed to serve these areas (Rule 9J-5.019(4)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code); and including a policy to set peak-hour LOS standards to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided to serve the existing and future land uses (Rule 9J-5.019(4)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code). For the reasons already discussed, the Plan is not inconsistent with these provisions. Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan For the reasons already discussed, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the cited provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is not in compliance due to the omissions of conservation uses, wetlands, and floodplains from the future land use map and the failure of the adoption ordinance to comply with Section 166.041(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 20th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen R. Fowler Assistant General Counsel David Jordan Deputy General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Kenneth W. Buchman City Attorney City of Plant City 212 North Collins Street Plant City, Florida 33566 Steven M. Seibert Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Administration Commission Growth Management and Strategic Planning 2105 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Citrus County's (County's) small-scale development amendment CPA-09-16 adopted by Ordinance No. 2009- A07 on May 26, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner resides and owns property at 10662 West Halls River Road, Homasassa, Florida, in the southwestern part of the County. According to a County aerial map, the property appears to be 0.68 acres in size and is rectangular-shaped, with the eastern side fronting on the Homasassa River (River), while the western side adjoins West Halls River Road (also known as County Road 490A), a two-lane designated collector roadway for the County. See Intervenor's Exhibit 8. That road dead-ends a mile or so farther to the southwest in a subdivision known as Riverhaven. Petitioner has owned the property since April 1992. Intervenor, a limited liability corporation, acquired ownership of a 47.5-acre parcel in May 2007, which lies directly west-northwest of Petitioner's property and across West Halls River Road. In early 2009, it filed an application with the County seeking a change in the land use on 9.9 acres of the larger parcel from CL to RVP. The smaller parcel's address is 10565 West Halls River Road and is a short distance north of Petitioner's lot. The change in land use was requested because Intervenor intends to place a recreational vehicle (RV) park on the 9.9-acre parcel. On page 10-103 of the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the CL land use is described in relevant part as follows: This land use category designates those areas having environmental characteristics that are sensitive to development and therefore should be protected. Residential development in this district is limited to a maximum of one dwelling unit per 20 acres and one unit per 40 acres in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's V-zone. On page 10-112 of the FLUE, the RVP land use is described in relevant part as follows: This category is intended to recognize existing Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks and Campgrounds, as well as to provide for the location and development of new parks for recreational vehicles. Such parks are intended specifically to allow for temporary living accommodation for recreation, camping, or travel use. After the application was filed and reviewed by the County staff, a report was prepared by the then County Senior Planner, Dr. Pitts, on April 14, 2009, recommending that the application be approved. See Petitioner's Exhibit 5. The report noted that "this site is appropriate for some type of RV Park development subject to an appropriately designed master plan." Id. Although forty-nine RV units could potentially be placed on the parcel, the report noted that due to significant "environmental limitations of the area," the site "may not be able to be designed at maximum intensity for this land use district." Id. The "environmental limitations" are approximately 1.64 acres of wetlands that are located on four parts of the property, wetlands on neighboring properties, and "karst sensitivity." The report noted that these environmental issues would have to be addressed in a master plan to be submitted by the applicant before development. The matter was then favorably considered by the County's Planning and Development Review Board by a 4-1 vote on May 7, 2009. On May 26, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on the application. By a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted Ordinance 2009-A07, which approved the change on the GFLUM. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Petitioner and Intervenor appeared at the hearing and submitted comments regarding the amendment. See County Exhibit 3. Accordingly, both are affected persons and have standing to participate in this matter. Because the size of the parcel was less than ten acres, the map change was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs. See § 163.3187(1)(c)1. and (3)(a), Fla. Stat. On June 24, 2009, Petitioner filed with DOAH his Petition challenging the small-scale development amendment. As summarized in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioner contends that the map change "is not consistent with [the County's] adopted comprehensive plan because such is incompatible with the character of the properties surrounding the subject property and because such is incompatible with [the] environmentally sensitive nature of the subject property and the properties surrounding the subject property." See Joint Prehearing Stipulation, pages 1-2. More specifically, Petitioner contends the map change is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policies 17.2.7, 17.2.11, and 17.2.8. The Subject Property Although its precise dimensions are not of record, from around 1952 until 1985, a golf course was located on a large tract of land west of West Halls River Road, where Intervenor's larger parcel of property is located. Currently, the larger parcel is vacant and undeveloped. The subject property (as well as the entire larger parcel) is classified as CL (Low Intensity Coastal and Lakes), which allows one dwelling unit per twenty acres. Because the property is in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA), the amendment allows five RV units per acre, or a total of forty-nine. In all likelihood, however, the number would be somewhat smaller due to "severe" environmental constraints discussed above. See Finding 5, supra. The new land use also allows a small amount of retail development to serve the RV customers. The 9.9-acre parcel surrounds a one-acre parcel that adjoins West Halls River Road, also owned by Intervenor, and carries a CLC (Coastal and Lakes Commercial) land use designation. A vested eighteen-unit RV park (Sunrise RV Park) has been located on the one-acre parcel since the late 1980s. Except for the small one-acre enclave, the property is bordered on three sides by vacant, unimproved property, all designated as CL. According to Petitioner, Sunrise RV Park has a small number of "dilapidated" trailers and "a bunch of junk stored on the front lawn." This was not disputed. The vacant lot directly south of the larger parcel, comprised mainly of wetlands, is owned by Glen Black, who objects to the map change. Across the roadway, the area north and south of Petitioner's property along the River is classified as CL and is "predominately residential." Besides the residential uses on the River side of the road, Intervenor identified around six non-conforming businesses (mainly former fish camps) that were vested prior to the adoption of the current Plan and that are interspersed with the residential lots. (Under current Plan provisions, they would not be allowed.) Around one-quarter mile or so south of the subject property is the Magic Manatee Marina (Marina) located on a two-acre parcel facing the River.2 A small fish camp with six "rental cottages" lies a few lots north of the Marina. There are also four small condominium buildings with dock facilities (known as Cory's Landing) just north of the fish camp. The aerial map reflects that all other lots south of Petitioner's property are used for residential purposes. Besides the other residential lots north of Petitioner's property, there are nine rental units at a vested "fishing resort" on a parcel slightly less than two acres in size located at 10606 West Halls River Road. Around one-half mile further north at the confluence of the Halls and Homasassa Rivers is a vested restaurant, Margarita Grill. Except for these vested non-conforming uses, all other lots are used for residential purposes, and the entire strip of land adjoining the River is classified as CL. North of Intervenor's 47.5-acre parcel, but not directly adjoining it, and on the western side of West Halls River Road, is a large unevenly-shaped tract of land classified as RVP, on which the Nature's Resort RV Park is located. That facility is authorized to accommodate around three hundred RVs. The entrance to that park from West Halls River Road appears to be at least one-quarter mile or more north of the subject property. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner contends that the amendment is not in compliance because it is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policies 17.2.7, 17.2.11, and 17.2.8, which concern environmental and compatibility requirements. These provisions are discussed separately below. Policy 17.2.7 Policy 17.2.7 provides as follows: The County shall guide future development to the most appropriate areas, as depicted on the GFLUM, specifically those with minimal environmental limitations and the availability of necessary services. Petitioner argues that the subject property is in an extremely sensitive environmental area due to extensive wetlands and a karst sensitive landscape. (Karst is a limestone underground rock structure that is very porous and through which pollutants can easily travel.) He further points out that the property is located within the CHHA. Given these environmental constraints, and the proposed increase in density, Petitioner contends the map change will run counter to the above policy. There are no provisions within the Plan that prohibit the location of an RV park within the CHHA. Policy 17.6.12 imposes numerous requirements for RV parks, including a thirty percent open space requirement, restrictions on densities, wetland protection, upland preservation, clustering, and connection to regional central water and sewer service. These policy restrictions have been implemented by more specific land development regulations (LDRs) that limit the density and intensity of RVs and the types of RVs (e.g., park models) that can be placed in an RV park located within a CHHA. In this case, because the property is in a CHHA, the LDRs impose a five- RV per acre limitation, as opposed to the normal fourteen RVs per acre in non-CHHA areas, and for evacuation purposes, park models are prohibited. Further, the RV park must be served by regional central water and sewer services. All land in the County west of U.S. Highway 19, including the subject property, is karst sensitive. As such, any development west of U.S. Highway 19 must meet certain design standards to ensure that the water supply is not threatened. The County says that these concerns must be addressed during the site approval (development) process. The record shows that there are four jurisdictional wetland sites on the parcel totaling 1.64 acres. There are also wetlands on the surrounding property. Because of these environmental constraints, Dr. Pitts (the former County Senior Planner) stated that it is "highly unlikely" that Intervenor "can develop at 49 units." He further pointed out that while it is "certainly possible to do it at a smaller number," there would be one hundred percent wetland protection through setbacks both to wetlands on the subject parcel, as well as the surrounding area, a thirty percent open space requirement on the site, a ten percent area dedicated to recreational uses, and minimum buffers on the side of the property facing West Halls River Road. For RV parks, pertinent LDRs adopted to implement the Plan require that the developer avoid all wetlands. Policy 17.2.7 expresses a County planning decision that future development be directed to "the most appropriate areas, as depicted on the GFLUM, specifically those with minimal environmental limitations." (Emphasis added) According to Dr. Pitts, the subject property has "severe" environmental limitations, and that "it will be difficult to design the site [in a way] that meets the standards of the comprehensive plan and the land development code." Notwithstanding the other provisions within the Plan and LDRs that place limitations on RV park development in an effort to satisfy environmental constraints, see Finding 18, supra, the subject property is clearly not "the most appropriate area, as depicted on the GFLUM" for new development, nor is it an area "with minimal environmental limitations." In fact, the amendment does just the opposite -- it directs new commercial development to an area with severe environmental limitations. Therefore, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the map change is internally inconsistent with Policy 17.2.7. Policy 17.2.11 Petitioner next contends that the plan amendment is contrary to the Plan's basic strategy of protecting environmentally sensitive areas, as set forth in FLUE Policy 17.2.11, which reads as follows: Consistent with the Plan's basic strategy for protection of environmentally sensitive areas, the following guidelines shall apply to all development in the Coastal, Lakes, and Rivers Region: No increase in residential density should be approved except for Planned Development standards already contained in the Plan. No additional high intensity non-residential land uses shall be approved for this region. Specifically new GNC [General Commercial] and IND [Industrial] districts shall be avoided. The subject property is within the Coastal Region and therefore subject to these guidelines. See Intervenor's Exhibit 3, page 10-3. On page 10-150 of the FLUE, the narrative text states in part that "with increasing development activity and growth in the coming years, existing restrictions on the density/intensity of land use should be maintained and enhanced to provide additional protection to this sensitive region." According to the Plan, a "GNC district allows potentially high density/intensity development" and "should not be located in areas of the County deemed to be environmentally sensitive areas." See Intervenor's Exhibit 3, page 10-110. It further provides that "[n]o new GNC shall be allowed in the coastal, lakes and river region." Id. Therefore, new GNC development should not be allowed in the Coastal Region. Although an RV park is a commercial use, it is not a GNC use. Further, the five-units per acre limitation is not considered a high-intensity non-residential use. Therefore, while the policy serves a laudable purpose, it does not prohibit RVP development within the Coastal Region. Therefore, the map change is not internally inconsistent with Policy 17.2.11. Policy 17.2.8 Petitioner's final objection is that an RV park is not compatible with the surrounding area. He goes on to contend that by placing an RVP designation adjacent to a large tract of CL land, the County has contravened FLUE Policy 17.2.8. That policy reads as follows: The County shall utilize land use techniques and development standards to achieve a functional and compatible land use framework which reduces incompatible land uses. Because compatibility is not defined in the Plan, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) is helpful in resolving this issue.3 That rule defines the term "compatibility" as follows: (23) "Compatibility" means 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. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Intervenor also suggests that the definition of "suitability" is relevant to this issue. That term is defined in Rule 9J-5.003(128) as follows: (128) "Suitability" means the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development. Petitioner characterized the area around his home as quiet, peaceful, and "all residential." He noted that except for a few vested, non-conforming businesses, such as the Sunrise RV Park, Marina, fish camp, and restaurant, the remainder of the area along the River, as well as Intervenor's larger parcel across the street, is either residential or vacant. Petitioner fears that an RV park will result in increased noise, park lighting during nighttime hours, trash being left by the roadside, more traffic on the two-lane road, and a decrease in the value of his property. He also believes that the developer intends to place the southern entrance to the RV park almost directly across the street from his home. The greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the proposed new land use designation is not compatible with the surrounding land. Intervenor argues that an RV park and the surrounding residential properties are compatible (and suitable) because there are already non-conforming uses along the River that have not unduly negatively impacted the area. These uses, however, number only six along that stretch of the River, and they have existed for decades due to vested rights. It is fair to infer that the insertion of an RV park in the middle of a large tract of vacant CL land would logically lead to further requests for reclassifying CL land to expand the new RV park or to allow other non-residential uses. The stated purpose of Policy 17.2.8 is to reduce "incompatible land uses." At the same time, Rule 9J-5.003(23) discourages land uses which are in relative proximity to each other and can unduly negatively impact the other uses or conditions. The commercial RV park, with a yet-to-be determined number of spaces for temporary RVs, tenants, and associated commercial development, will be in close proximity to a predominately residential neighborhood. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that these commercial uses will have a direct or indirect negative impact on the nearby residential properties and should not coexist in close proximity to one another. This is contrary to Policy 17.2.8, which encourages a reduction in "incompatible land uses," and the amendment is therefore internally inconsistent with the policy.
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 small-scale development amendment CPA-09-16 adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 2009-A07 on May 26, 2009, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether amendments to the Palm Beach County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2004-34 through 2004-39, 2004-63 and 2004-64 (Amendments) to accommodate the County's development of a biotechnology research park on 1,900 acres known as the Mecca site are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Overview of the County's Pre-Scripps Plan The County's first Plan was adopted in 1980. Its 1989 Plan, the first adopted under the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (also known as the 1985 Growth Management Act, or GMA) built upon the strengths of the first Plan. In 1995, the County evaluated and appraised its 1989 Plan, completed an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), and subsequently adopted a substantially-amended EAR-based Plan. In 1999, the Plan again was amended by the addition of a Managed Growth Tier System (MGTS) as a new growth management tool.2 The County's Plan recognizes that development in the County has generally moved from eastern coastal areas to the west and from the southern part of the County to the north. Generally, the Plan has attempted to direct growth towards the eastern part of the County and to encourage infill and redevelopment in that part of the County. Redevelopment is underway in older areas, usually under the auspices of local governments. At the same time, the Plan now recognizes that another growth corridor is located along SR 7 and US 441. Even with the efforts to encourage infill and redevelopment in the eastern part of the County, growth pressures have led to 18,000 acres of new land use approvals in the County north of Lake Worth Boulevard in the last 10 years. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County's Plan contains County Directions, GOPs (i.e., Goals, Objectives, and Policies), the MGTS Map, and the Future Land Use Atlas. The County Directions "provide the basis for preparation of the [GOPs]." The GOPs "provide the framework for decisions that direct the location, pattern, character, interrelationships and timing of development, which ultimately affects the distribution of facilities and services to support it." The MGTS Map "defines distinct geographical areas within the County that currently either support or are anticipated to accommodate various types of development patterns and service delivery provisions that, together, allow for a diverse range of lifestyle choices, and livable, sustainable communities." The Atlas "graphically depicts the future distribution, general use and densities and intensities of [land use] within each tier." (FLUE Introduction, pp. 1-2) The County also routinely employs geographic-specific planning tools. The Plan creates at least 15 overlays to meet planning challenges for specific areas. It also recognizes 10 neighborhood plans. Optional sector planning for a large part of the Central-Western Communities of the County also is underway. The FLUE's County Directions include: Livable Communities (with "a balance of land uses and [other features]"); Growth Management (to "provide for sustainable urban, suburban, exurban and rural communities and lifestyle choices by: (a) directing . . . development that respects the characteristics of a particular geographic area; (b) ensuring smart growth . . . ; and (c) providing for facilities and services in a cost efficient timely manner"); Infill Development (to increase efficiency); Land Use Compatibility; Neighborhood Integrity; Economic Diversity and Prosperity (to promote the growth of industries that are high-wage and diversify the economic base); Housing Opportunity ("by providing an adequate distribution of very-low and low-income housing, Countywide"); Economic Activity Centers (to encourage manufacturing and other value-added activities); Level of Service Standards ("to accommodate an optimal level . . . needed as a result of growth"); Linear Open Space and Park Systems; Environmental Integrity (to "[e]ncourage restoration and protection of viable, native ecosystems and endangered and threatened wildlife by limiting the impacts of growth on those systems; direct incompatible growth away from them; encourage environmentally sound land use planning and development and recognize the carrying capacity and/or limits of stress upon these fragile areas"); Design; A Strong Sense of Community; and Externalities (placing "major negative" ones "away from neighborhoods"). (Id. at pp. 5-6) FLUE Goal 1 is to establish the MGTS. Objective 1.1 recognizes five geographic regions (tiers) of land with "distinctive physical development patterns with different needs for services to ensure a diversity of lifestyle choices": Urban/Suburban (land within the Urban Service Area (USA), generally along the east coast but also along the southeast shore of Lake Okeechobee in the extreme west of the County, having urban or suburban density and intensity and afforded urban levels of service); Exurban (land outside the USA and generally between the Urban and Rural Tiers, platted prior to the 1989 Plan and developed at densities greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (du/ac); Rural (land outside the USA and east of the Water Conservation Areas, Twenty Mile Bend, and the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area (Corbet WMA), including large tracts of land, as well as lands platted prior to the 1989 Plan, that had a predominant density of 1 du/10 ac, but less than 1 du/5 ac, and afforded rural levels of service); Agricultural Reserve (primarily for agricultural use, reflecting the unique farmlands and wetlands within it, to be either preserved or developed only at low residential density); and Glades (all land west of the Water Conservation Areas, Twenty Mile Bend, and Corbett WMA, predominantly supporting large-scale agricultural operations, and afforded rural levels of service.) The five tiers are depicted graphically in Map LU 1.1, MGTS, of the Map Series. Conservation lands are also depicted on Map LU 1.1 but are not assigned to a tier. The Map also depicts the United Technologies (Pratt-Whitney) (UT) Overlay and the North County General Aviation Airport (North County Airport), neither one which appears from Map LU 1.1 to lie within a tier. The UT Overlay is in the north-central part of the County, sandwiched between Rural Tier on the north, east, and southeast and Conservation land, including Corbett WMA on the west and southwest, and roughly bisected by the Beeline Highway (Beeline), which runs diagonally through the overlay between its northwest and southeast extremes. The Airport lies farther to the southeast along the Beeline, essentially surrounded by Rural Tier land, except for relatively small pieces of Conservation land contiguous to it along its western boundary and at its southeast corner (the North County Airport Preserve.) Notwithstanding the possible appearance from the depictions on Map LU 1.1, the County has no general planning jurisdiction in any of the incorporated areas of the County.3 Map LU 2.1 depicts the three service areas to guide delivery of public services that are established under FLUE Goal 3. These are the Urban Service Area (USA), the Rural Service Area (RSA), and the Limited Urban Service Areas (LUSA). The USA essentially follows the boundaries of the Urban/Suburban Tier. The LUSA is relatively limited geographically and includes the Agricultural Reserve Tier, the UT Overlay, and the North County Airport (with contiguous Conservation lands). The rest of the County is in the RSA. The verbiage of Goal 3, its Objectives and Policies and other parts of the Plan, gives the impression that provision of services is fine-tuned to the character and needs of a particular locale. For example, Goal 3 is "to define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost- effective manner, reflective of the quality of life associated with each respective Tier." But actually the Plan assigns countywide level-of-service standards (LOSS's) to seven of nine types of facilities. All urban services can be provided in all areas of the County except that County centralized water and sewer services cannot be provided in the RSA. While theoretically intended to be geographically limited, the main difference between the USA and the LUSA is that the LUSA is outside the USA. The Agricultural Reserve part of the LUSA is actually a westerly extension of the USA. The North County Airport part of the LUSA is surrounded by Rural Tier land; the UT part of the LUSA is surrounded by Rural Tier and Conservation lands, the same as the UT Overlay. The County has re-examined its policy decision not to provide centralized water and sewer services in the RSA because it has resulted in various municipalities and utilities special districts and perhaps private alternative providers extending services while the County excludes itself. The County has adopted plan amendments to change this to allow the County to provide such services and to exclude others. Those plan amendments are under administrative challenge at this time and are not yet in effect. The County has three priorities for extending services. One is to encourage development of basic industry to further the Economic Element. The County Plan's Economic Element is optional. It reflects a concerted effort to diversify the economy of the County by encouraging growth in cluster industries, including medical products. Taken together, the Plan reflects a desire to accommodate growth in the Urban/Suburban Tier, especially in the eastern part of the County. Many GOPs in the Plan promote and encourage infill and redevelopment. However, pressure to grow in other parts of the County are undeniable. It appears that, under the Plan, the County will be completely built-out within 30 years. The County's current Plan is detailed and complicated. Many other parts of it, some of which will be addressed later in this Recommended Order, also are implicated in some manner and in different degrees by the Amendments at issue. Scripps Florida In the early 1990s, a County study indicated concern about the three main elements of the local economy: tourism was low-paying; agriculture was low-paying and a declining sector; and construction and development would decline as the County built out. In 1998, a consulting firm (SRI) proposed an action plan for the County to develop economic clusters. The action plan addressed several industry clusters, including medical/pharmaceuticals. SRI recommended, among other things, attracting a biomedical park development, a satellite campus of a medical school, venture capital providers, and a medical research institute. Meanwhile, in the same general time frame, the State’s economic development arm, Enterprise Florida, Inc., targeted the biomedical industry for development in Florida. The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California (Scripps), is the largest not-for-profit biotechnology research organization of its kind in the world. In 2003, Scripps decided to expand its operations. Florida Governor Bush, along with several Florida legislators, personally and through Enterprise Florida and OTTED, actively pursued Scripps to locate in Florida. During the same timeframe, the Federal Government made funds available to Florida under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, for the essential governmental service of improving economic opportunities available to the people of this state by attracting new or expanding businesses to, and retaining businesses in, the State. It was decided to use $310,000,000 of these funds in the pursuit of Scripps and hoped-for related economic and other benefits. By October 2003, Scripps agreed to negotiate expansion to Florida and chose Palm Beach County as its preferred location in the State. Also in October 2003, the Florida Legislature met in special session and, on November 3, 2003, enacted Chapter 2003-420, Laws of Florida, which created the Scripps Florida Funding Corporation to facilitate establishment and operation of a biomedical research institution for the purposes of enhancing education and research and promoting economic development and diversity. The Funding Corporation was required by the law to negotiate a contract with the Scripps Research Institute of La Jolla, California, for Scripps to establish a state-of-the-art biomedical research institution and campus in Florida. After disbursement of $300,000 to OTTED to cover staffing and administration expenses of the Funding Corporation, and upon execution of the contract with Scripps, the balance of the $310,000,000 was to be disbursed to the Funding Corporation subject to the terms of the contract. The Scripps Grant Agreement Scripps Florida and the County entered into a Grant Agreement on February 9, 2004, with a term of 30 years. In the Grant Agreement, the County agreed to pay for or provide: a 100-acre campus for Scripps Florida in the 1,919-acre site at Mecca Farms (Mecca), with a funding limitation of $60,000,000; the construction of initial temporary facilities for Scripps Florida at the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) campus in Jupiter, with a funding limitation of $12,000,000; the construction of permanent facilities for Scripps Florida at the Mecca site, with a funding limitation of $137,000,000; 400 adjacent acres for development of “related uses”; and applications for approvals for Scripps Florida to develop 2 million square feet at Mecca. The Grant Agreement’s definition of “related uses” was intended to be broad so that the County can open the 400 acres to computer research, telecommunications and other economic clusters if not enough pharmaceutical or life-science research firms are attracted. The Grant Agreement requires Scripps Florida to create or relocate at least 545 new jobs to the Mecca site; to strive to create 2,777 new or relocated jobs; and to work with the County to create a total 6,500 jobs. In the Grant Agreement, the County expressly reserves all legislative and quasi-judicial powers, acting only in its proprietary capacity. The County's Purchase of Mecca Site In accordance with the Grant Agreement, the County proceeded with the purchase of the Mecca site. In October 2003, the Business Development Board (BDB), a non- profit organization that is funded primarily by and reports to the County, already had obtained an option to purchase the site for $60,000,000, if certain government approvals could be obtained. In February 2004, the County acquired the option on the Mecca property from the BDB and exercised it. Including the cost of some "oral add-ons," the purchase price for Mecca was approximately $60,500,000. Characteristics of the Mecca and Surroundings The Mecca site is in the shape of a rectangle located in the north-central part of the County. It is designated in the Rural Tier. For approximately 50 years, most of the site has been used as a citrus grove with trees grown in rows 15 feet apart, 73-acres of agricultural ditches, and a 272-acre above-ground water impoundment area in the northeast quadrant of the site used for irrigation. There also is a 30-acre sand mine operation in the southwestern quadrant. At this time, the Mecca site is accessible by road only by Seminole Pratt-Whitney Road (SPW), a two-lane paved road from the south. When SPW reaches the southwest corner of Mecca, it becomes a dirt road as it continues along the west side of the property. While Mecca itself is in the Rural Tier, it is not surrounded by Rural Tier land. The land to the west is designated Conservation, and the land to the north and south is designated Exurban Tier. The land to the east is designated Rural Tier, but it actually is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The area around Mecca is a “mosaic” of uses, including undeveloped agricultural lands, conservation lands, and lands developed predominantly as undesirable residential sprawl with limited employment and shopping. The nearby Beeline, part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), is classified by the State as “urban” to the east and “transitional” to the west of SPW. Significant among the developed areas near Mecca is The Acreage, abutting Mecca to the south. The County designated The Acreage as part of the Exurban Tier. It is a large, 76 percent built-out, antiquated subdivision with a density of 1 du/1.25 ac and a population of approximately 42,000. As such, it can be characterized as either urban or suburban, but not rural. To the south and west of The Acreage are large citrus groves in the Rural Tier. Farther south and west of The Acreage is Loxahatchee Groves, another antiquated subdivision in the Exurban Tier, with a density of 1 du/5 ac that is just 18 percent built-ut with 1,216 homes built. Farther south, just south of Southern Boulevard, is the Village of Wellington, which is a municipality located within the boundaries of the Urban/Suburban Tier. South and east of The Acreage is the Village of Royal Palm Beach, also a municipality within the Urban/Suburban Tier. The 60,288-acre Corbett WMA is located immediately west of Mecca and is owned and managed by the State as a hunting preserve. It has no tier designation. Corbett has a variety of habitats for endangered or threatened species (wood storks, eagles, red-cockaded woodpeckers, gopher tortoises and indigo snakes), including wet prairie, freshwater marsh and pine flatwoods. Corbett could provide habitat for Florida panthers although there have been no confirmed panther sightings in the area in a number of years. Immediately north of Mecca is another antiquated subdivision, Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District (Unit 11). The County is buying Unit 11 for preservation as Hungryland Slough, a regional off-site mitigation area. Unit 11 is designated in the Exurban Tier. Hungryland contains habitat similar to that found in Corbett WMA. North of Hungryland, and south of the Beeline, is a small triangle of Rural Tier land, which is just south and south east of the UT Overlay, which includes the Park of Commerce (a/k/a Florida Research Park). The Rural Tier land to the northeast of Hungryland, across the Beeline, is Caloosa, a large-lot residential development with a density of 1 du/5 ac. To the northeast of Caloosa is Jupiter Farms, another large, 81 percent built-out antiquated residential subdivision with a density of 1 du/2 ac and a population of about 12,600. Jupiter Farms is designated in the Rural Tier although it also seems to fit the criteria for the Exurban Tier. The Vavrus Ranch, a 4,600-acre landholding, is located immediately east of Mecca. Approximately half of Vavrus Ranch is wetlands, and the remainder is improved pasture. The Vavrus Ranch appears to be designated in the Rural Tier, but it actually is in the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Existing urban-scale public facilities between Mecca and Southern Boulevard to serve the suburbs include five fire stations, two post offices, eight elementary schools, two middle schools and two branch libraries, with one high school and one middle school planned or under construction. Existing public facilities north of Mecca in Caloosa include one fire station and one elementary school. East of Mecca and the Vavrus Ranch is the North County General Aviation Airport. To address land use deficiencies in this area, the County has agreed with DCA to prepare a plan for a 52,000-acre sector, which originally included Mecca. Current development has committed approximately two- thirds of lands in the sector to an inefficient pattern that is not “sustainable.” This pattern increases reliance on the automobile; may not be served long-term by private wells and septic tanks; and does not pay for itself, requiring substantial taxpayer subsidies. The sector has a serious jobs/housing imbalance, resulting in more congestion and longer commutes for residents. The County’s sector planning consultants identified Mecca as an appropriate site for an intensive employment center in two out of three initial scenarios. Subsequent studies identified Mecca for other uses, and the site was deleted from the sector planning area in 2004 when the Scripps Florida opportunity arose at Mecca. Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Plan Amendments Since the Scripps opportunity arose, the County's primary vision for Mecca has been to transform its 1,919 acres into a very special place that would be able not only to satisfy the needs of Scripps, but also would have all of the essential elements and many extra amenities so as to enable the County to compete with other areas of the country (and, indeed, the world) to attract related research and development (R&D) and, especially commercial activity in order to reap the maximum possible economic benefits of a biotechnology cluster. This vision included not only onsite opportunities for development of related biotechnology R&D and related commercial ventures, but also a university campus, a hospital/clinic, expansive green spaces and water features, onsite residential opportunities, including affordable housing, and onsite commercial and retail uses, including a town center. The County prepared plans by first reviewing and considering other R&D complexes, companies potentially interested in new locations, views of university officials, the Scripps experience at La Jolla, employees per square foot per industry type, and its own allowable floor area ratios (FARs) in order to identify the developable square footage for R&D at Mecca. As applicant for the necessary DRI approval and Plan amendments, the County’s staff and consultants initially requested approval of 10.5 million square feet for R&D use after balancing space needs, traffic impacts, environmental needs, buffering and other factors. The County’s real estate consultant concluded that a minimum of 2 to 3 million square feet of R&D space would be necessary for the venture to be successful, and that the absorption of 8 to 8.5 million square feet over a long-term build-out period of 30 years was a reasonable expectation. That view was bolstered by the potential establishment of other R&D users, if biotechnology firms do not absorb the entire capacity of the project. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a development of regional impact (DRI) for 8 to 8.5 million square feet of R&D, including the 2 million square feet for Scripps Florida, in order to provide economic opportunities while avoiding the need for eight-lane roads in the area. In order to accommodate this project, amendments to the County's Plan were necessary. Changes to the Plan adopted October 13, 2004, included Ordinance Nos. 2004-34 through 2004-39. Changes to the Plan adopted December 14, 2004, included Ordinance Nos. 2004-63 and 2004-64. Ordinance No. 2004-34 removes the 1,919-acre Mecca site from the Rural Tier; creates a scientific community overlay (SCO) on Mecca; establishes its allowed uses; imposes controls to balance residential and non-residential uses by phase; sets design principles; designates Mecca as a LUSA; and makes related changes to the FLUE and Economic Element and the FLUE Map Series. Ordinance No. 2004-35 modifies FLUE Policy 3.5-d to exempt the SCO from a County-imposed limitation on allowed land use changes expected to generate significant impacts on any roadway segment projected to fail to operate at LOSS "D" based on the adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan. Ordinance No. 2004-36 amends the FLUE Atlas to change the land use on Mecca from Rural Residential with a density of 1 du/10 ac (RR-10) to Economic Development Center with an underlying density of 2 du/ac (EDC/2). This amendment also sets minimum and maximum amounts of each use and incorporates by reference the land use conversion matrix in the DRI development order (DO). Ordinance No. 2004-37 amends the FLUE Atlas to change the land use on a 28-acre Accessory Site obtained from Corbett WMA from Conservation to Transportation and Utilities Facilities. Ordinance No. 2004-38 amends the Transportation Element (TE) to lower the adopted LOSS on 37 road segments and 6 intersections from the generally applicable standard of “D” to “Constrained Roadway at Lower Level of Service” (CRALLS). Ordinance No. 2004-39 amends the Thoroughfare Right- of-Way (ROW) Identification Map (TIM) and the 2020 Roadway System Map to reflect certain road improvements to accommodate SCO-generated traffic. Ordinance No. 2004-63 updates Tables 1 through 16 of the 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Schedule (CIS), and includes road, water, and sewer facilities to serve the SCO. Ordinance No. 2004-64 updates Table 17 of the CIS, which addresses schools. g. The Petitioners, Their Burden, and Their Issues DCA’s notices of intent to find the Amendments in compliance were challenged by four not-for-profit organizations and one resident of Palm Beach County. All of the Petitioners timely commented, orally or in writing, to the County regarding the Amendments. Additional standing evidence was presented as to each Petitioner. Standing as an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a) was disputed as to all but one Petitioner. As to Petitioner, Maria Wise-Miller, it was undisputed that she is an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a). It was Petitioners' burden to prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance." See Conclusions 210-211, infra. Essentially, Petitioners are concerned that development of the SCO on Mecca's 1,919 acres is poor planning because of its present agricultural use, its location in relation to nearby natural areas and rural areas, and its distance from more urban areas and transportation facilities. More specifically, the issues raised by Petitioners as reasons why the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" are framed in their Amended Petition.4 Implicating numerous applicable statutory and rule provisions, Petitioners' issues involve: urban sprawl; capital improvements (infrastructure); transportation concurrency; data and analysis; internal consistency; natural resources; community character and compatibility with adjacent uses; the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC's) Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP); and State Comprehensive Plan (SCP). No other issues have been added by further amendment, and no additional issues were heard by consent of the parties. See Conclusion 212, infra. H. Urban Sprawl Whether the Plan Amendments are consistent with relevant provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, the GMA, and Rule Chapter 9J-5 regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources, is determined by application of Rule 9J-5.006(5).5 Exceedingly detailed and complex, Rule 9J-5.006(5) provides in pertinent part: (d) Paragraph (5)(g) describes those aspects or attributes of a plan or plan amendment which, when present, indicate that the plan or plan amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. For purposes of reviewing the plan for discouragement of urban sprawl, an evaluation shall be made whether any of these indicators is present in a plan or plan amendment. If an indicator is present, the extent, amount or frequency of that indicator shall be considered. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl. * * * Primary indicators. The primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl are listed below. The evaluation of the presence of these indicators shall consist of an analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality in order to determine whether the plan or plan amendment: Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Evaluation of land uses. The comprehensive plan must be reviewed in its entirety to make the determinations in (5)(g) above. Plan amendments must be reviewed individually and for their impact on the remainder of the plan. However, in either case, a land use analysis will be the focus of the review and constitute the primary factor for making the determinations. Land use types cumulatively (within the entire jurisdiction and areas less than the entire jurisdiction, and in proximate areas outside the jurisdiction) will be evaluated based on density, intensity, distribution and functional relationship, including an analysis of the distribution of urban and rural land uses. Each land use type will be evaluated based on: Extent. Location. Distribution. Density. Intensity. Compatibility. Suitability. Functional relationship. Land use combinations. Demonstrated need over the planning period. Local conditions. Each of the land use factors in (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality. These include: Size of developable area. Projected growth rate (including population, commerce, industry, and agriculture). Projected growth amounts (acres per land use category). Facility availability (existing and committed). Existing pattern of development (built and vested), including an analysis of the extent to which the existing pattern of development reflects urban sprawl. Projected growth trends over the planning period, including the change in the overall density or intensity of urban development throughout the jurisdiction. Costs of facilities and services, such as per capita cost over the planning period in terms of resources and energy. Extra-jurisdictional and regional growth characteristics. Transportation networks and use characteristics (existing and committed). Geography, topography and various natural features of the jurisdiction. Development controls. Development controls in the comprehensive plan may affect the determinations in (5)(g) above. The following development controls, to the extent they are included in the comprehensive plan, will be evaluated to determine how they discourage urban sprawl: Open space requirements. Development clustering requirements. Other planning strategies, including the establishment of minimum development density and intensity, affecting the pattern and character of development. Phasing of urban land use types, densities, intensities, extent, locations, and distribution over time, as measured through the permitted changes in land use within each urban land use category in the plan, and the timing and location of those changes. Land use locational criteria related to the existing development pattern, natural resources and facilities and services. Infrastructure extension controls, and infrastructure maximization requirements and incentives. Allocation of the costs of future development based on the benefits received. The extent to which new development pays for itself. Transfer of development rights. Purchase of development rights. Planned unit development requirements. Traditional neighborhood developments. Land use functional relationship linkages and mixed land uses. Jobs-to-housing balance requirements. Policies specifying the circumstances under which future amendments could designate new lands for the urbanizing area. Provision for new towns, rural villages or rural activity centers. Effective functional buffering requirements. Restriction on expansion of urban areas. Planning strategies and incentives which promote the continuation of productive agricultural areas and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. Urban service areas. Urban growth boundaries. Access management controls. Evaluation of factors. Each of the land use types and land use combinations analyzed in paragraph (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of the features and characteristics of the locality, individually and together (as appropriate), as listed in paragraph (5)(i). If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies. Notwithstanding and as a means of addressing any provisions contained in Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)8., 9J- 5.011(2)(b)3., 9J-5.003(140), F.A.C., and this subsection, the Department encourages innovative and flexible planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques in local plans. Planning strategies and techniques such as urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-use development and sector planning that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost- efficient delivery of public facilities and services, will be recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Of the 13 urban sprawl indicators in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g), Petitioners alleged the existence of only 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. While there was evidence from which Petitioners reasonably could argue that the Plan Amendments promote urban sprawl, all of the Rule's indicators are at least fairly debatable. Indicator 2 As to Indicator 2, Petitioners' arguments on urban sprawl hinge in large part on characterization of Mecca as being rural land in the midst of likewise rural and conservation land far distant from any land use that could be characterized as urban or suburban. But while Mecca is distant from most of the Urban/Suburban Tier, neither the Village of Wellington nor Royal Palm Beach, both in the Urban/Suburban Tier, is very far away. The Acreage to Mecca's south, moreover, can be characterized as either urbanizing or suburban, but not rural. To the extent that Mecca is separated from other urban or suburban uses to the east by conservation lands (namely, the Loxahatchee Slough and Grassy Waters Preserve, a/k/a the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area), no urban, suburban or even rural development of those conservation lands should be expected, making it fairly debatable whether "leaping over" those undeveloped lands should be considered an indicator of sprawl. In that sense, those conservation lands are similar to bodies of water. The “patchwork” pattern of developed, rural, and conservation uses near Mecca, including the adjacency of extensive residential development in The Acreage, also is significant. Nearby subdivisions including Jupiter Farms and Caloosa add further context for the sprawl analysis. The multi-use development at the SCO allowed by the Amendments may remediate the existing sprawl pattern near Mecca. Indicator 4 As to Indicator 4, it is at least fairly debatable whether conversion of rural land to urban uses on Mecca is premature in light of the Scripps opportunity and existing development pressures in the area. According to expert planning testimony for DCA and the County, the County is obliged to plan for growth in accordance with GMA and Rule 9J-5 up to its "sustainable carrying capacity," which has not been reached. Whether or not they believe the County has the option to plan to slow or stop growth before reaching "sustainable carrying capacity," it is clear from the evidence that the County is not doing so, but instead is planning for continued growth within the framework of its Plan until reaching what it considers to be "build-out" conditions. Given the County's basic growth policy, the County’s analysis of population projections for the next 20 years, compared to available vacant lands planned for residential use, shows the County has a “tight” plan with a restricted supply of land for development. This land use needs analysis shows that the eastern half of Palm Beach County (which includes Mecca) is experiencing intensive growth pressures due to the restricted supply of developable land, and that it will likely build out in approximately 20 years. Conservative assumptions in the County’s analysis suggest build-out in this area could occur even sooner. In its 1997 EAR, the County also concluded that eastern Palm Beach County would build out in approximately 20 years. The report noted that the approaching build-out of Dade and Broward counties to the south in the near future would further exacerbate growth pressures in Palm Beach County. Industrial lands in eastern Palm Beach County are expected to be exhausted by 2026. Because communities typically need greater locational variety for industrial uses compared to other uses, and in light of the many different activities that constitute an industrial use, the amount of land in eastern Palm Beach County designated for industrial use may be adequate but is not excessive. Besides, a numeric analysis is not necessary to justify industrial uses since they may be goal-based and aspirational. Seeking to diversify the local economy is an appropriate goal to support additional industrial land. Having a committed end-user for an industrial site is appropriate data to consider in evaluating such a land use change. Onsite residential and commercial uses will support the industrial use and better achieve a balance of uses, which will relieve the necessity to be evaluated against a numeric need test. Likelihood of Economic Benefits Petitioners argue that the proposed development at Mecca is not needed because significant economic benefits are so unlikely that the costly planned use of Mecca's 1,919 acres cannot be justified. Ordinarily, the likelihood of success of planned land uses would not be relevant to the compliance of a comprehensive plan or plan amendment. In this case, however, the County's vision for a Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster at Mecca was the impetus for the major and important changes embodied in the Plan Amendments and is part of the demonstration of need. For that reason, consideration of the issue is appropriate in this case. The evidence is clear that the County's vision is not guaranteed success as planned and that there are significant risks involved. To maximize economic benefits, the County will have to not only attract R&D but also generate commercial spin-offs, where maximum economic benefits result. R&D requires research funding, and commercial spin-offs require venture capital. It also is essential to establish relationships with hospitals or clinics where clinical trials can take place. The predominant source of biotech research funding has been the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In the mid- 1990s, NIH funding increased dramatically, but significant increases in the coming years cannot be counted on, and other sources of research funding will have to replace the deficit. To the extent that pharmaceutical companies are resorted to for this purpose, they may require participation in any resulting commercialization, which could reduce local economic benefits if the funding source is not local. The evidence was that, over the last 30 years or so, significant economic benefits from biotechnology clusters achieving effective commercialization have been concentrated in just nine areas of the country. One is San Diego, California; none are in Florida. These nine areas also have garnered a disproportionate share of NIH research funding (although the percentage has declined a little in the last few years.) They also tend to have scientists inclined towards commercialization of the results of research and businessmen having the special abilities needed in the unique world of biotech, where years can pass before a business begins to see profits, and many start-ups fail. These nine areas also have access to venture capital, a good percentage of which has tended to be local, since many venture capitalists also want to be more active in monitoring and participating in the businesses they fund than most other investors. On the other hand, there was evidence acknowledging that at least some venture capital will seek out and follow good opportunities for profit wherever they may exist. Historically, at least through 2001, the biotech industry has become increasingly concentrated in these nine areas of the country, and they continue to have competitive advantages that the County's vision for the SCO would have to overcome. (On the other hand, several of these nine areas also have competitive disadvantage in the form of high taxes, high real estate costs, high cost-of-living, and less-than- ideal quality of life. So far, however, their advantages have surpassed their disadvantages.) There also is competition from many other cities and counties throughout the country desiring, like Florida and the County, to develop a biotechnology cluster. Recognizing the intense competition, the County's vision is to create a world-class setting for its effort at Mecca. Allowable facilities at the SCO include not just R&D space, but also a clinical hospital of up to 300 beds, a university campus of up to 2,000 college and university students, public facilities supporting environmental amenities, community facilities and retail facilities in a “town center,” and 2,000 or more housing units, including affordable housing. The SCO contemplates a mixture of uses that is hoped will lead to synergistic relationships and exchange of “tacit knowledge,” which are important to the success of a biotechnology cluster. Scripps Florida, as the anchor institution, will bring critical world renown and credibility. The principles of adjacency within the SCO are intended to promote synergy that transcends local competition and attracts regional and national users. In planning the SCO, Scripps’ experience in La Jolla and the views of Scripps officials were taken into account. Scripps’ campus at Torrey Pines Mesa has been in existence for almost 30 years, and has worked well. Scripps attempts to keep its buildings close to one another and has met with difficulty finding scientists willing to fill workspace four miles from the main Scripps campus. The FAR for the 500 acres of R&D use at the SCO is very low, at 0.39.6 By comparison, there was evidence that the FAR of the 900-acre University of Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida, is 2.00. Petitioners contend that much less than 500 acres is needed for the 8.5 million square feet of R&D provided in the SCO. However, the County found that Scripps’ buildings in California are constructed in horizontal fashion, with three, four and rarely five stories. Taller buildings have lower net-to-gross floor area, so they have significant added cost. Scripps considers close-by affordable housing desirable, especially for graduate and post-doctoral students. For other occupants of the SCO, low-rise construction makes it easier for companies to add space as they grow. High-rise construction is more expensive, harder to finance because of pre-leasing requirements, and less efficient. Based on the evidence, the FAR is fairly debatable. Venture capital from within and outside Florida is growing, as is capital interest in the Scripps initiative in Florida. Four clinical hospitals have expressed interest in participating in the SCO. In the year after announcement of Scripps Florida, the number of new life-science projects announced in Florida quadrupled in comparison to recent years. Workforce training and educational improvement are contemplated as support for and results of the SCO. The State has implemented and funded workforce programs in the life sciences, including in the County. The County has participated in the development of a consortium of Florida institutions of higher learning aimed at creating a specialized campus in the SCO. Scripps Florida is obligated to establish accredited science degree programs and internship programs for educators and secondary, post- secondary, graduate and post-doctoral students. Petitioners’ economic witness testified that the County lacks key competitive ingredients for developing a successful biotechnology cluster. Other witnesses, however, explained the level of efforts that the State, the County, and Scripps Florida are making to bring those ingredients to fruition. In addition, while Petitioners’ economic witness recited past experience of the biotechnology industry and forecast limited success for Scripps Florida primarily based on year seven, the last year of presently-committed State funding, he acknowledged that biotechnology research parks tend to experience a slow ramp-up, and the County anticipates a 30-year build-out. Of course, other sources of needed funding would have to be found after year seven. The evidence was that the chances for successful development of a biotechnology cluster at Mecca will decrease if no universities or hospitals are established onsite at Mecca and will decrease the longer it takes to establish them. If the planned biotechnology cluster does not succeed as well as planned, the SCO incorporates flexibility for absorption of R&D floor space by other types of research and development occupants. Often, when a large development project does not succeed as planned, pressures develop for investors to change the project's characteristics in an attempt to cut losses and increase profitability by selling land more quickly. In the case of the SCO, the investors are the taxpayers of Palm Beach County. It cannot be predicted what kind of pressures the County would feel, or what changes to the planned build-out would occur, if the SCO does not succeed as planned. Based on all the evidence, it is fairly debatable whether the likelihood of economic benefit is enough to justify the planned use of Mecca's 1,919 acres. Other Alternatives Petitioners also contend that the proposed development at Mecca is not needed because better alternatives exist. Specifically, they contend that the Scripps project could be sited: on the Briger site adjacent to the Florida Turnpike on its west and straddling I-95 in the City of Palm Beach Gardens; on Parcel 19 just west of I-95 and the Florida Turnpike, straddling Indiantown Road in the Town of Jupiter; or in the Park of Commerce (a/k/a Florida Research Park) in the unincorporated County near Mecca in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of the Beeline and SPW. Although the County had a contract with Scripps Florida to be located at Mecca, during the review process the BCC requested a study of possible alternative sites. The number of sites reduced rather quickly to three: Briger; Parcel 19; and the Park of Commerce. Data and analysis at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments indicated that each of these alternative sites had flaws and risk factors, making it fairly debatable whether Scripps should be sited at any one of them instead of at Mecca. All three proposed alternatives have less acreage than Mecca and do not provide the same opportunities for affordable housing, open space, or flexibility of design, so as to be able to be developed in accordance with the vision the County has for development on its own 1,919 acres at Mecca. The Park of Commerce has limited opportunity for affordable housing, is limited in permitted uses, and is limited in flexibility by existing and platted infrastructure and industrial uses. It is now being used for industrial purposes--a railroad, a General Motors distribution facility, and a Walgreen's distribution facility--not considered to be consistent with the County's vision for a biotechnology research park. In addition, it may become necessary in the future to construct an overpass at the Beeline and SPW directly over the only suitable location for construction of the Scripps facilities at that site. Parcel 19 cannot accommodate affordable housing and would require $75 million in construction of major interchanges at I-95 and Indiantown Road, after which Indiantown Road still would be seriously over capacity, creating great traffic problems. In addition, it would be difficult to achieve the County’s targeted development program of 8 to 8.5 million square feet of R&D uses. The 682-acre Briger site favored by the Petitioners is bisected by I-95 into two triangular pieces. It would not meet the acreage requirements of the County’s contract with Scripps Florida unless the City of Palm Beach Gardens waives certain upland preservation requirements. In addition, at this time Briger remains on the County’s list of properties for acquisition for preservation (although its placement on the list may be out-of-date since Briger's hydrologic connection to the Loxahatchee River Slough has been more disrupted by development since its listing). Even if the Scripps contract requirements could be met, it would require higher vertical construction, which would be less compatible with surrounding residential uses, would provide less open space, and would have reduced flexibility. The County's complete vision for onsite incorporation of uses and amenities would not fit on Briger. For example, the university tie-in, the hospital, and residential features would have to be offsite. Briger might have a short-term marketing advantage over Mecca (in part because hospitals and FAU's Jupiter campus already exist in close enough proximity). Briger also would be closer to major transportation facilities, but that advantage would not necessarily offset Briger's deficiencies. It is fairly debatable whether long-term success would be more likely at Mecca or at Briger. All four sites–-Mecca, Briger, Parcel 19, and the Park of Commerce-–are located in the eastern half of Palm Beach County, where growth pressures are strong, the County’s Plan is "tight," and build-out is anticipated within the next 30 years, even without the SCO, based on County data compilations for land use need purposes. Natural Resources Protection and Conservation While they may not protect and conserve natural resources in an absolute sense (as is rarely if ever possible when development takes place near natural areas), it is at least fairly debatable whether measures in the Plan and Plan Amendments to protect and conserve natural resources are adequate. See Findings 146-182, infra. Indicator 6 As to Indicator 6, significant new infrastructure will have to be extended to Mecca under the Plan Amendments. Development closer to existing roads and, to a lesser extent, the existing USA and LUSA might make more use of existing facilities and services possible. But the evidence was that most of the $15 million of centralized water and sewer lines that will serve the SCO at Mecca already are planned for extension of service to the UT Overlay. Many of the road improvements planned for the SCO at Mecca also are already planned. See Findings 116-117 and 152-155, infra. In addition, it is at least fairly debatable whether and to what extent greater use could be made of existing public facilities and services by locating the Scripps elsewhere in the County, or whether location elsewhere in the County would be better or even possible, especially given the County's complete vision for development of the SCO at Mecca. See Findings 85-92, supra. Given the decision to develop at Mecca, there was no evidence that existing public facilities and services will not be used to the maximum extent possible. Indicator 7 As to Indicator 7, there is no reason to believe that the development at Mecca resulting from the Plan Amendments will not maximize the use of future public facilities and services. (The County has not planned to provide centralized water and sewer service to the Vavrus property because it does not have the legal right or ability to provide services within the boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.) Indicator 8 As to Indicator 8, a disproportionate increase in the cost in time, money, and energy may result from providing and maintaining facilities and services to the SCO. However, while this indicator may be in evidence short-term due to the cost of constructing facilities to the SCO, over time these costs would be ameliorated as more development occurs in the area. Indicator 9 As to Indicator 9, as depicted on Map H of the DRI application, which is referenced in new Policy 1.2-f as a “land use/site planning measure,” it is at least fairly debatable whether the Plan Amendments provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The only rural uses adjacent to Mecca are the Vavrus land to the east, and Map H depicts a 50-foot buffer there. There was evidence that the 50-foot buffer on the east is sufficient for the current use and the rural residential land use designation (1 du/10ac) placed on the Vavrus site at this time by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The Mecca project has been designed so that, if there are changes in the future in the land use on the Vavrus property, those buffers would continue to provide compatibility. Indicator 10 As to Indicator 10, no language contained in the Plan Amendments discourages or inhibits infill or redevelopment, and the Plan still contains several provisions encouraging infill and redevelopment. On the other hand, development occurring at Mecca obviously will not result in infill or redevelopment. To the extent that the availability of economic incentives for infill and redevelopment is limited, the significant economic incentives committed to the Mecca project will not be available for infill and redevelopment. However, it is at least fairly debatable whether the infill and redevelopment measures in the Plan will be compromised by the Amendments in view of the increasing growth pressures in the County and the “tight” supply of land for development. The Plan Amendments include numerous anti-sprawl development controls that also are considered in the urban sprawl analysis. The principal controls are in the structure of the Plan Amendments, primarily the minimum and maximum amounts established for specific uses, a requirement for phasing, and a required balance of residential and non- residential uses for each phase. To mitigate sprawl, development controls should be meaningful and predictable, but also flexible. They need not include numeric setbacks and building spacing requirements, or a site plan. It is at least fairly debatable that the controls in the Amendments satisfy the State’s criteria. Cf. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j). Petitioners' Evidence One planning witness for Petitioners who opined that the Amendments constitute sprawl did not consider the extent, amount or frequency of any indicator, contrary to Rule 9J-5.006(5)(d). He also opined there is no need for the Amendments. However, in analyzing this issue, he only reviewed portions of the Plan and a six-page summary of the EAR prepared by Petitioners’ counsel. He did not examine the 2003 Population Allocation Model or the County’s population projections and land use need analysis.7 Another planning witness for Petitioners rendered opinions about the interpretation of several indicators in the urban sprawl rule, but his testimony did not constitute expert opinions as to whether the Amendments constitute sprawl, or are "in compliance." A third planning witness for Petitioners, from the TCRPC, opined that the Amendments are sprawl, as is the existing development near Mecca. However, he admitted the definition of “sprawl” in the TCRPC's SRPP is not the same as the definition in Rule 9J-5. Urban Sprawl Summary Based on the foregoing, the determinations by the County and DCA in this case that the Plan Amendments are consistent with the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, the GMA, and Rule Chapter 9J-5 regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources are subject to fair debate. Capital Improvements In this category, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Section 163.3177(3)(a) and Rule 9J-5.016(2) and (3)(b). The statute provides: The comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element designed to consider the need for and the location of public facilities in order to encourage the efficient utilization of such facilities and set forth: A component which outlines principles for construction, extension, or increase in capacity of public facilities, as well as a component which outlines principles for correcting existing public facility deficiencies, which are necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. The components shall cover at least a 5-year period. Estimated public facility costs, including a delineation of when facilities will be needed, the general location of the facilities, and projected revenue sources to fund the facilities. Standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities including acceptable levels of service. Standards for the management of debt. The Rule provides: Capital Improvements Analysis Requirements. The element shall be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection 9J-5.005(2), F.A.C. Current local practices that guide the timing and location of construction, extension or increases in capacity of each public facility; The general fiscal implications of the existing deficiencies and future needs for each type of public facility. This analysis shall be based on the needed improvements, as identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements, and shall address the relative priority of need among facility types, and shall support the future land use element; The costs of needed capital improvements for mitigation of existing deficiencies, replacement and new growth needs pursuant to the future land use element and shall explain the basis of cost estimates; The impact of new or improved public educational and public health care systems and facilities on the provision of infrastructure; The use of timing and location of capital improvements to public facilities to support efficient land development and goals, objectives, and policies in the future land use element. This analysis must take into consideration plans of state agencies and water management districts that provide public facilities within the local government jurisdiction; and An assessment of the local government's ability to finance capital improvements based upon anticipated population and revenues including: Forecasting of revenues and expenditures for five years; Projections of debt service obligations for currently outstanding bond issues; Projection of ad valorem tax base, assessment ratio and millage rate; Projections of other tax bases and other revenue sources such as impact and user fees; Projection of operating cost considerations; and Projection of debt capacity. Requirements for Capital Improvements Goals, Objectives, and Policies. * * * (b) The element shall contain one or more objectives for each goal and shall address: The use of the capital improvements element as a means to meet the needs of the local government for the construction of capital facilities necessary to meet existing deficiencies, to accommodate desired future growth and to replace obsolete or worn-out facilities; The limitation of public expenditures that subsidize development in high hazard coastal areas; The coordination of land use decisions and available or projected fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements which maintains adopted level of service standards and meets the existing and future facility needs; The extent to which future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by the development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards; and The demonstration of the local government's ability to provide or require provision of the needed improvements identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously issued development orders or future development do not exceed the ability of the local government to fund and provide or require provision of the needed capital improvements. There was no evidence that the Plan does not contain a CIE meeting these requirements or, more germane to this case, that the Plan Amendments undo the Plan's CIE, which already has been determined to be "in compliance." Actually, while seemingly focusing here on capital improvements other than those related to traffic circulation, Petitioners attempt to use these requirements primarily as additional bases for their urban sprawl arguments, supra, and their transportation concurrency and data and analysis arguments, infra. Chapter 2003-420, Laws of Florida, provides that the County in which Scripps is located shall have the exclusive right to provide central water and sewer service to the project. The County intends to provide such service to the SCO via lines extending from Okeechobee Boulevard and SR 7 about 12.5 miles away. The County has enough plant capacity to serve the SCO through build-out. Assuming Scripps Florida is located at the SCO, it would be expected to pay guaranteed revenue fees, connection fees, and on-line rates (which could be special rates set for Scripps and Mecca.) The evidence was that the total cost of construction for the lines to serve the SCO, while substantial at approximately $15 million (some of which would be expended with or without the SCO), is a relatively small percentage (5-6 percent) of the County's overall capital improvements budget, is relatively minor in light of the County’s strong financial condition, will enhance the use of existing assets and rate stability for customers, represents a least-cost and efficient approach for the area to be served, and will not cause other water and sewer needs to go unmet. The County’s 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Schedule (CIS) is financially feasible, as are each year’s program in the CIS. The CIS is based on best available data. Capital outlays to support the SCO will not deprive the County of money for other needed projects or distort the County’s fiscal priorities. Transportation Concurrency The Petitioners' focus here is on the CRALLS designations. CRALLS designations have been assigned to 37 different road segments and 6 intersections, not only near Mecca but also as far north as Indiantown Road, as far south as Okeechobee Boulevard, and as far east as I-95. They are set at vehicle loadings that match the traffic loads expected with development of the SCO. They only apply to the SCO. Other developments cannot rely on them but must use an applicable LOSS. In part, Petitioners frame their arguments on inconsistency with statutes and rules governing interim LOSS designed to correct existing deficiencies and set priorities for addressing backlogged facilities; Transportation Concurrency Management Areas used to promote infill and redevelopment; and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas used to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban infill and redevelopment and to achieve other goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan, such as promoting the development of public transportation. See Section 163.3180(9) and Rule 9J-5.0055(4)-(6). However, DCA and the County have made no effort to defend its CRALLS under those provisions.8 Rather, their position is that a CRALLS designation is a specialized LOSS that is "in compliance" without resort to those provisions of the law. DCA and the County seemed to come close to defending the CRALLS in part on the ground that the County has absolute discretion to establish these CRALLS and that they are not even subject to review for adequacy. Such a legal position would be untenable. Cf. Conclusion 217, infra. Assessment of the adequacy of the CRALLS is required. The transportation issues associated with the SCO are unprecedented in the County because of its size, location, and 30-year build-out. To address the challenges posed by these factors, the County relied on a combination of strategies to address transportation, including road improvements, CRALLS, adopting development controls for the SCO, and requiring mitigation. The initial transportation issue for the SCO was posed by FLUE Policy 3.5-d. This policy prohibits land use changes expected to generate significant impacts on any roadway segment projected to fail to operate at LOSS "D" based on the adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan. This policy is self-imposed and not required by the State. The SCO would generate trips beyond the significance thresholds in FLUE Policy 3.5-d. The County Engineer supported an exemption from this policy for the SCO because traffic considerations should not outweigh the economic and other land use goals the County is pursuing with the SCO. The first traffic analysis for the SCO was included in the DRI application, and was predicated on 10.5 million square feet of R&D. Later, in conjunction with re-zoning, the County’s consultants prepared a concurrency analysis for 8.5 million square feet of R&D, reflecting the maximum allowed by the Plan Amendments. All traffic analyses were performed as they would have been for a private developer, with methodologies approved by the County in collaboration with FDOT, TCRPC and Martin County. Assumptions were conservative, representing a worst- case scenario. SCO-related road improvements approved by the County in its five-year road program for 2005-2009 included 18 segments and three intersections at a total cost of $179.7 million. Of these, eight projects totaling $64.8 million were not new or changed in their amount of funding. The SCO-related improvements in the five-year road program were incorporated into the CIS for 2005-2010. An additional $26 million for these projects was included for 2010. Approximately 70 percent of the improvements needed for the SCO was previously identified on the 2020 Roadway System Map. In addition to these construction projects, the County also lowered the LOSS on some roads and intersections that would be impacted by the SCO over the next 30 years. In doing so, the County utilized its long-standing policy of establishing a CRALLS designation for each such road segment or intersection. The County is authorized under its charter to set LOSS's for all major roadways in unincorporated areas and municipalities except for the FIHS. The State sets the LOSS on roads in the FIHS. The County's generally applicable LOSS is LOSS “D”. Since 1989, the County has utilized the CRALLS strategy to establish an alternative LOSS on some roads due to physical or policy constraints. Examples of physical constraints include natural features, waterways, right-of-way limitations, and other roads; neighborhood opposition to a wider road would be an example of a policy constraint. CRALLS designations are not limited to the Urban/Suburban Tier; they may be adopted for land in any tier. Under TE Policy 1.2-f, CRALLS designations by the BCC must be based on data and analysis. These data and analysis must address 11 criteria in the County’s Unified Land Development Code (ULDC). CRALLS standards typically are expressed as a numeric limit on trip loadings on the road segment or intersection in question, rather than reliance upon the conventional, generalized “A”-“F” standards used by transportation engineers. Since 1993, Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5 have granted a local government discretion to adopt LOSS for seven types of public facilities, including roads other than FIHS roads. The only State requirements are that LOSS's must be adequate, based on data and analysis, and established for each facility type. Local governments are not prohibited from adopting LOSS's for different facilities within a service type or even project-specific LOSS's that overlay the more generally applicable LOSS for a facility or facility type. Of the 37 road segments and six intersections given project-specific CRALLS designations in the Amendments, the designations on nine road segments will become ineffective when the roads are widened as planned. Another seven segments may eventually have their CRALLS designations repealed as unneeded. These segments are projected to be no more than 12 percent over generalized LOS “D”, and the County’s experience is that a detailed arterial analysis generally will show such a segment actually operating at LOS “D” when site-specific factors are considered. Seven segments and one intersection already had CRALLS designations, but the CRALLS was changed to accommodate the SCO. An additional nine segments and four intersections were expected to have a CRALLS designation even without the SCO, due to pre-existing conditions. On all but two of these, the SCO accounted for 5% or less of the trip loadings. Five segments and one intersection received a CRALLS designation solely because of the SCO. These include three segments of PGA Boulevard, two segments of SPW, and the Northlake Boulevard to Orange Boulevard intersection. In analyzing an LOSS for adequacy, a local government should consider both technical and policy issues. Technical issues for roads include the actual amount of traffic to be allowed on a road segment or intersection at the peak hour in the peak season. Policy issues involve comparing increased congestion to other planning principles, such as preventing sprawl, promoting economic development, and neighborhood opposition to wider roads. There is not a limiting list of planning principles to consider in evaluating adequacy. The County Engineer concluded that these CRALLS designations were appropriate and adequate LOSS's. He based his opinion on the amount of traffic on each segment or intersection, how the road would function, fiscal issues, his knowledge of the area, residents’ opinions, and other factors. He noted that the maximum trips in each CRALLS designation are for the peak hour in the peak season; the peak season represents a 15 percent increase over the off-peak season. The CRALLS determinations were supported by the best available data. Among other things, the data and analysis addressed the 11 criteria identified in the ULDC. As transmitted, the Amendments included a number of temporary CRALLS designations. In its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC), DCA objected that temporary CRALLS designations without an accompanying long- range CIS were inconsistent with Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5. DCA suggested the County identify improvements for those CRALLS that were indeed temporary, and assign permanent CRALLS to those segments for which no improvements were planned. Of the 43 CRALLS designations in the Amendments as adopted, all but two were permanent. The CRALLS designations on two segments of Northlake Boulevard were to be “no longer in effect” after the extension of PGA Boulevard. These CRALLS designations are supported by a fully-funded extension of PGA Boulevard from SPW to the Beeline in the CIS. Considering the road improvements in the adopted CIS and the CRALLS designations adopted in the Amendments, the County will achieve and maintain the LOSS's on roads affected by the Amendments through 2009. In addition to road improvements and adopting CRALLS, the County adopted “best planning practices” for transportation in the Amendments. These included a variety of requirements in FLUE Policy 2.8-c, 1.-3., emphasizing bicycle and pedestrian mobility, project design measures like slip roads, and mixing uses to enhance internal trip capture. Policy 2.8-c, 9., included several requirements intended to foster public transportation at the SCO. Policy 2.8-d required a balance of residential and non-residential uses in each five-year project phase. Finally, the Amendments include required mitigation measures in conjunction with the CRALLS designations, including road construction and design principles for the SCO. Petitioners’ transportation witness opined that the CRALLS designations were not adequate and, in some cases, not feasible. But for several reasons, his opinions were not beyond fair debate. First, he based his opinion on the traffic analysis of 10.5 million square feet of development in the DRI application, which was later reduced to a maximum of 8.5 million, unbeknownst to the witness. Second, his technical analysis was general and did not take into account the County’s actual experience, which is not professionally acceptable data and analysis for purposes of a plan amendment. For example, some CRALLS loadings he said were impossible to achieve are already being met or exceeded in the County on actual roads, and traffic on some roads flows at speeds equivalent to LOS “D” even though trip loadings greatly exceed the LOS "D" numbers on the generalized LOS tables. Third, his opinion did not take into account the possibility that required on-site affordable housing and CRALLS mitigation measures in the Plan Amendments might increase internal trip capture and reduce trips on the external roadway system. Fourth, he assumed that the only policies the County could consider when evaluating the adequacy of a CRALLS designation are infill, redevelopment, and promotion of “forgotten modes” of transportation like bicycles; he did not consider economic development, urban sprawl, growth pressures, and other planning principles. Data and Analysis Paragraph 75 of the Amended Petition, labeled "Data and Analysis," alleges that the Plan Amendments are: not clearly based on the relevant and appropriate and professionally-accepted data and analysis regarding: impacts to adjacent natural areas; compatibility with adjacent land uses; impacts to the Loxahatchee River and restoration thereof; the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP] and components thereof; impacts to rural communities; the availability and necessity of infrastructure and the provision thereof to support the project; the necessity for and the amount of land needed to accommodate the project; the availability and suitability of alternative sites for the project; the character of the undeveloped land and the surrounding community; the economic impacts of the proposed plan amendments; [and]9 the likelihood of developing an economically significant biotech industry as [a] result of the plan amendments . . . as required by sections 163.3177(6)(a), (8) and (10)(e), Fla. Stat. and Rule 9J-5.005(2) and (5)10 and 9J-5.006(2) and 9J-5.013(1) F.A.C.11 Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the future land use plan be based on appropriate data and analysis. Section 163.3177(8) requires all elements of comprehensive plans to be "based upon data appropriate to the element involved." Section 163.3177(10)(e) states the Legislature's intent that goals and policies be "clearly based on appropriate data"; states that DCA "may evaluate the application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted"; and states that DCA "shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another." Rule 9J-5.005(2) states in pertinent part: (a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Rule 9J-5.006(2) describes the Land Use Analysis Requirements for the FLUE. It should be noted that new FLUE Policy 2.8-f in the Plan Amendments provides: "If the Scripps Research Institute does not move forward on the Mecca site, Staff shall bring to the BCC for initiation proposed amendments to consider removing any text and maps related to the [SCO] from the Comprehensive Plan." While Petitioners characterize this Policy as an admission that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance," the Policy actually is prudent and would allow reconsideration of planning for Mecca and vicinity with a Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster effort located elsewhere in the County (or even without any Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster effort in the County, if that were to occur) as part of the EAR-based and sector planning efforts of the County. Some parts of the data and analysis would not be "professionally accepted" and, standing alone, would not be adequate to support the Plan Amendments. For example, the Washington Economic Group report is not "professionally accepted" because: it does not explain its methodology; it is based on an erroneous assumption that the plan for Scripps Florida, which is planned to be smaller than Scripps California, will generate the level of biotechnical industry found in all of San Diego, which includes not only Scripps, but also the University of California at San Diego and the Salk Institute in its cluster; it overestimates the importance of Scripps' role in the San Diego cluster; and it double- counts Scripps employment in its employment estimates. But other data and analysis corrected these errors. The amount of data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendments is voluminous. Petitioners' data and analysis arguments essentially are that the same evidence they presented as to the substantive areas of concern proves alleged failures of data and analysis to be "professionally accepted" and adequate. As indicated elsewhere in this RO, Petitioners' evidence did not prove their case as to substantive areas of concern beyond fair debate; likewise, they did not prove beyond fair debate that the totality of the data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendments were not "professionally accepted" or were inadequate. Internal Consistency The Amended Petition alleges numerous internal inconsistencies. Section 163.3177(2) requires: "The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent . . . ." Rule 9J-5.005(5) repeats this admonition in subparagraph (a), and subparagraph (b) adds: "Each map depicting future conditions must reflect goals, objectives, and policies within all elements and each such map must be contained within the comprehensive plan." Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following statements in section B., the Assessment and Conclusions section of the Introduction to the FLUE, that the updated 1989 Plan implements the direction provided by the BCC to: strengthen and facilitate revitalization and redevelopment and infill development programs; protect agricultural land and equestrian based industries; balance growth through the County; * * * 8. establish a timing and phasing program to provide for orderly growth; * * * coordinate growth with the provision of infrastructure; define how growth/services will be managed in rural residential areas; define service areas and the type of services to be provided within each service area; and provide criteria for expanding the Urban/Suburban Tier. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following GOPs of the FLUE: Goal 1, to establish the Tier System. Policy 1.1-b, establishing criteria for redesignation of a Tier. Policy 1.1-d, not to modify the Tier System if redesignation would exhibit the characteristics of urban sprawl, as defined by Rule 9J-5.006. Objective 1.4, for a Rural Tier to protect and maintain rural residential, equestrian, and agricultural areas. Policy 1.4-k, not to make future land use decisions that increase density and/or intensity requiring major new public investments in capital facilities and related services in the Rural Tier. Objective 2.1, to designate sufficient land area in each land use designation to manage and direct future development to appropriate locations to achieve balanced growth. Policy 2.1-f, not to exceed the natural or manmade constraints of an area considering assessment of soil types, wetlands, flood plains, wellfield zones, aquifer recharge areas, committed residential development, the transportation network, and available facilities and services; and not to underutilize existing or planned capacities of urban services. Policy 2.2-b, requiring: an adequate justification and a demonstrated need for proposed future land use; for residential density increases to demonstrate that the current land use is inappropriate; for a review and determination of compatibility with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity; and an evaluation of impacts on the natural environment, availability of facilities and services, adjacent and surrounding development, future land use balance, prevention of urban sprawl as defined by Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g), Community Plans and/or recognized Planning Area Special Studies, and municipalities in accordance with Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective 1.1. Policy 2.2-d, to ensure consistency of the County's ULDC with the appropriate elements of the Plan. Objective 2.6, to establish a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. Policy 2.6-b, requiring the TDR program to be the method for increasing density within the County unless an applicant can justify and demonstrate need and that the current designation is inappropriate, or is using the Voluntary Density Bonus program, as outlined in the Housing Element and the ULDC. Policy 2.6-f, limiting potential TDR receiving areas to the Urban/Suburban Tier, Planned Development Districts and Traditional Development Districts requesting a density increase, and subdivisions requesting a bonus density above the standard density. Policy 2.6-h, prohibiting designation of receiving areas which would result in a significant negative impact upon adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Land. Policy 2.6-i, prohibiting designation of receiving areas which would be incompatible with surrounding existing and future land uses. Goal 3, to define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost-effective manner. Objective 3.1, to establish graduated service areas to distinguish levels and types of services needed in a Tier. Policy 3.1-a, to establish the USA, LUSA, and RSA considering: the density and intensity of land uses depicted in the FLUE Atlas; the cost and feasibility of extending services; the necessity to protect natural resources; and the objective of encouraging reinvestment in the Revitalization and Redevelopment Overlay. Objective 3.4, to require a RSA which meets the needs of rural development and use without encouraging the conversion of rural areas to more intense uses. Policy 3.4-a, for the RSA to include those areas of the County where the extension of urban LOS's is neither foreseen during the long range planning horizon nor warranted by development patterns or densities and intensities allowed. Policy 3.4-c, not to provide or subsidize centralized potable water or sanitary sewer in the RSA unless: required to correct an existing problem; required to prevent a projected public health hazard; required to prevent significant environmental degradation; or required by the Public Health Department for development in the Rural Tier adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to adoption of the Plan in 1989. Objective 3.5, to require availability of services concurrent with impacts of development, to ensure consistency of decisions regarding location, extent, and intensity of future land use (particularly urban expansion), with types of land use and development established in each Tier. Objective 4.1, to develop and implement a Community Planning and Neighborhood Planning program, consider the program's plans for more livable communities with a strong sense of place and identity for the various regions in the County. Policy 4.1-c, to consider the objectives and recommendations of all Community and Neighborhood Plans, including recognized Planning Area Special Studies, prior to extending utilities or services, approving land use amendments, or issuing development orders for rezoning, conditional use, or Development Review Committee approval. Goal 5, to provide for the continual protection, preservation, and enhancement of the County's various high quality environmental communities. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following parts of the Conservation Element (CE): Objective 2.1, to preserve and protect native communities and ecosystems to ensure that representative communities remain intact, giving priority to significant native vegetation. Policy 2.1-g, to ensure that management plans are developed for County-owned or County-managed natural areas and that uses allowed on these lands are compatible with them and preserve their natural character. Objective 2.4, to protect and preserve endangered and threatened species, species of special concern, and their associated habitats. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following GOPs of the CIE: Objective 1.1, to maintain minimum LOSS's for various facilities, including traffic circulation, and to issue development approvals based on ability to maintain those LOSS's. Objective 1.4, to identify and fund services and capital improvements required by the Plan. Policy 1.4-a, to fund projects and programs to (not in order of importance): correct public hazards; eliminate existing deficiencies in LOS's; provide capacity for projects in the USA approved through development orders; provide for renewal and replacement of, and improvement to, existing public infrastructure and physical assets; maintain LOS's as new growth occurs; increase existing LOS's to desired LOS's; and implement the GOPs in the Plan. Policy 1.5-c, not to provide urban LOS's in the RSA except where allowed under CIE Objective 1.1, required to correct a public health hazard, or required by the Public Health Department for development in the Rural Tier adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to adoption of the Plan in 1989. (Other internal consistencies mentioned in Petitioners' PRO were not alleged or heard by consent and may not be considered. See Conclusion 212, infra.) The evidence did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments cause the elements of the Plan to be internally inconsistent, or cause the depictions of future conditions in the FLUE Atlas not to reflect the GOPs within all elements of the Plan. Natural Resources Impacts on the Mecca Site As a result of its use for citrus growing and mining, Mecca itself is devoid of significant environmental value. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has found no jurisdictional wetlands on it. There are no native plant communities; in fact, there is virtually no native vegetation anywhere on the site. Mecca is used by wildlife in limited and intermittent ways. The main wildlife use is localized foraging by species such as sandhill cranes and wood storks in the impoundment and irrigation ditches. Mecca does not provide suitable habitat for nesting or denning. A listed species survey revealed no gopher tortoises or snail kites. The surface water management system for the first 535 acres of the SCO has received a construction permit, and the system for the total site was conceptually approved based on water quantity and water quality compliance. See Florida Wildlife Federation, et al., v. SFWMD, et al., SFWMD Order No. 2004-208 FOF ERP, DOAH Case Nos. 04-3064 and 04-3084, 2004 WL 2770101 (DOAH December 3, 2004; SFWMD Final Order December 8, 2004). No significant adverse impacts to natural resources on Mecca itself would result from development of the SCO on Mecca. Impacts of Development on Mecca on Natural Areas Surrounding Mecca The lands surrounding Mecca are more significant environmentally. They include Corbett WMA to the west, Hungryland Slough to the north and northeast, the Vavrus property to the east, and the North County Airport Preserve (Conservation lands to the west, south, and southeast of that Airport) east of the Vavrus property. Farther away to the east and northeast is the Loxahatchee Slough and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, including its federally- designated Wild and Scenic and Outstanding Florida Water portion. Farther away to the southeast is the Grassy Waters Water Preserve Area, which is both a high quality natural wetlands area and an important source of drinking water for the City of West Palm Beach. New FLUE Policy 2.8-c requires the adoption of design standards for the SCO which, among other things, will at a minimum address: 4. Protection of conservation lands to the north and west of the SCO and include a passive recreational wetland system to enhance the quality of surrounding areas of environmentally sensitive lands. In accordance with this Policy, Map H designates a 247-acre, 500-1,000 foot wide flow-way along the entire north and west sides of Mecca. The flow-way will consist of braided channels through a freshwater marsh, as well as forested wetland and upland tree islands. These wetlands will enhance recreation and wildlife use. The mining lake and a new, separate lake on the south end of the site will have littoral shelves and plantings conducive to wildlife use. In addition to providing onsite environmental benefits, the flow-way will help protect adjacent environmental lands to the west and north from the effects of development on Mecca itself. Impacts of Road Construction on Natural Areas Surrounding Mecca SPW as currently depicted in the Plan runs directly along the western border of Mecca immediately adjacent to Corbett WMA. By virtue of the Amendments, the road alignment has been moved eastward onto Mecca, with the flow-way on its west as a buffer between the actual road and Corbett. This road alignment and buffer can be expected to have less of an impact on Corbett than would an alignment without a buffer. In addition to the impacts of development on Mecca itself, the Plan Amendments also affect road construction offsite that have environmental impacts. The extension of SPW from south of Mecca north to the Beeline through the Hungryland Slough was planned and included in the Plan's 2020 Roadway System Map before the Amendments were adopted, but was not in the County's five-year road program through 2009. The Amendments enlarged the planned roadway from four to six lanes and accelerated its construction to 2007. The extension of PGA Boulevard west from the Beeline to Mecca was not depicted in the Plan prior to the Amendments. The Plan Amendments identify a new 260-foot wide ROW on the new TIM; although the ROW could accommodate ten lanes of roadway, a six-lane road is depicted on the new 2020 Roadway System Map. The new road construction is expected to impact a number of wetlands on private property, but the exact extent of this impact is not known as its precise alignment has not been selected, and the general alignment depicted in Ordinance No. 2004-39 does not allow an exact assessment of potential environmental impacts. In order to examine potential impacts of the PGA Boulevard Extension, the County studied the “worst case scenario” for the extension if it were completed in a straight-line from the Beeline to Mecca. A road constructed on this alignment would directly impact over 45 acres of wetlands, and have an indirect impact upon another 56 acres of wetlands. SFWMD considered this “worst case scenario” as part of its review of secondary impacts for purposes of the conceptual permit it issued for the SCO, which assumed that impacts will be lessened during subsequent permitting as a result of SFWMD's avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements. See Florida Wildlife Federation, et al., v. SFWMD, et al., SFWMD Order No. 2004-208 FOF ERP, supra. Habitat Fragmentation The integrity of natural areas is very important to wildlife. For one thing, the ability of wildlife to move around and mix to enlarge the gene pool increases the structural stability of wildlife populations. Loss of enough integrated habitat can be very damaging to particular species of wildlife. As habitat becomes further and further fragmented by development, the remaining connections among areas of quality habitat become increasingly important in general and especially for particular species of wildlife. Development and roads built through natural areas result in road kill and habitat fragmentation, which compromises the quality of the natural areas. Before the Plan Amendments, through at least 2009, wildlife would have had the ability to use Mecca and especially Hungryland to move between Corbett, Vavrus, the North County Airport Preserve, without having to cross any major roads until coming to the Beeline and Northlake Boulevard, which separate those areas from the Loxahatchee Slough northeast of the Beeline and north and south of existing PGA Boulevard, and from the Grassy Waters Preserve south of Northlake Boulevard. At some point between 2009 and 2020, a four-lane extension of SPW was planned to be added. As a result of the Plan Amendments, the SPW extension will be accelerated to 2007 and constructed with two additional lanes. As a result, the Plan Amendments will tend to reduce connectivity, increase fragmentation of natural habitats, and probably increase road kill of deer, alligators, various kinds of turtles, otters, and snakes. While not part of the Plan Amendments, planned protection measures include fencing to separate Corbett from the Mecca project and wildlife crossings and bridging installed along with the widening of SPW north of Mecca and the extension of PGA Boulevard to Mecca in an attempt to retain the linkage of open wetland and upland areas to the west, north and east, consistent with CE Objective 5.1. Unfortunately, even if the fencing and wildlife crossings and bridging are 100 percent effective for larger animals (which they probably will not be), it should be recognized that many smaller animals will benefit little from them if at all. In particular, increased road kills of listed indigo snakes should be expected due to their large habitat home range (200-acre home range for males). Fire Management Virtually all plant communities in the vicinity of Mecca are fire dependent--in order to be maintained in their natural state, they must be burned approximately every three years, or they will be invaded by exotic species, and their habitat values will be reduced. The inability to maintain a regular burn schedule also poses a public safety threat due to the increased risk of wildfires. Fire management is compromised near roadways and developed areas due to health concerns, reduced visibility, and increased wildfire threat. Caution is used when burning near roadways so as not to cause (traffic accidents,) or to be blamed unfairly for causing them, which can be just as bad for the public relations that have to be maintained to successfully fire-manage natural lands. If an airport, hospital, school, or community is within two miles of a burn area, it is considered a smoke-critical area. If Mecca is developed as proposed, it will be considered a smoke-critical area for many burns in Corbett, which will not be able to be burned if the wind is blowing from the west. In Corbett, which has a lot of lighter wood, fires often smolder for weeks, further constraining fire management. For these reasons, the development allowed by the Plan Amendments will negatively impact the management of Corbett. However, there are alternative fire-management techniques that can be used, if necessary, in natural areas adjacent to Mecca. In addition, with or without the SCO, the County was planning a four-lane extension of SPW along the eastern boundary of Corbett, which would be a constraint on fire management. Light Impacts The proposed development on Mecca will add light sources that will alter the nighttime sky viewable from Corbett, Hungryland, and the Loxahatchee Slough. Depending on the extent, such an alteration would reduce recreational values of Corbett. Lights also can interrupt bird migration and be harmful to migratory birds. The area surrounding Mecca is important for migratory birds because the lack of lighting provides a dark sky and safe route for migration. Special downward-directed lighting that can reduce the adverse impacts from lighting is intended to be used on the Mecca project although a clear requirement to use them is not included in the Plan Amendments. Noise, Pollution, and Mosquito Control Noise and other roadway disturbance cause behavioral problems in wildlife, disrupt bird-nesting for considerable distances, and negatively impact prey and predator by interfering with offensive and defensive mechanisms. However, it should not be anticipated that these kinds of impacts will be significant. In most cases, they probably will disturb the human recreational users of these public lands more than the wildlife. Fertilizer and pesticide use on Mecca may be harmful to wildlife on adjacent properties. But there are ways to control their ill effects through land development regulation consistent with provision in the CE of the Plan. Mosquito control is typically required in urban developments, and is accomplished through the use of pesticides that are not only targeted towards mosquitoes, which are an important part of the food chain, but also kill a wide variety of insects, spiders, and invertebrates. This reduces the populations of these species, negatively impacts species that rely on them for food, can be expected to result in less food for birds such as tree swallows, which feed heavily on mosquitoes, as well as dragonflies, and numerous species that rely on mosquito larvae in the aquatic environment. Loxahatchee River Basin Petitioners contend that it is unacceptably poor planning to develop the SCO on Mecca at this time and eliminate it as an option for use for water storage as part of efforts to restore the Loxahatchee River. The Loxahatchee River has been negatively impacted by development in its basin. Such development has resulted in several changes, including the redirection of water discharge to other basins and an unnatural increase in stormwater drainage. These changes to the drainage patterns have resulted in several problems, including excessively high flows in the river following rainfall events, and reduced base flows during the dry season. Excessive flows during the wet season have resulted in erosion of the stream bed, sedimentation blocking the channel at times, and sometimes water quality problems and fish kills. Reduced base flows during the dry season have contributed to allowing saltwater intrusion up the river channel. (Other contributing factors include straightening and stabilization of the inlet to reduce the need for maintenance dredging and the removal of a large oyster bar from the riverbed for navigation purposes.) Saltwater intrusion has altered aquatic ecosystems and caused a change in the vegetation along the riverbanks. Specifically, freshwater cypress-dominated wetlands used to occur as far seaward as 6.2 miles from the river mouth; now mangroves have replaced the cypress swamps as far inland as river mile 9.2, and the cypress wetlands to river mile 10.2 are stressed. Restoration of the Loxahatchee River is an objective of CERP, North Palm Beach County Part One. One component of North Palm Beach County Part One was for SFWMD to acquire rock mine pits for water storage from Palm Beach Aggregates near where the L-8 canal meets the C-51 canal. SFWMD plans to channel water through canals into these pits during wet season or high rainfall events, then discharge the water from the pits back through the canals during dry season. One destination for this fresh water during the dry season would be the Loxahatchee River. Until recently, prior to the Scripps opportunity, the North Palm Beach County Part One CERP team also was considering use of Mecca for water storage as a possible management measure in the overall CERP strategy for restoration of the Loxahatchee River. Mecca was considered for two main reasons. One was its location on the west leg of the C-18 canal, which receives discharges from the C-18 basin and flows into the Loxahatchee River. Water could be fairly easily stored there during the wet season and released to the river during the dry season. The other was its disturbed condition, being an orange grove and sand mine. The only other potential water storage sites near the C-18 canal without pristine wetlands that would be unsuitable and undesirable sites for a water storage facility is approximately 1,500 acres of disturbed agricultural land on Vavrus. (The other two-thirds of the Vavrus property has high-quality wetlands habitat.) However, Mecca was not specifically mentioned in any component of CERP, North Palm Beach County Part One, and consideration also was being given to restoring the Loxahatchee River without using Mecca for water storage. No decision was made to use Mecca for water storage, and no steps were taken to purchase Mecca for this purpose. When the Scripps opportunity arose, the County purchased the property for development of a biotechnology research park and applied to SRWMD for a surface water storage and management system and environmental resource permit. One issue was whether the permit would be consistent with the objectives of SFWMD, including CERP. SFWMD did a preliminary study, which included modeling, and determined that Mecca would not be needed for water storage, finding that water storage capacity available in the Palm Beach Aggregates rock mine pits was sufficient, given the pits’ location, depth, and access to nearby canals. SFWMD already had a contract for use of 48,000 acre-feet feet of storage capacity, which is more than seven times the achievable storage at Mecca. In addition, SFWMD was negotiating to acquire the right to double that storage capacity at Palm Beach Aggregates. Based on the County's plans to develop the SCO on Mecca, and the options available for restoring the Loxahatchee without water storage on Mecca, the CERP team eliminated the Mecca option. Instead, SFWMD and the County coordinated on the role the SCO might play in the recovery effort. SFWMD concluded that Mecca could be used to advantage as part of the water conveyance system between the rock mine pits and environmental areas, including the Loxahatchee River. Establishing a flow-way from the south to north of Mecca would give SFWMD another route with which to move water, would reduce dependence on Lake Okeechobee for fresh water, and would provide greater base flows to the Loxahatchee. Based on SFWMD input, the County designed for Mecca a flow-way that will allow flow up to 1,000 cubic feet of water per second (cfs) to assist recovery efforts for the Loxahatchee. Construction at Mecca is phased to assure that the existing onsite impoundment will be in place until the flow-way is functioning. This conveyance system will benefit offsite resources and improve water quality, and is consistent with and complementary to SFWMD’s CERP implementation. Petitioners' witnesses criticized the decision to proceed with development of the SCO on Mecca at this time on the ground that CERP's implementation report (a/k/a "tentatively selected plan") has yet to be approved. However, approval requires not only agreement by the State and federal agencies involved but also a vote of the United States Congress, which may not occur until 2008. It is a fairly debatable policy question whether to postpone a decision on developing the SCO at Mecca until Congress approves an ultimate CERP implementation plan. Petitioners' witnesses also criticized the modeling relied on by SFWMD to eliminate the Mecca option. They pointed out that the modeling was not peer-reviewed and that it assumed 80,000 to 100,000 acre-feet of storage at the rock mine pits. But this point, too, is fairly debatable. First, while peer-review is required in the CERP planning process, it is not required of data and analysis under the GMA. See Finding 136, supra. Second, the purpose of the modeling was to supplement modeling already done assuming 48,000 acre-feet of storage for comparison purposes. It was not intended to answer the ultimate question of CERP planning process--whether the CERP implementation plan will meet CERP objectives, including restoration of the Loxahatchee. In addition, based on the evidence, prospects for obtaining the additional storage seem reasonably good. Third, water from the rock mine pits is only one of four sources of flow needed for restoration of the Loxahatchee. The combination of sources CERP will use has not been determined yet. Preliminarily, it is estimated that base flows from the south will be required to maintain 65 cfs minimum flows at the Lainhart Dam. Based on the evidence, the prospects for being able to maintain those flows using water from the rock mine pits are reasonably good. Other necessary flow will be sought from the Palmar/Cypress Creek and Kitchen Creek areas to the north. Fourth, as for reducing high flows during the wet season, it is fairly debatable whether the plan to use the Palm Beach Aggregates rock mine pits alone for water storage will work well enough. It could be that, despite capacity limitations on storage potential in the C-18 basin, some storage there may prove beneficial, perhaps in conjunction with aquifer storage and recovery wells (ASRs), along with the rock mine pits. Even with the Plan Amendments, there remains some potential at this time that a limited portion of Mecca and disturbed portions of Vavrus could be used for this purpose if needed. Petitioners' witnesses also complained that use of the rock mine pits along with a flow-way through Mecca will require potentially costly land acquisition and permitting and modification of existing canals and construction of new canals, as well as larger pumps, and that water will be lost in transit between the rock mine pits and Mecca through evaporation. But there was no evidence that those factors will in fact harm or jeopardize restoration of the Loxahatchee River. Meanwhile, it is significant that the flow-way on Mecca will be provided by the County and will not cost SFWMD or CERP anything. Natural Resources Summary As can be seen, development of the SCO at Mecca will not be without some adverse impacts to natural resources and the environment. However, the County's determination that the benefits of the SCO outweigh the harm of those impacts, so as not to cause the Plan Amendments to be "in compliance," is a policy decision that is at least fairly debatable. Community Character and Compatibility It is obvious that the Plan Amendments will result in a complete change in the character and use of the Mecca site. Without question, development of the SCO at Mecca will impact adjacent lands and the character of the nearest communities. The question raised, however, is whether the changes at Mecca are compatible with the character and uses of the surrounding lands. New FLUE Policy 2.8-c requires, among other things: urban uses allowed by the SCO to have a defined edge; protection of conservation lands to the north and west by a passive recreational wetland system to enhance the quality of surrounding environmentally sensitive lands; and compatibility with and minimization of impacts on land uses adjacent to the SCO. Map H of the DRI application shows wetland and other buffers on the north, west, and south sides of the SCO, and a 50-foot upland buffer along the Vavrus property to the east. There was evidence that the 50-foot buffer on the east is sufficient for the current use and the rural residential land use designation (1 du/10ac) placed on the Vavrus site at this time by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The Mecca project has been designed so that, if there are changes in the future in the land use on the Vavrus property, those buffers would continue to provide compatibility. Corbett WMA and the Hungryland preservation lands in Unit 11 will be buffered by passive recreational wetlands 500 to 1,000 feet wide, based on Map H. Corbett WMA will be benefited by moving Seminole Pratt-Whitney (SPW) Road to the east of the SCO westerly buffer and converting the existing roadbed to an equestrian trail.12 To the south, The Acreage is an example of urban or suburban sprawl. A residential development platted in 1.25- acre lots, it has all internal roads in place and in use. There was ample evidence that development of the SCO can be compatible with The Acreage. The southerly buffer between the nearest residence in The Acreage and development in the SCO would be about 800 feet. SPW already is in the 2020 TIM and Roadway System Map as a four-lane paved road through The Acreage and north past Mecca and the Beeline to Indiantown Road. However, SPW Road already has a 120-foot-wide ROW, which can accommodate a six- lane road, and The Acreage Neighborhood Plan calls for construction of this road from Northlake to the Beeline Highway, as well as extension of SR 7 north from Okeechobee Boulevard to Northlake. There is already heavy traffic on the few major through-roads in The Acreage, and that will increase incrementally. At the same time, some work trips from The Acreage to areas of the County farther east could be offset by employment opportunities in the SCO. The North County Airport has a five-mile runway buffer zone precluding educational uses. That buffer zone was accommodated on the SCO by the arrangement of uses on Map H. The new extension of PGA Boulevard from the SCO to the Beeline Highway will be subject to FAA setback requirements, but there are options for addressing that issue when an alignment is selected. The 28-acre Accessory Site is located on the west side of SPW Road just south of the SCO. Its use for construction of SPW Road, a connector canal, and an FPL substation is compatible with the existing FPL transmission line on the property. The substation will be sufficiently buffered by canals and SPW Road from The Acreage to its east and south. Many residents in the communities in the vicinity of Mecca desire to preserve the character of their communities or, it seems, even restore it to what it was before the growth the County has seen in this area over the last several years. Several own horses and desire to continue to ride their horses along the roads in the area. However, as indicated, with or without the Plan Amendments, growth in the area was expected, the County was planning to build roads in the area, and traffic was expected to increase. Based on the foregoing, it is fairly debatable whether the Plan Amendments are compatible with community character and surrounding land uses. Regional and State Plans Section 163.3177(10) states in pertinent part: for the purpose of determining whether local comprehensive plans are consistent with the state comprehensive plan and the appropriate regional policy plan, a local plan shall be consistent with such plans if the local plan is "compatible with" and "furthers" such plans. The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in conflict with the state comprehensive plan or appropriate regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan. For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the state comprehensive plan or the appropriate regional policy plan, the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans. Treasure Coast Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) In the Amended Petition, the Petitioners did not allege the Amendments are inconsistent with the SRPP, as a whole. Only allegations in the Amended Petition may be considered. See Conclusion 212, infra. Notwithstanding testimony from Petitioners’ TCRPC witness that the Plan Amendments were not consistent with some provisions of the SRPP, he did not testify that they were inconsistent with the SRPP as a whole. The Amendments further some parts of the SRPP. These include SRPP Goal 3.6 and SRPP Goal 3.7 of the Economic Development element, and their supporting strategies and policies. Petitioners' TCRPC witness testified there were five inconsistencies between the Amendments and the SRPP. However, he admitted that he did not recommend that TCRPC file formal objections to the Amendments with DCA on three grounds he cited for inconsistency at hearing --proximity to the Corbett WMA and other natural resources, the CRALLS designations, and proximity to the North County Airport. In discussing some provisions, this witness failed to give the SRPP its proper context. Many goals, strategies, and policies in the SRPP use directive verbs intended to be recommendations to a local government, not requirements. As one of his five grounds of inconsistency with the SRPP, Petitioners' TCRPC witness opined that Regional Goal 4.1 and its supporting measures require the County to prepare a regional plan before urban development may be allowed at Mecca, and to ensure such development meets the SRPP’s definition of a new town, village or city. However, this goal and its key provisions use the verb “should” and therefore are not mandates. Further, a plain reading of these provisions shows no requirement for the County to complete a regional plan as a pre-requisite for urban development. Also, the TCRPC witness opined that SRRP Policies 9.1.1.1 and 7.1.3.1 prohibit CRALLS designations outside urban areas. However, a plain reading of these policies shows no basis for such an assertion, and the witness later admitted the SRPP does not prohibit CRALLS designations in rural areas. Moreover, his testimony on this point was contradicted by his testimony that the SRPP is only “advisory.” State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan (SCP) is a very broad, direction-setting document. The SCP provides over-arching policy guidance, and does not impose or authorize the creation of regulatory authority. The Amended Petition alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the goals of the SCP regarding Land Use, Water Resources, Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Transportation, and Urban and Downtown Revitalization, as well as numerous policies under these goals. Based on these allegations, Petitioners alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the SCP as a whole. To the contrary, the record evidence demonstrates that all relevant issues regarding water and other natural resources, land use, and transportation were taken into account by the County and are addressed in the Amendments. Additionally, the Amendments are consistent with and further numerous goals of the SCP not mentioned in the Amended Petition. The Amendments contain a commitment that each phase of development must contain affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income households. This commitment furthers the SCP goal to “increase the affordability and availability of housing for low-income and moderate-income persons ” § 187.201(4), Fla. Stat. The Amendments have as their principal focus the creation of quality employment opportunities with Scripps Florida as anchor tenant. This purpose is consistent with and furthers the SCP policy to “[a]ttract new job-producing industries, corporate headquarters, distribution and service centers, regional offices, and research and development facilities to provide quality employment for the residents of Florida.” § 187.201(21)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. Summary Using the statutory definition of internal consistency, it is not beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with either the TCRPC's SRRP or the SCP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DCA enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue 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 Amendment 06-19 to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (the Plan), adopted by Ordinance 757 on August 7, 2007, is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007)1.
Findings Of Fact Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment 06-19 to the Plan changes the future land use on 13.7 acres in Jensen Beach, Florida, known as Pitchford's Landing, from Mobile Home to Low Density Residential. The County's Mobile Home future land use designation allows mobile home sites up to a maximum of eight units per acre. The County's Low Density Residential future land use designation allows single family residences--including Class A manufactured single-family mobile homes--up to a maximum of five units per acre. The Plan defines Class A manufactured single-family homes as mobile homes built after June 15, 1976, and meeting certain federal standards. As a result of the FLUM Amendment, the future land use no longer would allow mobile homes built before June 15, 1976, or not meeting the federal standards. The Petitioners' Challenge The Petitioners contend that the FLUM Amendment is not in compliance because it is not based on adequate data and analysis as required by Section, 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule2 9J-5.005(2)(a), and because it is not internally consistent with goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan with respect to providing adequate sites for mobile homes and affordable housing for low and moderate income residents as required by Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(5). The Petitioners further contend the amendment is inconsistent with requirements of the Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and Rule Chapter 9J-5 related to affordable housing, concurrency, and water supplies. Pertinent Plan Provisions The Housing Element of the Plan acknowledges that the State Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies "aimed at increasing Florida's affordable housing supply." Plan Section 6.1.A. The following goals, objectives, and policies are set out in the Housing Element: Section 6.4.A. Goal. The provision of a safe, diverse and affordable housing stock which is adequate to serve the needs of current and future populations of Martin County consistent with the desired development character of the County as set forth in Martin County's Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. Section 6.4.A.2.d.(2). Policy. Principles for Conservation and Rehabilitation Activities. The following principles shall guide the development of any housing conservation and/or rehabilitation activities . . . Avoid the closure or abandonment of housing and the displacement of occupants, except where the safety of the occupants would be in question. Section 6.4.A.5. Objective. The County shall continue to provide adequate sites for housing for very low, low and moderate income households which currently reside and are projected to reside in unincorporated Martin County. Section 6.4.A.6. Objective. Martin County shall continue to provide adequate sites for mobile and manufactured housing. Policy: Adequate sites for mobile and manufactured homes. Martin County shall permit the placement of mobile homes in mobile home parks and subdivisions consistent with the criteria and guidelines established in section 4.4.M.1(d)(6) of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan.3 Section 6.4.A.9.a. Policy: Plan for a broad mix of housing opportunities. Encourage the provision of varied housing types, sizes and prices consistent with the local need, including very low, low and moderate priced housing. The Future Land Use Element of the County's Plan contains the following goals, objectives, and policies: Section 4.4.A.3. Objective. Martin County shall establish a "concurrency management system" which will establish the procedures and/or process that the county government will utilize to assure that no development orders or permits will be issued which result in a reduction of the adopted level of service standards of this Growth Management Plan at the time that the impact of development occurs. Policy: All requests for amendments to the future land use maps shall include a general analysis of the availability and adequacy of public facilities and the level of services required for public facilities the proposed land uses Compliance with this provision is in addition to, and not in lieu of, compliance with the provisions of Martin County's Concurrency Management System . . . . Policy: The maintenance of internal consistency among all elements of the plan shall be a prime consideration in evaluating all requests for amendments to any elements of the plan . . . Section 4.4.I. Goal (residential land use): Martin County shall provide for appropriate and adequate lands for residential land uses to meet the housing needs of the anticipated population and provide residents with a variety of choices in housing types and living arrangements throughout the county. Section 4.4.I.2.a.(1). Residential zoning classifications shall, at a minimum, be designed for single-family, multifamily, and mobile home and manufactured housing development to meet the housing needs demonstrated in the Housing Element (Chapter 6) of this Growth Management Plan. Section 4.4.M.1.f. Policies (Residential development). The Land Use Map allocates residential density based on population trends; housing needs; past trends in the character, magnitude, and distribution of residential land consumption patterns; and, pursuant to goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, including the need to provide and maintain quality residential environments, preserve unique land and water resources and plan for fiscal conservancy. Mobile and Manufactured Single-Family, Class A home development. Mobile homes and manufactured homes, Class A, residential development shall be permitted consistent with State Rules and statutory provisions including F.S. §§ 320.823, 553.38(2). Mobile homes which do not meet the standard for manufactured housing, Class A, as defined in this Element shall be permitted only on sites appropriately zoned for mobile home development. Adequate Mobile Homes Sites The FLUM Amendment reduces the amount of land available for mobile homes that are not Class A manufactured single-family homes. It also reduces the density of Class A manufactured single-family homes allowed on the Pitchford's Landing site to five from eight units per acre. However, the Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is internally inconsistent with Plan provisions requiring adequate sites for mobile homes, or for affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income residents. The Petitioners also failed to prove beyond fair debate that, as a result of the FLUM Amendment, the Plan fails to provide adequate sites for mobile homes, or for affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income residents. Data and Analysis The data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment included the existence of 89 acres of land in Martin County that is designated Mobile Home but is vacant. (There also is a large amount of vacant land designated Low Density Residential that can be used for Class A manufactured homes.) There was evidence that the amount of vacant land designated Mobile Home has decreased from the 187 acres reported to exist in January 2003. Some of that decrease was the result of conversions to other future land uses. It is not clear from the evidence what part of the decrease might have been from the use of formerly vacant land. As a result of the real estate boom in 2001-2005, Martin County began to experience the conversions of mobile home parks to more expensive (and more profitable) housing. In addition, the general increase in real estate prices also increased the cost of the more affordable housing that did not convert. As a result of concerns about those developments, Martin County began investigating and developing a strategy to continue to meet its requirements for affordable and workforce housing. One possible strategy under consideration was a "no net loss" of land zoned Mobile Home Park. As part of this effort, on June 5, 2007, Martin County adopted Ordinance 751, which imposed an interim moratorium for the month of September 2007 on private applications to convert Mobile Home to any other future land use categories. Ordinance 751 also imposed an 18-month moratorium on rezoning of land designated for Mobile Home future land use. By its terms, Ordinance 751 does not prohibit the FLUM Amendment in this case. The data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment included the proximity of the Pitchford's Landing site to the coastal high hazard area (CHHA). It is to the west and just across Indian River Drive from a narrow strip of land along the Indian River, which is in the CHHA. Although the evidence was that there has not been significant damage to the site itself from recent storms, the eastern half of the site is in the Category 3 and Category 5 "storm surge zones." The data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment included the compatibility of Low Density Residential future land use with the surrounding uses. The narrow strip along the Indian River to the east of the Pitchford's Landing site across Indian River Drive is designated Commercial Limited, as is the property to the north of the eastern half of the site. The property to the south of the eastern half of the site is designated Mobile Home but is actually under development as a "mixed use" planned unit development within the Jensen Beach Community Redevelopment Area. The property to the north and west of the western half of the site is designated Low Density Residential, while the property to the south of the western half is designated Mobile but actually is undeveloped and covered with trees and other vegetation. The data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment included the opinions of planning experts that Low Density Residential future land use is more appropriate than Mobile Home future land use for the Pitchford's Landing site. The data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment included the existence of potable water service with sufficient capacity for the Pitchford's Landing site provided by the Martin County Utilities and Solid Waste Department. The data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment included the existence of sanitary sewer lines with sufficient capacity in the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the Pitchford's Landing site that can be easily accessed for sanitary sewer service provided by the Martin County Utilities and Solid Waste Department. The data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment included the existence of other public services with sufficient capacity, such as fire protection, hospitals, parks and recreational facilities, and schools. The data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment included the absence of wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas on it, according to the Martin County Soil Survey and photographs of the site, as well as the absence of any rare, endangered, or threatened species of animals or plants. Several Petitioners expressed a concern about the lack of data and analysis on the impact of the FLUM Amendment on the surficial aquifer they use for potable water. Specifically, their concern is that the FLUM Amendment will decrease aquifer recharge on the Pitchford's Landing site and increase its use of the aquifer for lawn irrigation. However, there was no evidence tending to prove how converting the future land use designation from Mobile Home (at up to eight units per acre) to Low Density Residential (at up to five units per acre) would have such an impact. To the contrary, there was evidence that there are existing permits from the South Florida Water Management District to use a fixed amount of water from the surficial aquifer for lawn irrigation on the Pitchford's Landing site. There was no evidence that more water would be required by a conversion of the future land use from Mobile Home to Low Density Residential. If more water is required, any increase in the use of the water from the surficial aquifer would have to be permitted by SFWMD. The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by data and analysis. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners contend that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following parts of the State Comprehensive Plan: WATER RESOURCES Goal.--Florida shall assure the availability of an adequate supply of water for all competing uses deemed reasonable and beneficial and shall maintain the functions of natural systems and the overall present level of surface and ground water quality . . . . Policies Ensure the safety and quality of drinking water supplies and promote the development of reverse osmosis and desalinization technologies for developing water supplies. Identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentives for their conservation. * * * 5. Ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and regional water supplies. * * * Protect aquifers from depletion and contamination through appropriate regulatory programs and through incentives. Protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity in this state. * * * § 187.201(7), Fla. Stat. The evidence did not prove that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any of those provisions or that, as a result of the FLUM Amendment, the Plan as a whole is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Standing All of the individual Petitioners reside in or own property in Martin County and submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the County regarding the FLUM Amendment between the transmittal hearing (April 11, 2007) and the adoption hearing (August 7, 2007). The Jensen Beach Group (JBG) consists of three individuals, two of whom were individual Petitioners. JBG was incorporated not-for-profit in May 2006 for the purposes of preserving and protecting "the quality of life for Jensen Beach, Florida, and Martin County residents through education and awareness" regarding development projects in Jensen Beach and Martin County, and of raising funds for that purpose "as well as any and all lawful business." It also advocates interests related to maintaining the character of Martin County and Jensen Beach and quality of life for Jensen Beach residents before County commissions and boards. There was no evidence that JBG owns property in Martin County. The Intervenors own the property subject to the FLUM Amendment (and other property in Martin County) and have consistently recommended adoption of the FLUM Amendment.
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 Martin County's FLUM Amendment 06-19 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Panama City's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 on February 8, 2005, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Creekstone is a limited liability corporation and presumed to be the owner of a 3.212-acre tract of land at 305 East Beach Drive, Panama City.3 (The record does not show when or if Creekstone actually purchased the property; when the application for a land use change on the property was filed with the City, Creekstone was a contract purchaser. In its Proposed Recommended Order, however, the City states that Creekstone "recently acquired" the property.) The property lies at the northwest edge of a residential area known as The Cove and is just south of the central business district of the City. The Cove is separated from the business district by a small waterbody known as Massalina Bayou (Bayou), which is spanned by the Tarpon Bridge (Bridge) at one of the Bayou's most narrow points. The 225-foot Bridge provides the most direct and easiest access between the two areas of the City. For many years, and beginning before the City adopted its Plan, Tibbetts Boat Works, Inc. (Tibbets) occupied the site and was engaged in the boat repair business, consisting of hull repair, engine maintenance, other mechanical services, and boat bottom painting, a legal but nonconforming use under the City's land development code. Photographs of the area suggest that the business is no longer active, presumably because the property has been sold. On or about December 8, 2004, SFB Investment Company, LLLP (SFB), who then owned the property but had a contract to sell it to Creekstone, filed an application with the City Planning Board seeking a change in the land use and zoning on the property. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, the staff noted that the proposed change would "allow an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area" and recommended denial of the application on the ground that the change "is inconsistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan."4 By a 3-1 vote, the City Planning Board rejected the staff recommendation and recommended that the application be approved. On February 8, 2005, by a 4-1 vote, the City accepted the recommendation of the City Planning Board and adopted Ordinance No. 2055.1, which amended the FLUM by reclassifying the land use designation on the property from MU to GC for the purpose of allowing the owner to "develop [a] multi-family project on [the] property." (Simultaneously with that change, the City also changed the zoning on the property from Mixed Use- 3 to General Commercial-2, which allows a wide range of activities, including residential, professional office and services, low-intensity commercial, public/institutional/ utilities, and high-intensity commercial.) The MU land use classification "is intended to provide areas for medium to high density residential development and low intensity commercial development," allows a density of "not more than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre," and an intensity of "[n]o more than 75% lot coverage as determined by the size of the lot compared to the amount of impervious roof and driveway/ parking lot surface." On the other hand, the GC district is "intended to provide areas for high intensity commercial development, including retail sales and services, wholesale sales, shopping centers, office complexes, and other similar land uses." There are no density restrictions, but intensity is limited to "[n]o more than 90% lot coverage." Thus, while the two land uses are similar in some respects, the highest and best use on the property will now be "high intensity commercial development," such as shopping centers and office complexes, a much more intensive use than is presently permitted under the MU land use category. To address this concern, witness Harper indicated that SFB has filed a restrictive covenant on the property which includes a shoreline buffer, as well as use, height, and setback restrictions. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, however, the staff stated "that a covenant would not be enforceable." Under the existing land use (MU), the owner can construct up to 64 residential units on the property. That number is derived by multiplying the size of the property (3.212 acres) times the allowed density (20 units per acre). However, the current zoning on the property (which is apparently tied to the MU land use category) prohibits the construction of buildings which exceed 65 feet in height. Because of this height restriction, which limits the number of residential units that can be constructed on the property, the owner has requested a change in the land use (and zoning) so that it can develop a multi-family residential condominium project (nine stories in height) with approximately 77 units. On March 10, 2005, Mr. Cooper filed his Petition challenging the small-scale amendment. He later filed an Amended Petition on April 21, 2005. Mr. Cooper resides and owns property one-half block south of the subject property (in an area designated as a special historical zone of the City) and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to file this challenge. Joint Exhibit 9 reflects that Creekstone is a "contract purchaser" of the subject property. It also reflects that it appeared through counsel at the adoption hearing on February 8, 2005, and offered comments in support of the plan amendment. As such, Creekstone is an affected person and has standing to participate in this case. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Cooper (through his former counsel) identified numerous issues, many of which were not raised in his Amended Petition. At hearing, however, he contended only that the GC land use is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area, and that the amendment is internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. All of the objectives and policies relate to the compatibility issue. In all other respects, Petitioner agrees that the plan amendment is in compliance. Because the City's action involves a small scale (as opposed to a large scale) development plan amendment, the Department of Community Affairs did not formally review the plan amendment for compliance. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. The Subject Property West Beach Drive runs in a northwest-southeast direction through the downtown business portion of the City until a few blocks north of the Bridge, where it changes to East Beach Drive. The roadway continues south across the Bridge and in a southerly direction along the eastern edge of St. Andrews Bay, a much larger waterbody which lies between the City and Panama City Beach. Approximately one-half mile south of the Bridge, East Beach Drive takes a 90-degree turn to the east. Most, if not all, of the peninsula south of the Bayou and Bridge and continuing until East Beach Drive turns to the east is known as The Cove, a part of which has been designated by the City as a historic special treatment zone because of its historical significance. The predominate character of The Cove is older, single-family homes. As noted above, the Bayou separates The Cove from the central business district and serves as a natural barrier between the two areas. The property is an odd-shaped parcel which sits just east of the southern terminus of the Bridge and fronts on the Bayou. (The central business district lies directly across the Bayou to the north and northwest, is classified as General Commercial or Public/Institutional, and includes a wide array of offices, government buildings, restaurants, and other commercial and public uses.) The western side of the property faces East Beach Drive. Immediately across East Beach Drive to the west (and facing St. Andrews Bay) is the Cove Harbor Condominium, a nine-story, multi-family residential condominium which was apparently constructed under MU standards, which apply to that parcel. Immediately to the east of the property is a single- family residence and then a two-story townhouse complex. The southern boundary of the property (which appears to run approximately 325 feet or so) faces East Second Court, a local road which begins on East Beach Drive and runs eastward until Watson Bayou (perhaps a mile or so away). Although a map of the historical district was not introduced into evidence by the parties, the northern and western reaches of the special treatment zone appear to begin just east of the intersection of East Second Court and East Beach Drive since the homes at 114 and 122 East Second Court are designated as having historical significance. See Respondent's Exhibit 4. These two homes appear to lie directly across the street from the southern boundary of Creekstone's property. Except for a two-story, multi-family structure (Cedar Cove Townhouses) which sits across East Second Court facing the southwest corner of the subject property, the remainder of the southern boundary of Creekstone's property faces four single-family homes. Several other multi-family structures are scattered throughout the area to the south and east, while the remainder of the neighborhood extending for at least one-half mile to the south and all the way to Watson Bayou on the east is predominately single-family residences. Finally, a condominium is located about one-half mile south of the property on the waterfront where East Beach Drive makes a 90-degree turn to the east. Except for Tibbets' activities, there is no commercial encroachment (by non-conforming use or land use classification) in the immediate area south of the Bridge and Bayou. The current FLUM shows that, with three exceptions, the entire area south of the Bridge and the Bayou to the end of the peninsula, and extending east at least a mile to Watson Bayou, is either classified as Mixed Use or Residential Low Density. (Perhaps a mile or so to the southeast there is one parcel classified as Recreation, another as Public/Institutional (which is probably a school), and a smaller adjoining parcel classified as General Commercial.) Thus, if the change is approved, the subject property will be the only parcel south of the Bridge and Bayou (except for the above exceptions which lie around a mile away) which is classified as commercial; the remainder is either mixed use or residential. Over the years, Tibbets has been the subject of City code enforcement actions, investigations by City code enforcement personnel, and investigations by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). It has also caused chronic environmental problems in the area. On August 27, 2002, DEP and Tibbets executed a Consent Order to resolve certain violations. Also, on April 10, 2001, Mr. Paul L. Benfield, who apparently either owned Tibbets or was associated with it in some manner, entered into a Consent Order with DEP because of his unlawful filling of 0.114 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site. It is fair to describe the subject property as blighted, unsightly, and in disrepair. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the business is no longer active. The parcel is fenced on three sides, and, besides an older structure which apparently housed Tibbets' office, the property contains a mixture of empty storage crates, pilings, and various pieces of equipment that were once used in the boat repair business. There are also several docks or small piers extending into the Bayou from the northwestern corner of the site. Finally, it appears that much of the eastern half of the parcel contains wetlands and is largely undeveloped. Although the staff report dated December 31, 2004, recommended denial of the application, noting that it would allow "an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area," it acknowledged that "[a]llowing this request can make a case for helping to rid this area of a problematic non- conforming use." See Joint Exhibit 6, page 2. Petitioner's Objections As narrowed at hearing, Mr. Cooper contends only that the plan amendment is not compatible with the character of the adjoining land in The Cove and is thus internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the FLUE. He also relies upon Policy 2.5.5(6)(e) of the City's Land Development Code. However, plan amendments do not have to be consistent with land development regulations in order to be in compliance. See § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Objective 1.1 requires that the City maintain a FLUM "which coordinates future land uses with . . . [compatibility]5 of adjacent land uses." Policy 1.1.1, which furthers that objective, provides in part that the City will regulate land uses through the designation of land use districts on a FLUM, and that the "location and extent of development within the City" should be "consistent with . . . compatibility of adjacent land uses." Under this objective and policy, then, land use districts on the FLUM should be located in a manner which assures compatibility with adjacent land uses. Objective 1.4 provides that the City shall "maintain procedures for the elimination or reduction of land uses inconsistent with the character of the City and the future land uses designated in the Plan." In furtherance of that objective, Policy 1.4.1 requires that the City "restrict proposed development which is inconsistent with the character of the community." Taken literally, the objective encourages the City to reduce or eliminate land uses that are inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area or other land use districts. In the same fashion, the policy requires that the City prohibit development that is not consistent with the character of the adjoining area. Finally, among other things, Policy 1.2.1 requires that the City "administer land development regulations for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan" in such a manner as to "ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses." (The City has adopted such regulations for this purpose.) Because the implementation of land development regulations is not in issue, the provision does not appear to be relevant. According to the City's Director of Public Works, The Cove, or at least that part which lies in the area around Creekstone's property, is considered to be a part of the central business district since the two areas are "contiguous," and therefore the extension of the commercial land use district across the Bayou would be consistent with the character of the immediate area. The same view was also expressed by witness Grey. However, the two areas are physically separated by a waterbody (the Bayou) and are connected only by a 225-foot bridge which spans the Bayou at one of its most narrow points. At the same time, the land uses in the two areas are distinctly different: the business district contains a wide array of commercial and public/institutional uses while the predominate character of The Cove is single-family residential, with a scattering of multi-family residential dwellings such as townhouses and a condominium. The fact that the City interprets its GC district (presumably through its zoning regulations) as allowing certain residential uses does not change this dichotomy in character. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider The Cove and the central business district as being contiguous, or to base a finding of compatibility on the fact that commercial uses are now found across the Bayou in the business district. The commercial land use classification has never been extended into the residential neighborhood south of the Bayou. If the change becomes effective, the new land use would be incompatible with the Residential Low Density and Mixed Use land uses which now make up the entire neighborhood. It would also be incompatible with the historic special treatment zone, which lies directly across the street from Creekstone's property. Finally, the creation of a commercial district in this area of The Cove would change the character of the neighborhood, and it is fair to infer that, even if SFB's covenant is enforceable, it would still lead to, and justify, the reclassification of other nearby parcels into commercial uses. Given these considerations, the proposed land use is internally inconsistent with the City's objective and policy that there be "[compatibility] of adjacent land uses," see Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1.1, and Plan provisions encouraging the elimination of land uses and associated development which are inconsistent with the "character of the community." See Objective 1.4 and Policy 1.4.1. The minutes of the two meetings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance No. 2055.1 reflect that the City's (and Planning Board's) principal rationale for the reclassification of the property was to eliminate an unsightly nonconforming use (boat repair business) which occupied the site. While it is true that the City's Plan encourages the revitalization and redevelopment of blighted areas, and provides that developers should be given "flexibility" when seeking to revitalize blighted areas, see Objectives 1.3 and 1.15 of the FLUE, there is no evidence that these objectives are intended to override (and trump) the provisions of the Plan which require that adjacent land uses be compatible with one another and preserve the character of the neighborhood.
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 adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2005.
