The Issue The issue is whether the establishment of the Tuscany Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Overview In this proceeding, Petitioner, Beverly Hills Development Corporation, seeks the adoption of a rule by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) to establish a new community development district just northeast of Beverly Hills in Citrus County, Florida. The proposed name for the new District is the Tuscany Community Development District (the District). The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by Petitioner. Summary of Evidence and Testimony The evidence indicates that all of the statements contained in the Petition, as amended, are true and correct. Edwin M. Bulleit, a certified public accountant with Prager, McCarthy and Sealy, testified that he and his attorney met individually with the different county commissioners for Citrus County regarding the proposed District, and although the commissioners had questions, they had no objections to the adoption of the proposed District. Mr. Bulleit further testified that he felt he adequately answered the questions of the commissioners. Mr. Bulleit testified that a community development district is a mechanism to finance, plan, and manage public improvements. Witness Bulleit further testified that such a mechanism allows development to pay for itself. Mr. Bulleit stated that in his experience, 80 to 90 percent of developments in Florida are pursuing community development-type financing. Mr. Bulleit further testified that community developments provide the opportunity for tax exempt financing, the benefits of which include (i) lower interest rates, which make the development more financially sound and lots within the community development district more affordable, and (ii) access to long-term, 30-year debt financing, which means the financing matches the long-term nature of the assets being financed. Mr. Bulleit testified that a community development district may exercise certain powers subject to the regulatory jurisdiction and permitting authority of all applicable governmental bodies, agencies, and special districts having authority with respect to the community development district. Mr. Dale R. Miller, Vice-President of Petitioner, testified that Petitioner is a Florida corporation with offices in Beverly Hills, Florida. A certified copy of a Certificate of Active Status for Petitioner issued by the Florida Department of State was received into evidence as Exhibit 1. Mr. Miller indicated that the land area to be served by the proposed District consists of two parcels of unimproved real property containing approximately 951.14 acres located in the existing Beverly Hills Development of Regional Impact (Beverly Hills Property) and 560 acres located outside the Beverly Hills Development of Regional Impact (King Land Trust Property) for a total acreage of approximately 1,511.14 acres. Mr. Miller also testified that the Beverly Hills Property and King Land Trust Property are contiguous (320 acres are adjacent to the east of the Beverly Hills Property, while 240 acres are adjacent to the south of the Beverly Hills Property). The conceptual development plan's allotted acreage for each land use was received into evidence as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. The proposed District is entirely within the territorial limits of Citrus County, Florida. Mr. Miller further testified that the metes and bounds legal description of the external boundaries of the proposed District is as described in and attached to the Petition as Exhibit B and Exhibit B-1 and introduced into evidence at the hearing as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. Petitioner filed an amended Exhibit B to its Petition, which contained an amended legal description of the boundaries for the proposed District. Mr. Miller indicated that the owners of the land to be included within the boundaries of the proposed District are Petitioner and William H. Cauthen, as Trustee of the King Land Trust, Inc. Mr. Miller further testified that the owners of the land to be included within the proposed District have consented to establishing the proposed District. The written consents of the owners of the land to be included in the proposed District were attached to the Petition as Exhibits C and C-1, and introduced into evidence at the hearing as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. Mr. Miller testified that the five persons designated to serve as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed District are: Ronald J. Collins, Dale R. Miller, Taylor Collins, Paul Buchanan, and John O'Kelley. The initial supervisors will serve on the Board of Supervisors until replaced by elected members as provided by Section 190.006, Florida Statutes. All of the initial supervisors are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States of America. Mr. Miller also stated that the proposed timetables and related estimates of cost to construct the proposed District's services and facilities, based upon available data, were attached to the Petition as Exhibit D and received into evidence as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. Mr. Miller testified that the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) to establish the proposed District were attached to the Petition as Exhibit E and received into evidence as a part of Composite Exhibit 4. The future general description, location, and extent of public and private uses of land proposed for the area within the proposed District will be incorporated into the adopted and approved Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. Also, the requested land use and zoning classifications permit the planned residential and commercial development to be located within the proposed District. Finally, for those portions of the proposed District situated within the Beverly Hills DRI, the proposed public and private uses of land are compatible with all development orders issued pursuant to the DRI process. Mr. Miller testified that the proposed public and private uses of the land at issue were compatible with all of the development orders that have been issued pursuant to the development of regional impact process. Gail Easley, a professional land planner with The Gail Easley Company, testified that she reviewed the Petition and its exhibits in conjunction with the State Comprehensive Plan and found that the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Easley also testified that she reviewed the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, including the goals, objectives, and policies, as well as other materials, and found that the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Easley further stated that the area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community. Witnesses Bulleit, Miller, and Easley each testified that the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the proposed District. Witnesses Bulleit and Miller testified that establishing the District will promote development of the land within the District by providing for a more efficient use of its resources. Mr. Miller testified that the community development services and facilities of the District will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing and local regional community development services and facilities. Mr. Miller also stated that the District provides a perpetual entity capable of making reasonable provisions for the operation and maintenance of the District's services and facilities. Mr. Miller further testified that there is no real property located within the external boundaries of the District that is not going to be included within the District. Witnesses Bulleit and Easley testified that the area that will be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government. Louis G. Badami, Director of Utilities for Citrus County, testified that the District would be compatible with the capacity and uses of the existing local and regional water and sewer facilities, including those of Citrus County and Rolling Oaks Utilities, Inc. (Rolling Oaks). The latter utility is privately owned and provides water and wastewater service in an area adjacent to the District. Mr. Badami's testimony focused only on the water and wastewater service territories of Citrus County and Rolling Oaks. More specifically, he went on record as opposing a request to expand the present service territory of Rolling Oaks. He further testified that if the District was merely a funding mechanism to construct and install utilities and there was no expansion of Rolling Oaks' service territory without following applicable rules and regulations, he would recommend to Citrus County that it not oppose the District. Robert A. Knight, Director of Utility Regulation for Citrus County, testified that he was not testifying for or against the proposed District, but rather only about a legal matter regarding the ability of Rolling Oaks to serve the proposed District. In this regard, Mr. Knight did not object to approval of the proposed District in light of the stipulation by Petitioner's representative at the public hearing that Rolling Oaks would follow applicable rules and regulations with respect to expanding its service territory. Four members of the general public provided comment and asked questions concerning the consumption of water and the nature of the expected development within the proposed District. They are concerned that given the present supply of water in Citrus County, there may not be sufficient water from existing wells to serve the hundreds of new homes that will be built in the District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120 and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Tuscany Community Development District, as requested by Petitioner, by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report as Appendix C. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Daren L. Shippy, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP 2548 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5925 Clark A. Stillwell, Esquire Brannen, Stillwell & Perrin 320 Highway 41 South, Second Floor Inverness, Florida 34450-4956 Charles Canady, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Gregory M. Munson, Esquire Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 029 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 APPENDIX A Petitioner's Witnesses at the Public Hearing Edwin M. Bulleit Prager, McCarthy and Sealy 4921 Bay Way Drive Tampa, Florida 33629-4803 Dale R. Miller Beverly Hills Development Corporation 3 Beverly Hills Boulevard Beverly Hills, Florida 34465-3421 Gail Easley The Gail Easley Company 34 Northeast Crystal Street Crystal River, Florida 34428-3532 Robert A. Knight Director of Utility Regulation Citrus County 3600 Sovereign Avenue Lecanto, Florida 34461-7727 Louis G. Badami Director of Utilities Citrus County 3600 Sovereign Avenue Lecanto, Florida 34461-7727 Public Witnesses at Hearing Louis G. Badami Director of Utilities Citrus County 3600 Sovereign Avenue Lecanto, Florida 34461-7727 Robert A. Knight Director of Utility Regulation Citrus County 3600 Sovereign Avenue Lecanto, Florida 34461-7727 John Chipurn 4311 North Mae West Way Beverly Hills, Florida 34465-8747 Rodney Cole (address not given) Gilbert Buechly 106 South Jefferson Beverly Hills, Florida 34465-3717 Don Jordon (address not given) APPENDIX B List of Petitioner's Exhibits Certificate of Active Status - Beverly Hills Development Corporation Affidavit of Proof of Publication of Notice of Hearing for local newspaper of general circulation Notice of Receipt of Petition published in Florida Administrative Weekly - March 22, 2002 Composite exhibit of all attachments to Petition Composite exhibit of two aerial photographs of Proposed District and surrounding area General area development plan/map of area to include Proposed District and surrounding areas Curriculum Vitae of witness Easley List of prior expert testimony of witness Easley Deeds of properties to be included in Proposed District Composite exhibit of all development orders for Beverly Hills Development of Regional Impact Generalized future land use map for Citrus County Land Development Code atlas 1981 Master Development Plan for Beverly Hills Development of Regional Impact Composite exhibit of map showing Citrus County water and wastewater facilities location and letter from witness Badami to counsel Shippy Other Exhibits Knight Exhibit No. 1 - Prepared testimony of Robert Knight Chipurn Exhibit No. 1 - Newspaper article (April 6, 2002) APPENDIX C Text of Proposed Rule CHAPTER 42 -1 TUSCANY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42 -1.001 Creation. 42 -1.002 Boundary. 42 -1.003 Supervisors. 42 -1.001 Creation. The Tuscany Community Development District is hereby established. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.005 FS. History - New. 42 -1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the District are as follows: Parcel No. 1, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the most Northerly Corner of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, page 1, public records of Citrus County, Florida, said point being on the Southeasterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 491 and being 50 feet from, measured at right angles to, the centerline of said County Road No. 491, thence S. 510 02' 53" E. along the Northeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, a distance of 400 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence N. 380 56' 39" E. parallel to and 400 feet from, said Southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 4347.25 feet to the P.C. of a curve, concaved Northwesterly, having a central angle of 130 52' 45" and a radius of 6167.33 feet, thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve, a distance of 1493.96 feet to the P.T. of said curve, thence N. 250 03' 54" E. parallel to and 400 feet from, said Southeasterly right-of- way line a distance of 1734.33 feet to a point on the boundary of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 385, page 466, public records of Citrus County, Florida, thence S. 10 39' 30" E. along said boundary a distance of 836.98 feet to the SW Corner of said lands, thence N. 880 20' 30" E. along the South line of said lands, a distance of 1377.72 feet to the SE Corner of said lands, thence N. 10 39' 30" W. along the East line of said lands, a distance of 1200 feet to the NE Corner of said lands, thence S. 880 20' 30" W. along the North line of said lands, a distance of 1306.83 feet to the SE Corner of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 538, page 632, of said records, thence N. 250 03' 54" E. along the East line of said lands, a distance of 190.26 feet to the NE Corner of said lands, said point being on the South line of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 423, page 128, of said records, thence N. 880 20' 30" E. along said South line a distance of 346.97 feet to the SE Corner of said lands, thence N. 10 39' 30" W. along the East line of said lands a distance of 330.02 feet to the NE Corner of said lands, said point also being on the North line of Section 1, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 18 EAST, thence N. 880 20' 30" E. along said North line a distance of 1869.43 feet to the NE Corner of said Section 1, said point also being the NW Corner of Section 6, TOWNSHIP 18, SOUTH, RANGE 19 EAST, thence N. 890 28' 20" E. along the North line of said Section 6, a distance of 2636.38 feet to the NW Corner of the NE 1/4 of said Section 6, thence N. 890 53' 45" E. along the North line of said Section 6, a distance of 2645.54 feet to the NE Corner of said Section 6, thence S. 00 12' 24" E. along the East line of said Section 6, a distance of 1328.53 feet to the SE Corner of the N 2 of NE 1/4 of said Section 6, thence S. 890 53' 40" W. along the South line of said N 2 of NE 1/4, a distance of 2646.85 feet to the SW Corner of said N 2 of NE 1/4, thence S. 00 09' E. along the East line of the NW 1/4 of said Section 6, a distance of 1328.59 feet to the NE Corner of the SW 1/4 of said Section 6, thence S. 00 03' 50" E. along the East line of said SW 1/4 a distance of 2648.43 feet to the SE Corner of said SW 1/4, said point also being the NE Corner of the NW 1/4 of Section 7, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 19 EAST, thence S. 00 07' 56" E. along the East line of said NW 1/4 a distance of 2648.76 feet to the SE Corner of said NW 1/4, thence N. 890 42' 40" W. along the South line of said NW 1/4, a distance of 2641.84 feet to the SW Corner of said NW 1/4, said point also being the SE Corner of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 18 EAST, thence S. 890 23' 09" W. along the South line of said NE 1/4 a distance of 1315.58 feet to the NE Corner of the W 2 of SE 1/4 of said Section 12, thence S. 00 09' 37" W. along the East line of said W 2 of SE 1/4, a distance of 2636.62 feet to the SE Corner of said W 2 of SE 1/4, thence S. 890 28' 48" W. along the South line of said Section 12, a distance of 1302.33 feet, thence N. 20 06' 48" W. 170 feet, thence S. 890 28' 48" W. parallel to said South line, a distance of 690.91 feet to a point on a curve, concaved Westerly, having a central angle of 900 and a radius of 280 feet, thence Northwesterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 246.92 feet to the P.T. of said curve (chord bearing and distance between said points being N. 250 46' 44" W. 238.99 feet), thence N. 510 02' 31" W. 2102.26 feet, thence N. 590 40' 08" W. 200 feet to the most Easterly Corner of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 196, page 218, of said records, thence N. 510 02' 31" W. along the Northeasterly line of said lands, a distance of 449.63 feet to the most Northerly corner of said lands, said point being on the Southeasterly line of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT NO. 3, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, page 123, public records of Citrus County, Florida, thence N. 380 58' 52" E. along the Southeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT NO. 3, and along the Southeasterly line of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, page 1, public records of Citrus County, Florida, a distance of 399.96 feet to the most Easterly corner of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, thence N. 510 02' 53" W. along the Northeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, a distance of 1649.50 feet to the Point of Beginning; AND, Begin at the most Northerly Corner of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, page 1, public records of Citrus County, Florida, said point being on the Southeasterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 491, and being 50 feet from, measured at right angles to, the centerline of said County Road No. 491, thence N. 380 56' 39" E. along said Southeasterly right-of-way line a distance of 4347.20 feet to the P.C. of a curve, concaved Northwesterly, having a central angle of 130 52' 45" and a radius of 5767.33 feet, thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 1397.06 feet to the P.T. of said curve, thence N. 250 03' 54" E. along said right-of-way line a distance of 1639.31 feet to the most Westerly Corner of lands described in Deed recorded in Official Record, Book 385, page 466, public records of Citrus County, Florida, thence N. 880 20' 30" E. along the boundary of said lands a distance of 400 feet, thence S. 10 39' 30" E. along the boundary of said lands a distance of 95.00 feet to a point that is 400 feet from, measured at right angles to, the Southeasterly right-of-way line of said County Road No. 491, thence S. 250 03' 54" W., parallel to said right-of-way line, a distance of 1734.33 feet to the P.C. of a curve, concaved Northwesterly, having a central angle of 130 52' 45" and a radius of 6167.33 feet, thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 1493.96 feet to the P.T. of said curve, thence S. 380 56' 39" W., parallel to and 400 feet from, said right-of-way line, a distance of 4347.25 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3A, thence N. 510 02' 53" W. along said Northeasterly line a distance of 400 feet to the Point of Beginning. LESS AND EXCEPT lands in Warranty Deed from Beverly Hills Development Corporation, to Rolling Oaks Utilities, Inc., dated June 6th, 1986, filed August 18, 1986, and recorded in Official Record, Book 710, page 849, public records of Citrus County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the most Easterly Corner of BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3- A, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, page 1, public records of Citrus County, Florida, thence N. 510 02' 53" W. along the Northeasterly line of said BEVERLY HILLS, UNIT 3-A, a distance of 289.49 feet, thence N. 380 56' 39" E. 593.12 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence N. 750 59' 21" W. 62.48 feet, thence North 155.26 feet, thence N. 130 10' 38" E. 155.26 feet, thence N. 110 58' 12" W. 405.23 feet, thence N. 240 E. 244.86 feet, thence N. 600 E. 268.59 feet, S. 660 E. 336.93 feet, thence N. 720 E. 126.01 feet, thence S. 780 42' 12" E. 313.71 feet, thence S. 330 E. 317.81 feet, thence S. 110 13' 17" E. 237.44 feet, thence S. 460 05' 58" W. 238.07 feet, thence S. 670 37' 34" W. 481.20 feet, thence S. 550 W. 268.27 feet, thence N. 750 59' 21" W. 351.69 feet to the Point of Beginning, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT NORTH FOREST RIDGE BOULEVARD, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, pages 29, 30 and 31, public records of Citrus County, Florida, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT OAKWOOD VILLAGE OF BEVERLY HILLS PHASE ONE, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, pages 10 to 14 inclusive, public records of Citrus County, Florida, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT OAKWOOD VILLAGE OF BEVERLY HILLS, PHASE 2, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, pages 15 to 18 inclusive, public records of Citrus County, Florida, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT the N 2 and NE 1/4 of Section 6, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 19 EAST, AND, LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of Section 1, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 18 EAST, that lies North of the North boundary and West of a Northerly projection of the Easterly boundary of lands described in Official Record, Book 385, pages 466 and 467, public records of Citrus County, Florida. AND, LESS AND EXCEPT the lands in the attached legal descriptions, labeled as follows: Golf Course Greenside Unit 10 Phase 1 Unit 10 Phase 2 Unit 11 Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005 FS. History - New. 42 -1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Ronald J. Collins, Dale R. Miller, Taylor Collins, Paul Buchanan, and John O'Kelley. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History - New.
The Issue The question in this case is whether GDC should be authorized to go forward with development of some 2,000 acres, a portion of the Myakka Estates project it has planned for North Port in south Sarasota County, and, if so, on what terms. In the prehearing order dated February 8, 1980, the legal issue was stated broadly as "whether the proposed development [Phase I] comports with the standards of Chapter 380, Florida Statues (1979), as set forth in Section 380.06(8) and (11), Florida Statutes (1979) [now 380.06(11) and (13), Florida Statues (Supp. 1980)]." An important question is what legal effect the Master Development Order should be given in the present case. In the same prehearing order, factual issues were stated to include whether the "location . . . [and] approval of the proposed land sales development is consistent with the report and recommendation of the SWFRPC in light of the State, County, and North Port comprehensive plans"; whether "the proposed development will, individually and in combination with approved development, overburden the public school system . . . . overburden the public roads . . . [or] create a negative economic impact upon county and municipal governments"; and whether "GDC has provided for sufficient potable water."
Findings Of Fact GDC proposes to develop 8,135 acres in North Port in Sarasota County, just north of the Charlotte County line, as a new community, to be called Myakka Estates. Phase I, the group of three units slated for development next after the "vested portion" of the project, is designed to occupy a 2,016.56-acre tract within the larger parcel, west of and well upland from the Myakka River, and approximately four miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. PRESENT CONDITION OF LAND The highest elevation on Phase I is 13 feet above mean sea level. About three quarters of Phase I is covered with slash pine, southern pine, and saw palmetto. Pasture lands, about seven percent of the Phase I tract, are covered with grasses, sedges, other herbaceous plants, and only occasional trees. Freshwater marsh ponds and other marshy areas are distributed more or less evenly over the property in a karstic gestalt, except that an uninterrupted stretch of marsh along the western boundary marks the eastern edge of the northern reaches of Ainger Creek, which further downstream flows across the southwest tip of the property. in the wet areas, limnophilous vegetation, including sportios bakeri, cyperus spp., cladium mariscoides, rhychospora ap., hypericum aspalathoides, xyris iridefolia, eriocaulon decangulare, eleocharis equistoides, pontederia cordota, bacopa caroliniana, and hydrocotyle umbellata, predominates. Opossums, eastern moles, raccoons, otters, and bobcats have been spotted on the Phase I property. Among other mammals whose range includes the Phase I property are shrews, bats, black bear, longtail weasel, mink, Florida panther (Burt and Grossenheider) skunks, gray fox, mountain lion, squirrels, southeastern pocket gophers, rats, mice, rabbits, whitetail deer, and armadillo. People have seen eastern rattlesnakes, pygmy rattlesnakes, water moccasins, eastern garter snakes, yellow rat snakes, anolis carolinensis (a lizard), snapping turtles, common musk turtles, box turtles, gopher tortoises, spiny softshell turtles, bull frogs, leopard frogs, cricket frogs, green tree frogs, and American toads on the Phase I property. There is reason to believe that numerous other snakes, frogs and lizards inhabit the property. On high ground in the Phase I property, people have seen turkey vultures, black vultures, red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks, kestrels, bobwhites, turkeys, mourning doves, ground doves, flickers, red-billed woodpeckers, eastern kingbirds, blue jays, Carolina wrens, mockingbirds, catbirds, robins, loggerhead shrikes, meadowlarks, red-wings, boat-tailed grackles, cardinals, Florida sandhill cranes, and bank swallows. On westland portions of Phase I, people have seen pied-billed grebes, anhingas, great blue herons, American egrets, ivory egrets, Louisiana herons, little blue herons, green herons, least bitterns, wood storks, white ibis, red-winged blackbirds, purple grackles, killdeer, southern bald eagles, and limpkins. Limpkins, wood storkes, southern bald eagles, and Florida sandhill cranes are endangered species. Various fishes live in waters on the Phase I property, including lake chumbuckers, golden shiners, yellow bullheads, flagfish, golden topminnows, four different killifishes, mosquito fish, sailfin mollies, warmouths, bluegills, and three kinds of sunfish. The common prawn the Florida crayfish, and the neritina reclivata also inhabit one or more water bodies on the Phase I tract. Insect populations are relatively low because of the abundance of piscine insectivores. Before GDC acquired the property, men dug ditches which connect several ponds and cause stormwater to drain through them into Ainger Creek which empties into Lemon Bay. Drainage into the ponds and connecting ditches is by sheet flow. Cow dung in the pastures is concentrated around certain ponds, where cattle drink; and may account for some of the nonhuman fecal coliform bacteria that are to be found in Lemon Bay. Part of the Phase I property drains by sheet flow into the Myakka River. The topsoil is sandy on the Phase I tract. In the vicinity of Ainger Creek, Pompano find sand and Keri find sand predominate. These sands, Delray fine sand and Plummer fine sand, are found in most of the low-lying areas on the property. Leon fine sand covers most of the high ground. There is a strip of Immokalee fine sand along the northern border of the Phase I tract other than as pasture or for tree farming would be energy intensive. One expert proposed hydroponic cultivation. ANNEXATION GDC acquired the Myakka Estates property from a rancher in 1970 or 1971, then took steps to cause the parcel to be annexed by the City of North Port, within the municipal boundaries of which other substantial GDC development was already located. The annexation took place notwithstanding the absence of any bridge or road connecting the Myakka Estates parcel to the rest of North Port. These two parts of the City of North Port touch at a corner but are not otherwise contiguous. Some 100,000 lots have been platted in North Port east of the Myakka river; over 90,000 were still vacant at the time of the hearing. At 68 square miles, North Port, with a population of five to eight thousand, is second in land area only to the consolidated City of Jacksonville, the municipality with the largest land area in the state. LAND USE RESTRICTIONS By ordinance of the City of North Port, the entire Myakka Estate parcel is zoned agricultural and has been at all pertinent times. On September 9, 1974, however, North Port entered the Master Development Order authorizing development of all "non-vested" portions of Myakka Estates. In consideration of the Division of State Planning's forbearance from taking an appeal of the Master Development Order to the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, GDC agreed to submit "supplemental Applications for Development Approval as a condition to development of specific increments of the master residential plan," GDC Exhibit No. 12, a requirement also imposed by the Master Order itself. North Port has a subdivision ordinance with which, according to the uncontroverted evidence, the proposed Phase I development is in compliance. In June of 1979, North Port adopted a Comprehensive Development and Growth Management Plan, GDC Exhibit Nos. 23 and 91, in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1979). Because of the pendency of the present proceedings, the SWFRPC and the DCA objected to inclusion of Phase I in the North Port plan. As a result of the objections, the plan makes little reference to Phase I although it notes that planning for Phase I "was conducted in conformance with present standards and was recently approved by the [North Port] Planning Commission and City Commission [apparently by adoption of the Development Order challenged in these proceedings]." GDC Exhibit No. 91, at 28. Stated as an objective of North Port's Comprehensive Development and Growth Management Plan, at p. 22, is To encourage growth that is relatively contiguous to the existing developed area and encompasses within the 25-year period the area bounded on the north by McCarthy Boulevard and Snover Waterway, on the east by Blue Ridge Waterway, and on the south and west by the city limits. GDC Exhibit No. 91. Other stated objectives are to "encourage consistency with and between Florida's Growth Management and Land Development Elements" and Sarasota County's Land Use Plan. It was uncontroverted that plans by General Development Utilities to furnish water and sewer service to Phase I are in conformity with provisions of the North Port plan on those subjects. Sarasota County has never adopted a comprehensive plan in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1979), but the county does have the Land Use Plan, GDC Exhibit No. 93, referred to in the North Port plan. The Sarasota County Land Use Plan map designates the unincorporated area adjacent to Myakka Estates as appropriate for agriculture. The county has zoned the area along South River Road (formerly State Road 777), immediately adjacent to Myakka Estates, "QUE-1", Open Use, Estate, one dwelling unit per five acres, and the area further west "OUR", Open Use, Rural, one dwelling unit per ten acres. According to a map that is part of the Sarasota County Land Use Plan, Myakka Estates falls in the "low density residential" category, 1.1 to 4.5 units per acre. By its terms, however, this plan applies only to unincorporated areas of Sarasota County. The portion of the Phase I property lying in the easterly half of Section 33, Township 40 South, Range 20 East is within the jurisdiction of the Englewood Water District, which was created by Chapter 59-931, Laws of Florida. At the time of the final hearing, the whole area of EWD was on septic tanks and EWD's water lines did not reach Section 33. Some 166 lots are planned for the portion of Phase I over which EWD has jurisdiction. EWD has a policy of not permitting other water systems within the area served by the district. Its current regulations containing specifications for water and sewer mains and the like were adopted on June 19, 1980. The Florida State Comprehensive Plan, GDS Exhibit No. 92, is an internally inconsistent compilation of "goals", "objectives", and "policies". It was adopted by executive order and approved by the Florida Legislature in 1978. In their proposed recommended orders, the parties identified the following items as being in controversy: Ensure that the expansion of public facilities for economic development is in accordance with local government comprehensive plans and the State Comprehensive Plan. Consider the projected availability of energy when making economic development decisions. Physical, natural, economic, and human resources should be managed and developed in ways that avoid unnecessary long-term energy- intensive investments. Incorporate energy as a major consideration into the planning and decision-making processes of state, regional, and local governments. Encourage land use patterns that by design, size, and location minimize long-term energy commitments to construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement. Encourage a careful, ongoing evaluation of governmental expenditures and revenues in light of future uncertainties about energy supplies and related economic implications. To ensure the orderly long-range social, economic, and physical growth of the state. Identify the costs and benefits of growth to local and state governments and explore methods for allocating these costs to the citizens equitably. Housing should be produced in a mix of types, sizes, and prices that is based on local and regional need and that is consistent with the state's growth policy. Land use and development should proceed in an orderly manner that produces an economically efficient and personally satisfying residential environment with with minimal waste of our land resources. The provision of public facilities, utilities, open space, transportation, and other services that are required to support present and projected housing and community development needs should be ensured. Develop environmentally responsive land planning methods that reduce the stress that new develop- ments place on their communities' energy needs, water needs, sewage treatment facilities, transportation, flood control systems, and social, and educational services, and thus reduce the overall taxes and cost of the services needed to satisfy these demands. Consider energy implications in the review of applications for developments having regional impact (DRI). Land development should be managed in a manner consistent with the values and needs of the citizens of the state and with the concept of private property rights. Agricultural lands, especially those most seriously threatened, should be maintained and preserved for the production of food and fiber products. Influence the timing, distribution, type, density, scale, and design of development by coordinating land development proposals in state and local comprehensive plans and public investment programs in order to ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, services, and other resources. Allocate an equitable share of the cost of expanding public facilities to the newly served residents. Base land development decisions on quantita- tive knowledge of the short- and long-term capabilities of the hydrologic units to provide adequate supplies of water. Coordinate land use planning and water management to ensure the long-range maintenance and enhancement of water quantity and quality. Accommodate new development by using water from the local hydrologic basins rather than through surface water transfer between hydrologic basins. Protect groundwater supplies from saltwater intrusion by the regulation of withdrawals, maintenance of adequate recharge of groundwater, and prevention of saltwater movements inland through coastal canals. Maintain groundwater levels to insure that water levels are not drawn to such a degree that sustained yield is adversely affected or that natural resource degradation takes place. Protect groundwater supplies from saltwater intrusion by the maintenance of a sufficient amount of groundwater in coastal aquifers to prevent intrusion through regulation of withdrawals, maintenance of adequate recharge, and sufficient controls on coastal canals. Protect and maintain groundwater supplies and aquifer recharge areas through water- and land- management practices and, where necessary, through regulation of development activities. Allow alteration of groundwater movements within or between aquifers only where it can be shown that such alterations are not harmful to surface and groundwater resources. Develop minimum service standards for utility systems. Encourage the provision and maintenance of adequate utility systems in already developed areas. In areas where utility systems are over- burdened, manage growth while remedial measures are expedited to restore utility systems to a condition of adequacy. Encourage the effective use of utility systems, energy, land, and finite resources by evaluating and revising, if necessary, laws and regulations that may bar innovative development patterns, designs, and materials. Although authorized to do so by statute, Section 380.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), the Administration Commission has not adopted guidelines and standards for developments of regional impact by administrative rule. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT After development, water would cover 59.41 acres of Phase I and mostly low lying "open space/green belts" would account for another 504.69 acres. An additional 143.32 acres are planned for recreational uses. Roads and utility easements would account for 398.54 acres. GDC has agreed to construct a municipal services building in the vested portion of Myakka Estates, on a parcel across the street from Phase I. In Phase I, GDC plans to set aside 20.06 acres for an elementary school and 6.97 acres for neighborhood retail outlets. GDC has announced its intention to donate the school site to the Sarasota County School Board. Other school sites have been set aside within Myakka Estates. A large commercial area on a major arterial road is planned for the vested portion and a golf course and other recreational facilities, as well as an industrial site, are planned for later phases of development. Over a 33-year period, GDC plans to build 1,056 multifamily units on 92.61 acres and expects 2,859 single family detached houses to be built, by GDC and other contractors, on lots averaging approximately a quarter of an acre and aggregating 790.06 acres. The average envisioned for Phase I is 1.94 dwelling units per acre as compared to 2.33 dwelling units per acre for Myakka Estates as a whole. In the vested portion of Myakka estates and in the contiguous area to the south GDC is developing "multiple cores". Similarly, two distinct neighborhoods are contemplated in Phase I. GDC plans to build multifamily housing complexes in the neighborhood "cores" to be surrounded by single family detached houses, with vacant lots in between these neighborhood centers. GDC hopes to sell 1,927 unimproved lots in Phase I on an installment basis. Typically the purchaser would undertake to make installment payments over a ten-year period and GDC would agree to construct central water and sewer distribution systems and to pave access roads by the end of the period. A purchaser would be permitted to make prepayment but GDC would only be obligated to convey the lot at the end of the agreed term. GDC plans it so that installment payments will provide GDC enough money to install water and sewer systems and pave roads before GDC is obligated to convey the improved lots. All expenses of hocking up to the water or sewer system, including extending mains, where necessary, are to be borne by the purchaser. the purchaser must secure a building permit before GDC becomes obligated to furnish water. In the event GDC is unable to perform, however, the contract requires the purchaser to choose between accepting a refund of the purchase price and exchanging the lot for another lot. Under certain circumstances the lot owner is allowed a credit against purchase of a home from GDC in addition to the equity in the lot. In 1979, three quarters of the houses GDC sold were sold to lot owners who exercised their option to exchange the equity in houses in a core area, and 99 percent of the houses GDC sold in North Port were located in "core areas". At the time of the hearing, there were already hundreds of thousands of unimproved lots in Lee, Charlotte, and south Sarasota Counties and hundreds of miles of little used roads providing access to the lots. AIR POLLUTION The uncontroverted evidence was that air pollution anticipated as a result of the proposed development, chiefly from automobile exhaust, would not violate state or federal air quality standards. STORMWATER The planned stormwater drainage system has been designed to retain one inch of runoff before discharge from the Phase I property and to prevent flooding of the portions of the property slated for development during storms of up to 25 years return frequency and 24-hour duration. Stormwater in the Ainger Creek watershed will drain from roads and lawns into front- and sideyard swales, to broader, shallow, grassy collector swales, through a series of shallow ponds (with a maximum depth of six feet) equipped with control structures and into Ainger Creek in which GDC has already constructed a weir with a flap gate. Some stormwater will percolate through the sandy soils into the groundwater and, except under the most extreme conditions, groundwater will reach Ainger Creek only after most pollutants have been precipitated or filtered out biologically. Water in the Myakka River watershed will reach the river by sheet flow which, depending on conditions, will also be diminished by percolation and purified by precipitation and biological filtration. Under extremely wet conditions, water entering the Myakka River and Lemon Bay from Ainger Creek will contain pollutants normally associated with residential development, mostly high concentrations of nutrients and small concentrations of heavy metals. GDC's employee's testimony that water entering Lemon Bay will be of a higher quality after development than at present, although uncontroverted, is rejected as incredible, although it could conceivably hold true under mild meteorological conditions. Ainger Creek's flood plain extends east from the thalweg some distance into the Phase I property. See GDC Exhibit Nos. 69, 70, 71, and 72. On preliminary flood insurance rate maps, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has identified special flood hazard zones along the creek which include 169 acres in proposed Unit 5 in which a minimum elevation of ten feet has been recommended for any habitable space (A-9) and 263 acres in Sections 26, 33, and 34 in which a minimum elevation of 11 feet has been recommended for any habitable space (A-10). The lowest street elevation proposed for the A-10 zone is seven feet. GDC normally adds two to two-and-a- half feet of fill to existing grade before erecting houses, but can add more. The weir across Ainger Creek and the proposed control structures where water outfalls into swales allow the retention upstream of water which otherwise might have flowed into Lemon Bay. Water retained on the Phase I property and elsewhere upstream can percolate through the topsoil and replenish the groundwaters. The weir on Ainger Creek acts as a barrier against the movement of salt water upstream. For both of these reasons, the proposed drainage system should decrease any danger of saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers in the area. In the event substantial amounts of salt water (or some pollutant) are introduced into Ainger Creek upstream of the weir, the weir is designed to permit the Creek to be flushed. ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR Except in the core areas, where GDC plans to market improved real estate, contractors other than GDC would have an opportunity to bid on construction contracts for new houses, a decade or so after installment land sales proposed for Phase I begin. Even before construction of housing, roads would have to be paved, water and sewer pipes would have to be laid, and other utilities would have to be installed. Thousands of people living on the new unpopulated Phase I property would mean additional jobs in the private and public sectors. Since there are already more than 641,000 vacant subdivision lots in the Charlotte Harbor area, however, the region is presumably in little danger of losing out on additional population for want of land developments. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Using census and other population data and reviewing GDC's sales records in other land developments, J. Thomas Campbell, a GDC employee, has projected a 47-year development or build-out schedule for Myakka Estates, forecasting, among other things, how rapidly housing units will be built in Phase I. Taking the build-out schedule as a given, Paul G. Van Buskirk, a GDC consultant, assumed an average household size increasing linearly through time and projected population growth in Phase I year by year for 33 years. Mr. Van Buskirk made assumptions about average household size, the proportion of population over age 65, and the proportion of population of school age, only after examining data of this kind from ten other communities housing mainly retired persons, which he thought would be comparable. He distributed school children among elementary, middle, and high schools on the hypothesis that the proportion would be the same as obtained in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area. In 1975, Mr. Van Buskirk projected streams of revenue and expenditure for local governments attributable to Phase I, forecasting a surplus for North port, Sarasota County, and the Sarasota County School District (School District). He assumed the value of an average house to be $40,000 in 1975 dollars, that market value would be the same as assessed value, and that then current mileages would remain constant. He also projected, in 1975, a tax base in North Port of $119,000,000 in 1979, in 1979 dollars. In fact, North Port's 1979 tax base was $122,000,000. In 1975, he projected a surplus for North Port in 1979 of $905,000 in 1979 dollars ($662,000 in 1975 dollars). In 1979, the surplus was, in fact, slightly more than $700,000. The difference between the projected surplus and the actual surplus is attributable to North Port's decision to retain the same level of services it had in 1975 while lowering the ad valorem tax rate. In his 1975 calculations, Mr. Van Buskirk made no attempt to reduce later years' dollar figures to then present values. In response to criticism by Dr. Fishkind, Sarasota County's economist, Mr. Van Buskirk reduced revenues and expenditures he had projected to present values, by assuming a discount rate of 7.5 percent. This discount rate was chosen to represent the cost of money obtainable by selling tax exempt bonds. At the same time, he posited a ten percent return compounded annually on projected surpluses. After this revision, as before, he forecast a favorable fiscal impact on North Port, Sarasota County, and the School District. CITY OF NORTH PORT The weight of the evidence showed that the fiscal impact of development of Phase I on the City of North Port would probably be favorable. Mr. Van Buskirk's model predicted fiscal developments in North Port with impressive accuracy. The large surpluses projected for the early years of development could not be counted on, however, because they would add to the already existing surplus ($8,000,000 in June of 1980) and to political pressures to lower taxes in such circumstances. North Port's recent reduction in millage, in the face of a growing surplus, evidences a predictably recurring tendency. Even though Phase I is ten miles from the center of North Port, the municipal services building GDC has agreed to build should make this distance a relatively insignificant factor in delivering some municipal services, according to Dr. Fishkind. Volume X, pp. 113-114. SARASOTA COUNTY In projecting what expenditures Sarasota County would make, if Phase I is developed according to schedule, Dr. Fishkind subtracted water and sewer costs but no others from per capita base-year figures to arrive at a per capita figure of $137.02 in 1975 dollars, to which he added special costs projected by Sheriff Hardcastle for law enforcement and Mr. Longworth for roads. Because all three of these figures are significant overstatements, Dr. Fishkind overstated expenditures significantly when he calculated Phase I's negative fiscal impact on Sarasota County over the course of the development as $8,100,000 in 1979 dollars. Dr. Fishkind also failed to include surpluses that would be furnished to county government early on in the development. Mr. Van Buskirk's base year per capital figure is a closer approximation of per capita costs that would be fairly attributable to residents of Phase I, but road and law enforcement costs are probably understated. No increase in real sots is projected and the combined effect of using a 100 percent assessment ratio and ignoring costs of sales is to overstate tax revenues. When Mr. Van Buskirk assumed a 79 percent assessment ratio and an average house value of $35,000 in 1975 dollars, he still projected a $449,000 positive fiscal impact on Sarasota County from development of Phase I. That calculation also included the ten percent interest compounded annually imputed to surpluses, however, without any showing that surpluses from Phase I would be invested rather than expended for some other county purpose, making simple discounting appropriate. Although the evidence is far from clear, it suggests, on balance, that the fiscal impact of Phase I on Sarasota County would be negative. CHARLOTTE COUNTY Charlotte County's public roads, recreation facilities, and schools would be used by the residents of Phase I, if all goes as planned, and Charlotte County would not have the offsetting benefit of ad valorem taxes from Phase I, although it would receive certain offsetting benefits on account of additional students under the current intergovernmental agreements. Phase I's development would have a negative fiscal impact on Charlotte County and the Charlotte County School District. SCHOOL DISTRICT Phase I is some five miles from Englewood Elementary School, ten miles from Venice Gardens Elementary and five to seven miles from Lemon Bay Junior- Senior High School in Charlotte County which accepts students from Sarasota County under the terms of an intergovernmental agreement. These schools are presently operating at or above capacity. Under current conditions, a major development anywhere in Sarasota County would be a burden to the school system. A survey of the school district's capital requirements for the next five years suggests some $67,445,817 will be needed for new construction. Of this, Sarasota County expects to receive $15,797,414 from State sources. Phase I is not expected to house any school children in the next five years, however. In the tenth year of development, the projection is that 489 elementary students, 245 junior high students, and 244 senior high students would live in Phase I, necessitating the construction of at least the first "phase" of an elementary school. Exclusive of site acquisition costs, an elementary school costs about $4,000,000; a junior high school costs about $19,000,000; and a senior high school costs about $18,000,000. If development of Phase I occurs at or above the rate projected by GDC, the net fiscal impact on the School District would probably be negative, but if development lags significantly behind predictions, as Dr. Fishkind testified was likely, the additional years of tax revenues before Phase I places major demands on the school system could well result in a positive fiscal impact on the School District from development of Phase I. POTABLE WATER General Development Utilities (GDU), a subsidiary of GDC, has a franchise from North Port to furnish water within the city limits, including Myakka Estates, except in the portion of Section 33 where EWD has jurisdiction. GDU is a private, not a public, utility, but its use of ground and surface waters renders the water used unavailable to another utility. At an existing water treatment facility on Myakkahatchee Creek, in North Port, about ten miles from Phase I, GDU treats 4.2 million gallons of water a day (mgd), but could treat 8 mgd. GUD also operates a water treatment complex in Fort Ogden on the Peace River, six or seven miles downstream from Arcadia. At the time of the hearing, GDU had the ability to pump 1.5 mgd from the Peace River complex to North Port and Myakka Estates. The Peace River facility includes a raw-water intake structure, a reservoir, and a treatment plant. It has a capacity of 6 mgd although some of its components have larger capacities. The intake structure and 36-inch transmission lines can handle 30 mgd and the filter units have a capacity of 15 mgd. The reservoir covers some 90 acres and has a capacity of 800,000,000 gallons. In all, GDU has reserved 1,000 acres for use as a reservoir, although the need for such a large reservoir is not anticipated even by the year 2050. GUD does not plan to expand the existing reservoir for another ten years. Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) has permitted GDU to withdraw up to an average of 5 mgd from the Peach River not to exceed five percent of the day's flow. At Arcadia, the Peace River's daily flow varies seasonally from 32 mgd to ten billion gallons per day. Except for 36 days a year (on the average), 5 mgd is less than 5.7 percent of the low flow of the Peace River. GDU can fill its reservoir by diverting water from the Peace River at times of high flow, so as to get the best water quality, and cause the least proportional diminution of the river's flow. GDU plans to withdraw an average of 13 mgd from the Peace River when capacity of the facility at Fort Ogden reaches 30 mgd. This is approximately 1.5 percent of the Peace River's approximately 800 mgd average flow at Arcadia. Some of the diverted water will never reach Charlotte Harbor because of evaporation at various points. Other water transported to Myakka Estates from the Peace River, whether treated at Fort Ogden or at North Port, would be used for irrigation, and some of this water would drain into Lemon Bay by Ainger Creek and never reach Charlotte Harbor. Most of the water diverted into the Peace River reservoir will eventually make its way through homes in GDC developments into wastewater plants, from there into the groundwater, and ultimately into Charlotte Harbor. Even when water from the Peace River reaches Charlotte Harbor by this route, however, there will ordinarily have been an interbasin transfer. The quality of water in the Peace River is good. If it were necessary to augment river water at the Peace River plant, well water from aquifers in the vicinity would be available. Because this well water is brackish, however, it would be blended with the river water to produce a mixture low enough in chlorides to be potable. Surface water from Myakkahatchee Creek and Snover Waterway could also be transported to the Peace River reservoir, at a rate of 13.5 mgd. Myakkahatchee Creek discharges 20 billion gallons of water into Charlotte Harbor annually. Treating water at the Peace River facility requires about two kilowatts per 1,000 gallons of water. Brackish water is available from well fields in the vicinity of Myakka Estates property, but treating brackish water by reverse osmosis requires about 11 kilowatts per hour. Phase I would, of course, add to future demand for potable water. SEWERAGE By ordinance, North Port requires that new homes be equipped with 3.5- gallon flush toilets instead of the standard 5-gallon models. Since 40 percent of the water used in the average household goes through the toilet, this is an important water conservation measure. GDU plans to provide a sewer system for the whole of Myakka Estates including initially an activated sludge sewer plant with a rated capacity of 250,000 gallons a day to be located on a 40-acre parcel reserved for that purpose. Effluent from the plant would be discharged into a polishing pond then sprayed over soil planted with vegetation to take up nitrogen and phosphorus, through which it would percolate into the groundwater. Once the Myakka Estates plant reached capacity, sewerage would be transported to Gulf Cove in Port Charlotte, six miles from the Phase I property, where an existing plant with a capacity of 333,000 gallons a day now processes 100,000 gallons a day. At the Gulf Cove plant site, GDU has 163 acres available for plant expansion. SOLID WASTE Solid waste from Phase I would be taken to the existing North Port landfill some nine miles distant, as long as that could be used. A second layer of solid waste was being laid down there at the time of the hearing. Monitoring wells had been dug to detect leachates leaving the landfill. A 90-acre site for a new landfill to serve all of North Port has been chosen within the 100-year flood plan of the Myakka River. GDC has agreed to construct the new landfill and lease it to North Port for operation by the city. The use of solid waste for energy production is not feasible, unless quantities on the order of 200 tons a day are available. Part or all of Charlotte County produces about 100 tons a day of solid waste. Per capita, people produce about 5.5 pounds per day of solid waste. LAW ENFORCEMENT Because of the location proposed for Myakka Estates, traffic from Phase I to the already developed center of North port will travel outside the city limits for part of the trip. Travelers from Phase I bound for the commercial district in North Port will pass through unincorporated Sarasota County, except those taking the longer route through Charlotte County. Travel from Phase I to any other municipality in Sarasota County would require passing through unincorporated Sarasota County. At the time of the hearing, the nearest substation of the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office was approximately 30 miles from the Phase I property. At some point, as Myakka Estates becomes populated, depending upon traffic patterns, the Sheriff would create a new Sheriff's patrol zone at a cost of $180,000 (1980 dollars), if present policy on these matters holds. Not all of this amount could fairly be attributed to development of Phase I, although the costs of the proposed development (including Phase I) to the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office would be significantly greater than the costs would be if the same population moved into the area contiguous to the existing center of North Port. North Port plans to furnish primary police protection within its city limits, staffing and equipping the 2,400 square feet municipal services center GDC has agreed to build in the vested portion of Myakka Estates. City prisoners are housed in the county jail, however, and the sheriff's office serves civil process in North Port. In residential land developments in the Charlotte Harbor area, where the roads have typically been laid out rectilinearly, a problem in the interval between road building and construction of housing has been the use of roads as airstrips by smugglers and as drag strips by racing enthusiasts. TRANSPORTATION Within Phase I, streets are to be laid out curvilinearly. Minor collectors are to feed major collectors which are to feed minor arterials which are to feed major arterials, with limited access to larger roads. Three and one-half miles of bicycle paths are planned. No mass transit system is contemplated for Phase I nor would Phase I be able to accommodate a right-of-way for a mass transit facility. There is no mass transit system in Port Charlotte or North Port. The viability of Phase I depends on continued mass ownership and operation of automobiles. U.S. Highway 41, a four-lane divided arterial, runs east and west north of the Myakka Estates property, then through the southwestern corner of the main part of North Port. When I-75 is finished, development may be skewed in its direction, drastically affecting traffic patterns; I-75 is slated to pass north of the property in two or three years. intersecting U.S. Highway 41, running south then southwest to the west of the Myakka Estates property, is South River Road (State Road 777), a two-lane arterial that ends in Englewood and currently handles about 2,000 trips daily. It will require four-laning when the number of daily trips reaches 10,000. South of the property in Charlotte County, another two-lane arterial, State Road 776 runs east-west, dead ending into State Road 771 which crosses the Myakka River at El Jobean and proceeds northeast to Murdock, where it intersects U.S. Highway 41, south of the main area of North Port. GDC has agreed to pave a two-lane road from the vested portion of the Myakka Estates property through Phase I to South River Road (State Road 777). by this route, a trip from the middle of Phase I to the commercial area in North Port would involve a trip of about ten miles. The distance from the middle of Phase I to the nearest post office, which is in Englewood, is approximately 6.5 miles; to Gulf Cove, approximately six miles; to Murdock, approximately 11.5 miles; to a shopping district in Venice, approximately 14.5 miles; and to the nearest hospital, in Venice, approximately 16.5 miles. Sarasota is about 30 miles north and Ft. Myers is some 40 miles distant in the other direction. It is to Sarasota and Ft. Myers that new inhabitants of Myakka Estates would be obliged to travel for concerts, plays, art galleries, and the like. Thee are commercial airports in Ft. Myers and Sarasota. GDC's expert assumed most of the traffic leaving Myakka Estates would travel south to points in Charlotte County because of anticipated development there. Sarasota County's expert assumed most of the traffic leaving Myakka Estates would travel to points in Sarasota County based on ratios of already developed commercial acreage and on an apparently inadvertent chronological mismatching of projected retail and total employment figures: for Venice in Sarasota County year 2000 projections were used while 1990 projections were used for competing areas to the east of Myakka Estates. Development of Phase I would have a substantial and costly impact on public roads in the vicinity. Both new construction and improvement of existing roads would be required, although mainly in rural areas. At least by the time Myakka Estates is fully populated, South River Road, State Road 776, and State Road 771, including the bridge across the Myakka River would have to be four- laned. While the direction of future traffic is disputed, the prospect of thousands of automobiles operating in the area as a result of a fully populated Phase I is very clear. It is impossible to say with certainty which road would have to be widened in which year or what share of the cost should be attributed to Phase I as distinguished from the rest of Myakka Estates and other development in the area, but the eventual impact of Phase I would require expenditures of millions of dollars for public roads. Sarasota County has identified road improvements it needs to make before the year 2000, without taking Myakka Estates into account, and puts their cost at $387,000,000, which is $110,000,000 more than is projected to be available. EMPLOYMENT ACCESSIBILITY Most of the people expected to live in the Phase I development are retired persons who would not be regularly travelling to and from a place of employment. Very few employment opportunities in retail sales and professional offices are forecast for Phase I. The vested portion of Myakka Estates is projected to have significantly more opportunities of this kind. In the beginning, most persons seeking employment would have to travel at least as far as Englewood. At build-out, a later phase of Myakka Estates may afford industrial employment opportunities. SWFRPC REPORT The Master ADA was filed with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, rather than with SWFRPC, because Sarasota County was part of the Tampa Bay Region at the time. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council recommended granting the Master ADA on conditions which were subsequently incorporated into the Master Development Order. The Phase I ADA was filed with the SWFRPC. In May of 1975, the SWFRPC issued its report recommending against approval of the Phase I ADA on various grounds, including the physical separation of the proposed development from presently developed areas and necessary services; the existing abundance of vacant platted lots and miles of deserved paved streets in the Charlotte Harbor area; creation of a need for an urban water supply, schools, police, and emergency medical facilities and services far from the areas where the affected local governments have planned to provide such facilities and services; and the adverse fiscal impact of the proposed development on local governments. The report was received in evidence to show what North Port reviewed before entering its development order but it was not offered as proof of the SWFRPC assertions in it.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a development order granting GDC's Phase I ADA on such conditions as the Commission shall deem appropriate, including all the conditions contained in the Development Order entered by North Port and the following additional conditions: That GDC sell no lots in the special flood hazard zones as indicated on HUD's preliminary flood insurance rate maps, GDC Exhibit Nos. 69, 70, 71 and 72. That GDC sell no lots within EWD's jurisdiction until and unless EWD shall agree to such a sale in writing. That GDC unconditionally deed to the Sarasota County School District the elementary school site planned for Phase I together with the 50 lots nearest to the site. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Parker D. Thomson, Esquire Kenneth W. Lipman, Esquire and Douglas M. Halsey, Esquire 1300 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 C. Laurence Keesey Department of Community Affairs Room 204, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David E. Bruner, Esquire 581 Springline Drive Naples, Florida 33940 Richard E. Nelson, Esquire and Richard L. Smith, Esquire 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577 Robert A. Dickinson, Esquire 70 South Indiana Avenue Englewood, Florida 33533 John W. Field Englewood Community Organizations 227 Bahia Vista Drive Englewood, Florida 33533 Wayne Allen, Esquire General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Mayor Margaret Gentle City of North Port North Port, Florida 33595 Allen J. Levin 209 Conway Boulevard Northeast Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Office of Planning and Budget Executive Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Robert Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald Lewis State of Florida Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald Chambers 6970 Manasota Key Road Englewood, Florida 33533
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petition to Establish Rule and the Amended Petition to Establish Rule (the Petition) should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Centrex Homes, is a Nevada General Partnership which owns or has authority over the property proposed for establishment of the state created District. Clay County is the affected local general purpose government, a political subdivision of Florida, within whose jurisdiction in the unincorporated area of the county the proposed land is located. The Petition proposes the establishment by rule of Fleming Island CDD on certain proposed real property in the unincorporated area of Clay County. (The uniform statutory charter for all established community development districts (CDDs) is found in Sections 190.006 through 190.046, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), as amended by Chapter 99-378, Laws of Florida (1999). See Conclusions, infra.) The proposed land to be served by Fleming Island CDD consists of approximately 1,580 acres bounded on the north and west by vacant property; on the east by U.S. Highway 17, Fleming Island Estates and the St. Johns River; on the southwest by Black Creek; and on the south by Black Creek and the St. Johns River. A map showing the location of the land areas to be served by the CDD was attached as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 to the Petition. As proposed, Fleming Island CDD contains no enclaves; the land is contiguous and will be separated only by roads, streets, or other similar, small barriers. The Petition alleges that the metes and bounds legal description of the property is contained in Petition Exhibit No. 2. The Petition Exhibit Nos. 3, 4, and 5 constitute documentation that the owners of all the real property proposed to be included in Fleming Island CDD have given written consent to the establishment of the CDD on the proposed property. The Petition names the five persons (revised in the Amended Petition) to serve on the initial Board of Supervisors upon establishment of the CDD by rule. The Petition identifies and depicts in Petition Exhibit No. 6 proposed land uses within the previously-approved DRI. The Petition identifies the DRI development order in Petition Exhibit No. 7. The Petition identifies and depicts in Petition Exhibit No. 8 the main trunk waterlines, sewer interceptors, and outfalls on the property proposed to be served by the CDD. The Petition sets forth in Petition Exhibit No. 9 (revised in the Amended Petition) the proposed timetable and schedule of estimated costs for the construction of the proposed facilities. The Petition alleges and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted at the hearing demonstrates that the Clay County Local Government Comprehensive Plan is an effective local government comprehensive plan which is in compliance with state law. The Petition also alleges that the Clay County future land use map (FLUM) designates the land to be within Fleming Island CDD. Petition Exhibit No. 11 is a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. The Petitioner paid $15,000 to Clay County for the required filing and processing fees prior to filing the Petition on April 30, 1999. Based on the evidence, all statements contained within the Petition are found to be true and correct. See pre-filed and oral testimony of Gary L. Moyer; testimony of Petitioner's land use planner, Susan Fraser, AICP; and testimony of Petitioner's business expert, William J. Rizzetta. The underlying community development anticipated to be served by the CDD is described in Section 1.0 of the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs at Petition Exhibit No. 11 and in the testimony of Gary L. Moyer. It will be consistent with and similar to the adjacent development. Development in Fleming Island CDD is to proceed under the development order for development of regional impact (DRI). The evidence, especially the testimony of Susan Fraser (AICP), indicates that establishment of Fleming Island CDD will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the Clay County Comprehensive Plan. There was no evidence to the contrary. The evidence indicates that the area of land within the proposed CDD is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one, functional, interrelated community. There was no evidence to the contrary. The evidence indicates that the CDD is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities (including recreational facilities) to the area that will be served by the CDD. There was no evidence to the contrary. The evidence indicates that the CDD's services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. There was no evidence to the contrary. The evidence was that the area to be served by Fleming Island CDD is amenable to separate special-district government. There was no evidence to the contrary. Clay County also held a public hearing on the Petition, which resulted in the County's adoption of a Resolution 99-57 supporting the Petition and establishment of the Fleming Island CDD.
Conclusions On October 2, 1999, a local public hearing was held in this case in Green Cove Springs, Clay County, Florida, before Don W. Davis, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Division of Administrative Hearings, under the authority of Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998).
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and text of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 02-24 on May 14, 2002, which, among other plan amendments, created the "Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict" and applied it to one parcel within Collier County, are "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2001 version unless otherwise indicated.)
Findings Of Fact The Parties "Emerald Lakes of Naples" is a residential development in Collier County consisting of 147 single-family homes and 378 multi-family condominiums on 148.27 acres. Emerald Lakes is an organization that represents all persons who own property within the Emerald Lakes of Naples development. Emerald Lakes owns property within Collier County and specifically owns and maintains the streets in Emerald Lakes, including one street bordering the west property line of the Buckley site. A representative of Emerald Lakes made oral comments to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners at the public meeting at which the disputed comprehensive plan amendments were adopted. Collier County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Section 7.11, Florida Statutes. The County is the local government that adopted the comprehensive plan amendment that is the subject of this proceeding. The Department is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Buckley is the owner of the approximately 23-acre parcel (Buckley site or parcel) that is the subject of the challenged comprehensive plan amendments. (This parcel consists of two contiguous tracts.) The location of this site and surrounding development are discussed herein. See Findings of Fact 34-45. Buckley submitted comments to Collier County regarding the disputed comprehensive plan amendments between the time they were transmitted to the Department for the issuance of an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, and the time the County adopted the Amendments. The Amendments In April 2001, Buckley submitted to Collier County an "Application for a Request to Amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan." This Application requested two types of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (collectively "Buckley Amendments"). The first of the requested amendments would add to the text of the FLUE a section for the "Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict" (Buckley Text Amendment), within the "Urban Mixed-Use District." This Subdistrict is a new land use category that would allow for "limited small-scale retail, office and residential uses while requiring that the project result in a true mixed-use development." This Subdistrict is added as a separate Subdistrict within the "Urban-Mixed Use District" in the FLUE. The second requested amendment would redesignate approximately 23 acres from "Urban-Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict" to "Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict" on the Collier County FLUM (Buckley Map Amendment). (The "Urban Residential Subdistrict" is also within the "Urban Mixed Use District.") Under the current land use designation and without the Buckley Amendments, three dwelling units per acre may be permitted on the Buckley site. (The site has a base density of four dwelling units per acre, reduced by one because the site is located within the Traffic Congestion Area.) In addition, the site could be eligible for an additional eight dwelling units per acre under the Affordable Housing provision of the Density Rating System, more fully discussed herein at Findings of Fact 21-27. The Buckley site is currently zoned Agricultural and being utilized as a commercial plant nursery. The purpose and description of the Buckley Amendments is as follows: The intent of this amendment is to develop a small-scale mixed use development that encourages the principals [sic] of Traditional Neighborhood Districts at a small scale developing residential, retail and office on one site. The amendment establishes a mixed use, site specific subdistrict that creates a pedestrian friendly environment for small size retail and office uses with a residential component developed on one site. The amendment proposes to cap retail uses at 3250 square feet per acre and office uses at 4250 square feet per acre while ensuring mixed use development by requiring that a minimum of [40%] of the commercial [square footage] have a residential component within the same building. A minimum of 25% of the maximum residential density would have to be constructed prior to the development of 40,000 square feet of commercial space (86 dwelling units at 15 units per acre density). The entire site is 22.84 acres. If built out to maximum capacity the project site could be developed with 74,230 square feet of retail; 97,070 square feet of office; and 343 residential units. The proposed amendment permits C-1, C-2 and C-3 [commercial] uses, limits drive-thru establishments to banks with no more than 3 lanes and does not allow gasoline service stations. The proposed project also provides for architectural design standards beyond the County's current standards. All four sides of the building must be finished in a common architectural theme. Primary access to the buildings will be from the interior of the site and buildings fronting Airport Road will provide a secondary access facing the street. Additionally, pedestrian connections are encouraged to all perimeter properties; no building footprint will exceed 15,000 square feet; a 20-foot wide Type D landscape buffer is required along Airport-Pulling Road and a 20-foot wide Type C landscape buffer is required along all other perimeter property lines. Parking areas must be screened from Airport- Pulling Road and from any properties adjacent to the Buckley Subdistrict. Currently, the County's FLUE provides that "[t]he URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts" for ten subdistricts within the "Urban-Mixed District. The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict is added to this list. Another text change recognizes that commercial uses would now be authorized, subject to the criteria identified in the Urban-Mixed Use District, in the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict. The FLUE text also provides that "[t]he Mixed-Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community." The text change allows "some commercial development" outside the Mixed Use Activity Centers in the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict. The Density Rating System (System) under the FLUE is amended to provide that "[t]he Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict is subject to the Density Rating System, except for the densities established by this subdistrict for multi-family dwelling units." See Findings of Fact 21-27, for a more detailed analysis of the System. On April 18, 2002, the Collier County Planning Commission, by a five to two vote, recommended approval of the Buckley Amendments with two changes, i.e., that the Amendments be subject to the Density Rating System, except for density, see Findings of Fact 12 and 22, and that the development on the site be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. On May 14, 2002, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Buckley Amendments by Ordinance No. 02-24. It appears the vote was four to one. Buckley Exhibit 10 at 181. The Department timely caused to be published on July 9, 2002, in the Naples Daily News, a Notice of Intent to find the Buckley Amendments "in compliance." On or about July 30, 2002, Emerald Lakes filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the Department's Notice of Intent. While Emerald Lakes raised numerous grounds on which the Buckley Amendments are alleged to be not "in compliance," Emerald Lakes' counsel represented in his opening statement that the issues had been narrowed to four. These issues, as well as the issues of "internal consistency" raised by Emerald Lakes' expert witness at the final hearing, are addressed below. Public Notice1 Emerald Lakes offered into evidence a number of notices Collier County published to advertise public meetings regarding the Buckley Amendments. There was no testimony during the final hearing regarding these notices.2 Three of the notices (Emerald Lakes' Exhibits 2a-2c) offer a map of what purports to be Collier County. With the aid of a magnifying glass, Airport (Pulling) Road, Pine Ridge Road, and U.S. Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail) are identified. It does not appear that the Buckley site is identified on the maps nor specifically mentioned in the notices, although the Buckley Amendments were approved in Ordinance No. 02-24 with other plan amendments. Emerald Lakes became aware of the Buckley Amendments in April 2002, and thereafter took an active role regarding this matter. Forest Wainscott, Emerald Lakes' vice-president, attended the hearing at which the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Buckley Amendments (Ordinance No. 02-24), and voiced to the Commissioners Emerald Lakes' concerns about the Buckley Amendments. After hearing these concerns, the Commission voted to adopt the Buckley Amendments. Emerald Lakes did not prove any prejudice arising from the lack of the placement of the Buckley site on the notice maps. Density Rating System The Collier County Comprehensive Plan's FLUE contains a Density Rating System. The System "is only applicable to areas designated Urban [or] Urban–Mixed Use District" and "only applies to residential units." For these lands, the System establishes a general base density of four dwelling units per acre. The System specifies how the base level of density may be adjusted. There are six criteria which allow consideration of an increase in density and one criterion which may be considered to adjust the density downward. For example, if a project is within the Traffic Congestion Area, as Buckley is, 1 dwelling unit per acre would be subtracted. Here, the Buckley has a base density of four dwelling units per acre and would have a net density of three units per acre. See Finding of Fact 7. The text amendments to the FLUE provide that the Buckley Subdistrict is subject to the System, "except for the densities established by this subdistrict for multi-family dwelling units." As noted, the System allows the base density to be decreased to an unspecified low, and increased to 16 units per acre, with an even greater potential if a "transfer of development rights" is employed. The Buckley Map Amendment would change the designation of the subject parcel from "Urban Residential Subdistrict" to "Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict," and assign a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre to the parcel. By the text change noted in Finding of Fact 22, the "densities" for the parcel would no longer qualify for the System. The increased density is not achieved by an application of the System, but is a result of the Buckley Amendments. Emerald Lakes argued that the parcel does not qualify for a density increase under the System, and, therefore, should not have been eligible for an increase under a separate comprehensive plan amendment. Stated otherwise, to the extent the Amendments authorize a maximum residential density of 15 units per acre, the Amendments are inconsistent with the System, and hence the Plan. This argument assumes that the System establishes the sole manner in which a parcel designated "Urban–Mixed Use" in Collier County may enjoy increased density, and also that these parcels are not eligible for FLUM amendments. Neither the Collier County Comprehensive Plan nor pertinent State law contains these blanket restrictions. A parcel designated "Urban–Mixed Use" is not prohibited from seeking a comprehensive plan amendment that would increase allowable density. Such an amendment, just as all comprehensive plan amendments, would have to be internally consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, would have to be supported by data and analysis, and would have to comply with the other applicable requirements in order to be "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. In sum, there is no requirement for the Buckley Amendments to demonstrate compliance with the Density Rating System or prove a special justification for seeking a density increase in light of the System. Need The term "need" as used in growth management refers to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Local governments are required to analyze by acreage how much land within each land use category3 they need to accommodate projected growth through the planning timeframe, and then base their comprehensive plan on this estimate. Rule 9J- 5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Collier County addressed the "need" issue for the Buckley Amendments in an October 8, 2001, staff memorandum to the Collier County Planning Commission. This memorandum notes that there is an excess allocation of approximately 298 acres of commercially zoned land in the "North Naples Planning Community."4 There is no competent record evidence to contradict this conclusion about the numerical allocation of commercial. There is, however, competent evidence that tempers the importance to be assigned to this numerical allocation. With its plan amendment application as revised and updated, Buckley provided Collier County with a discussion of a study prepared by Appraisal Research Corporation of Naples which, as characterized by the applicant, stated in part: While the areas east [sic] and South Naples have and [sic] excess of retail space available, the balance of the unincorporated portion of the county shows a vacancy rate of less than 3%, well below the state and national averages. The area of North Naples, which is the subject of this amendment, has an incredibly low vacancy rate in local centers of 1.18%. While additional commercial space is being constructed countywide, it is of the same power type centers that continues to keep small retailers and service related businesses paying power center prices that cost as much as $26.50 per square feet. Barbershops, salons, dry cleaners and the like are forced to absorb these high-priced rents with little of [sic] options. According to the report, the demand for retail space is strong even considering existing and future construction of new centers. Further, the staff memorandum provides a "commercial demand analysis" which concluded: While, based on the 1998 Commercial Inventory, there is sufficient commercial acreage in the North Naples Planning Community to exceed the County's projected demand up to the year 2005, this project would be one of the first of its kind to be developed in the County. A mix of uses to include a substantial residential component could set an example for development and redevelopment of this type, at a smaller scale, that provides opportunities for residents to live, work and shop within the same development and limit, to some degree, the impact on the existing roadway system. In light of the conditions of development contained in the Buckley Text Amendment, the subject parcel will serve this need. (Some of the conditions have been discussed. See Findings of Fact 8-9.) In or around May 2001, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County adopted, by resolution, "The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida." This Plan made recommendations and, in part, "encouraged a mixed- use development." According to Amy Taylor, A.I.C.P, currently a long-range planner with the Collier County public school system, and formerly employed by the Collier County Planning Services Department for over six years and who reviewed the Buckley Amendments in this capacity, the County's mixed-use activity centers were not working because "they were not truly mixed-use. They were high-intensity, large-scale retail limited-office, in--in large centers, and because they were not mixed-use in--in terms of having a residential development, they were not functioning as--they had been intended." The Buckley Amendments propose a different use than the existing mixed-use activity centers and the type of development which has occurred. In fact, the Buckley Subdistrict is not a mixed-use activity center because it does not rise to the level of intensity and size of these centers. Also, unlike the mixed-use activity centers in Collier County, the Buckley Subdistrict involves a residential component. The County Commissioners directed staff to develop comprehensive plan amendments to implement the Community Character Plan. As a private plan amendment request, Ms. Taylor reviewed the Buckley Amendments and determined that they were consistent with the objectives and recommendations in the Community Character Plan, in part, because the Amendments "provide an opportunity also for internal capture and pedestrian interconnectivity." There is no persuasive evidence that would support a finding that any numerical over-allocation of commercial will exacerbate urban sprawl in the North Naples Planning Community or Collier County in general. Compatibility Emerald Lakes also contended that the Buckley Amendments will allow development that is incompatible with the adjacent Emerald Lakes of Naples development in violation of State law and Objective 5 and Policy 5.4 of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Element.5 Contrary to this contention, the limited type of mixed-use development mandated by the Buckley Amendments is consistent with surrounding uses, is compatible with Emerald Lakes, and is at least the subject of fair debate.6 The Buckley site proposed for re-designation is approximately 23 acres and located west and adjacent to Airport-Pulling Road, and specifically at approximately the northwest corner of Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Pulling Road, and south of the intersection of Airport Pulling Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, which approximates the northern boundary. The Buckley site is currently operated as a commercial plant nursery. The Airport-Pulling Road corridor between Pine Ridge Road and Vanderbilt Road is anchored by two Activity Centers, one with approximately 143 acres permitted for 910,000 square feet of commercial and 450 hotel rooms, and the other with 347.50 acres permitted for 1,556,000 square feet of commercial. (Activity Centers allow up to 11 dwelling units per acre, but only on separate tracts for commercial.) The Naples Walk Shopping Center, which is part of the Vineyards development of regional impact, is located on the northeast corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Lakeside of Naples, a residential community, is across Airport-Pulling Road from the Buckley site. Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict (Orange Blossom) is located south of Lakeside of Naples, also on the east side of Airport-Pulling Road. County staff analyzed Orange Blossom. The Buckley Subdistrict "is similar to and patterned after" Orange Blossom. Orange Blossom is 14.43 acres and 8.41 acres less than the Buckley site, "but allows 1860 more square feet of commercial than does that proposed for the Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict at 22.84 acres," i.e., 173,160 versus 171,300 total maximum commercial square feet. Orange Blossom allows four dwelling units per acre versus 15 dwelling units per acre for the Buckley site. However, as noted by County staff, "[r]esidential density is higher for [Buckley] and, as proposed and designed, the commercial located on the [Buckley] site would more likely capture a significantly higher proportion of its business from residents on site than if the density was lower." In relative proximity to the Buckley site are commercial developments such as the Ritz-Carlton Golf Lodge, the Tiberon Golf Club, an Eckerd Drug Store, a Walgreens Drug Store, a "Picture Warehouse" under construction, and offices known as "The Galleria Shops." Claire Goff testified that Emerald Lakes is "[a]lmost totally surrounded by" commercial development and that existing adjacent commercial development is compatible with the Emerald Lakes development. To the immediate east of the Buckley site is Airport-Pulling Road, which is currently being widened to six lanes and runs north/south. To the south of the parcel is the recently-completed North Regional Collier County Public Library. To the immediate north of the parcel is the Brighton Gardens Assisted Living Facility, located on five acres, with a density of approximately 22 dwelling units per acre. The Emerald Lakes of Naples development, including single-family homes, lies to the immediate west of the Buckley parcel and are located around an approximately 47-acre lake. The multi-family component of this development lies to the north and surrounds a smaller lake, approximately 15 acres. Marker Lake Villas, a residential project, is located to the north. Venetian Plaza, a 90,000 square foot office community, is under construction and located immediately east of Marker Lake Villas and abuts the northern boundary of Emerald Lakes. Overall, that portion of Emerald Lakes that immediately adjoins the subject parcel on the west, consists of a gross density of approximately three and one-half dwelling units per acre. Emerald Lakes alleged that the 15 dwelling units per acre and the commercial and office development allowed under the Buckley Amendments are not compatible with these adjacent homes. This allegation is not supported in the record. As noted, Emerald Lakes is not exclusively single- family. To the north of the above-mentioned single-family homes within Emerald Lakes are multi-family condominiums. See Finding of Fact 41. These multi-family units surround a smaller lake. When this lake area is included with land actually developed with the condominiums, the gross residential density is approximately five units per acre. However, if the lake area is excluded and net residential density is calculated only on the land on which the condominiums are developed, this multi-family component of Emerald Lakes is approximately 15 dwelling units per acre. This multi-family portion of Emerald Lakes is within 100 feet of the single-family homes. The single-family homes surrounding the larger lake within Emerald Lakes are separated from the Buckley parcel by setbacks, a road, and a 20-foot required buffer, such that the distance from these homes to development on the Buckley parcel will range from approximately 85 feet to 125 feet from the property line. Based on these factors, the development allowed by the Buckley Amendments would be compatible with surrounding land uses and development, including Emerald Lakes. It is at least the subject of fair debate. Internal Consistency Emerald Lakes further alleged that the Buckley Amendments are internally inconsistent with various provisions of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. Each provision is addressed below. Additionally, several consistency issues are discussed in previous findings relating to the System and compatibility. Policy 5.5 of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan's FLUE directs that the County shall "[e]ncourage the use of existing land zoned for urban intensity uses before permitting development of other areas." Emerald Lakes contended that the Buckley Amendments are inconsistent with this Policy because they are allegedly increasing the "inventory . . . of commercial square footage" before other areas are fully developed. However, the second sentence of Policy 5.5 provides: "This [encouraging the use of existing urban zoned land] shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing zoned land before servicing other areas." Emerald Lakes offered no evidence that the Buckley Amendments required the County to provide unplanned services to inappropriately zoned or rezoned land. The record evidence persuasively demonstrates that the impacts of potential development under the Buckley Amendments (and without regard to actual site plans which are not the subject of this proceeding) are within the planned and adopted levels of service for all publicly owned and operated facilities and services, including but not limited to, traffic. (With the six-laning of Airport-Pulling Road, a level of service of C is reasonably expected.) Policy 5.7 provides that the County shall "[e]ncourage the recognition of identifiable communities within the urbanized area of western Collier County." This Policy further provides that the "[p]resentation of economic and demographic data shall be based on Planning Communities and commonly recognized neighborhoods." Emerald Lakes contended that the Buckley Amendments are inconsistent with this Policy because there was an insufficient submission of economic and demographic data. To the contrary, the Buckley Amendments are supported with extensive data regarding the North Naples Planning Community. Emerald Lakes did not present any persuasive data to prove otherwise. Emerald Lakes further asserted that the Buckley Amendments are inconsistent with the County Plan's criteria which govern the location of "Mixed Use Activity Centers." The plain language of the Buckley Amendments, as buttressed by the testimony of Collier County's comprehensive plan manager, William Litsinger, A.I.C.P., demonstrated that the Amendments do not seek a "Mixed Use Activity Center" designation and the criteria for that designation are, accordingly, inapplicable. See Finding of Fact 31. Emerald Lakes also strongly suggests that if Orange Blossom can operate as a mixed use subdistrict with a maximum of four dwelling units per acre and with a mix of commercial, so can Buckley and, therefore, there is no justification from departing from the Density Rating System and authorizing plan amendments which propose development similar to the Buckley Amendments. The County was presented with data and analysis which discussed various scenarios and configurations of mixed use development. As noted above, some of the similarities and distinguishing features of Orange Blossom were considered. See Finding of Fact 38. As part of their "findings and conclusions," County planning staff noted in a memorandum (see Finding of Fact 29) to the Collier County Planning Commission: "Opportunities with adjacent residential will be one of the major difficulties of new small-scale mixed use development in Collier County. The potential for increased internal capture by allowing higher densities on site will partially mitigate this issue. Market conditions and/or increased traffic congestion on major roadways may provide incentives for existing neighborhoods to seek interconnections in the future." As further noted by County staff: "This project would be one of the first of its kind to be developed in the County. A mix of uses to include a substantial residential component could set an example for development and redevelopment of this type, at a smaller scale, that provides opportunities for residents to live, work and shop within the same development and limit, to some degree, the impact on the existing roadway." Whether the Buckley Amendments are consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan is at least fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Buckley Amendments adopted by Collier County in Ordinance No. 02-24 are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2003.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Arborwood Community Development District (Petition), dated November 17, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Amend the Boundary of the Gateway Services Community Development District (Petition), dated June 2, 2004. The local public hearing was for purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by the FLWAC.
The Issue Whether Policy 20.11.1 of Goal 20: Transportation, of Rule 29H-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rule"), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners. Pasco is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Its offices are located at 705 East Live Oak, Dade City, Florida. BAGT is an association. BAGT's approximately 697 members are involved in some manner in the development or building industry in the Tampa Bay region. For the most part, BAGT's members reside and own property within the four-county jurisdiction of the TBRPC. BAGT's membership includes approximately 176 builder and developer members and 520 associate members who are subcontractors, material suppliers, financial institutions, engineering firms, architectural firms and other types of firms that provide goods and services related to the building industry. BAGT's membership includes builders who build in "development of regional impact" (hereinafter referred to as "DRI"), projects and associate members who provide construction support services to DRI projects. During an eighteen month period, over 50 percent of the building permits issued in Hillsborough County were issued to twenty-three BAGT builder- members for DRI projects. This amounts to approximately 3.3 percent of the membership of BAGT. BAGT works on behalf of its membership to promote a strong and viable building industry. BAGT has the responsibility to "work for the elimination of governmental orders improperly restricting the home building industry and to support beneficial directives." Certificate of Reincorporation and By-Laws, BAGT exhibits 5 and 6. BAGT members have to consider the levels of service for transportation of local governments and TBRPC in obtaining permits for DRI projects. If more stringent levels of service are required for a project, the development may be prolonged and be more costly to complete. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City's offices are located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The City and Pasco are located within the jurisdiction of TBRPC. The Petitioners are all substantially affected by the Challenged Rule. The Respondent. TBRPC is an agency of the State of Florida within the definition of the term "agency" contained in Section 120.52(1)(b), Florida Statutes. TBRPC was created pursuant to Section 186.504, Florida Statutes. TBRPC's offices are located at 9455 Koger Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. TBRPC's geographic boundaries, which generally include the four- county, Tampa Bay region, include the geographic areas within Department of Transportation Districts one and seven. TBRPC does not build or maintain roads. Nor does TBRPC provide funds to those that are responsible for building or maintaining roads. Comprehensive Regional Policy Plans. Pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes, all regional planning councils, including the TBRPC, are required to adopt a "comprehensive regional policy plan". Among other things, the comprehensive regional policy plan must include the following: (8) Upon adoption, a comprehensive regional policy plan shall provide, in addition to other criteria established by law, the basis for regional review of developments of regional impact, regional review of federally assisted projects, and other regional overview and comment functions. As required by Section 186.507(1), TBRPC has adopted a comprehensive regional policy plan, Rule 29H-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, Future Of The Region, A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region. The comprehensive regional policy plan was adopted in 1987, and has been amended in 1988, 1990 and 1991. Although in adopting a comprehensive regional policy plan a regional planning council is required to consider state and local plans and local governments are given an opportunity to comment, the regional planning council is not bound by those plans or comments. Section 186.507(4)-(6), Florida Statutes. TBRPC's comprehensive regional policy plan was adopted before some of the local government comprehensive plans in its region were promulgated. TBRPC interprets Sections 186.507(1) and (8), Florida Statutes, to require that it include the criteria it intends to use in its review of a DRI. The Department of Community Affairs has been designated by the Executive Office of the Governor to review comprehensive regional policy plans and amendments. See Section 186.507(2), Florida Statutes. The Department of Community Affairs reviewed TBRPC's comprehensive regional policy plan. Developments of Regional Impact. Part of the responsibility assigned to regional planning councils, including TBRPC, is the responsibility to review DRIs. Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. DRIs are created and regulated in the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act, Sections 380.012-380.10, Florida Statutes. DRI is defined in Section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes. The procedure for reviewing DRI applications is set out in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Several government agencies are involved in the review process, including TBRPC. The Department of Community Affairs is required to, among other things, adopt rules governing the review of DRI applications. Section 380.06(23)(a), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to this authority, the Department of Community Affairs has adopted Chapter 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code. These Rules wee promulgated to "ensure uniform procedural review of developments of regional impact by [the Department of Community Affairs] and regional planning agencies under this section." Section 380.06(23)(a), Florida Statutes. The Bureau of State Planning is the bureau of the Department of Community Affairs with primary responsibility for administering Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to the extent of the Department of Community Affairs' involvement. Regional planning councils, including the TBRPC, are required to review all DRI applications involving developments in their regions. Section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes, requires that regional planning councils issue a report and make recommendations concerning the impact of proposed DRIs. Regional planning councils, while subject to any rules governing DRI review adopted by the Department of Community Affairs, are authorized to adopt additional rules concerning their review of DRI applications. Section 380.06(23)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Those rules, however, must not be "inconsistent" with the rules governing DRI review adopted by the Department of Community Affairs. TBRPC interprets Section 380.06(23)(c), Florida Statutes, as authorizing the Challenged Rule. What is "inconsistent" for purposes of Section 380.06(23)(c), Florida Statutes, is not specifically defined. Ultimately, the decision on a DRI application is made by the local government in which the DRI is located. Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes. In making that decision the local government is required to consider the local government's comprehensive plan and land development regulations, the State Comprehensive Plan and the report and recommendations of the regional planning council. Section 380.06(14), Florida Statutes. Local governments are governed by the provisions of Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes, in determining whether to issue a DRI. A local government's decision on a DRI application may be appealed to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "FLWAC"). Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. The final decision on the DRI application, if an appeal is taken, is made by FLWAC after a formal administrative hearing is conducted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Regional planning councils have the right to appeal a local government's decision. In determining whether a DRI should be granted, local governments are not bound by any of the comments made by the regional planning council that reviewed the DRI application. They are only required to consider the comments of the regional planning council made pursuant to Section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes. Should the local government fail to adequately take into account the comments of the regional planning council, however, it faces the possibility that the regional planning council will appeal the local government's decision on a DRI application to FLWAC. The Role of Comprehensive Plans in DRI Reviews; Establishing Levels of Service. The local government comprehensive plan and the land development regulations which a local government is required to consider when reviewing a DRI application are required by Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Every local government in Florida is required by Section 163.3167, Florida Statutes, to adopt a comprehensive plan. Land development regulations governing the issuance of development orders are required by Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes. In the TBRPC region the comprehensive plans of all local governments, except St. Petersburg Beach and Port Richey, have been found by the Department of Community Affairs to be in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Among other things, each comprehensive plan must provide for transportation facilities within the local government's geographic area. Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes. The Legislature has required that local governments specifically establish levels of service for public facilities in their comprehensive plans. Section 163.3177(10)(f), Florida Statutes. See also Rule 9J-5.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. A "level of service" for a road is the quantification of the quality of travel on the road expressed by letter grades rating from an optimal operating condition of "A" to a rating of unstable operational conditions of "F". Local governments are required by Section 380.06(14), Florida Statutes, to insure that a development is consistent with its comprehensive plan. Therefore, it must insure that a DRI is consistent with the levels of service contained therein. See also Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes. The Florida Department of Transportation has also been specifically authorized to establish levels of service for state roads. Sections 334.044(10) and 336.45, Florida Statutes. The Department of Transportation has adopted Chapter 14-94, Florida Administrative Code, establishing levels of service for its use. The Department of Community Affairs has required that levels of service contained in local comprehensive plans be compatible with Department of Transportation levels of service "to the maximum extent feasible". Rule 9J- 5.0055(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. The Legislature has not specifically required or authorized regional planning councils to adopt levels of service. Nor has the Legislature specifically prohibited regional planning councils from adopting levels of service. The City's and Pasco's Comprehensive Plans. Pasco's comprehensive plan has been adopted and in compliance since June, 1989. In its comprehensive plan, Pasco has included levels of service for State roads which are compatible with those established by the Department of Transportation. Pasco uses the levels of service contained in its comprehensive plan to review DRI applications. The City adopted its comprehensive plan by Ordinance No. 89-167, in July, 1989. The City's comprehensive plan has been found to be in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The City's comprehensive plan contains transportation levels of service in its Traffic Circulation Element. The City uses the levels of service contained in its comprehensive plan to review DRI applications. The Challenged Rule. Pursuant to Section 186.507(1), Florida Statutes, TBRPC is required to include in its comprehensive regional policy plan regional issues that may be used in its review of DRI applications and the criteria TBRPC intends to rely on in its review. As part of its comprehensive regional policy plan, TBRPC has enacted Policy 20.11.1 of Goal 20 of the Future Of The Region, A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region, as Rule 29H-9.002, Florida Administrative Code. Notice of the Challenged Rule was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on July 24, 1992. The Challenged Rule was approved by TBRPC on September 14, 1992, and it was filed for adoption on October 12, 1992. The Challenged Rule provides: Development of Regional Impact (DRIs) shall be required to analyze project impacts and mitigate to an appropriate peak hour, peak season operating Level of Service (LOS) on regional roads. The level of service standards for DRI's within the Tampa Bay regional shall be: Rural Roads (those not included - C in an urbanized or urbanizing area or a TCMA Within designated CBDs - E Within designated Regional - E Activity Centers Within Transportation Concurrency - as Management Areas (TCMA) established pursuant to Sec. 9J-5.0057 Constrained or Backlogged - maintain Facilities existing V/C (Volume to Capacity) All other regional roadways - D If the affected local government(s) has more stringent standards, those standards will apply. TBRPC adopted the Challenged Rule to fulfill its responsibility to include the criteria for transportation impacts to be used in its DRI review in its comprehensive regional policy plan. TBRPC has been using levels of service for review of transportation impacts of DRIs since 1975. There are levels of service contained in the comprehensive plans of the City and Pasco which are different than some of the levels of service contained in the Challenged Rule. The Challenged Rule provides that the levels of service contained therein are to be used by TBRPC in its review of DRI applications except to the extent that a level of service contained in the local government's comprehensive plan may be more stringent. To the extent that a level of service in the Challenged Rule is more stringent, however, TBRPC intends to recommend to the local government the use of its more stringent level of service. Ultimately, if the local government decides to use a less stringent level of service contained in its comprehensive plan and its decision is appealed, FLWAC will be required to exercise its authority to determine which level of service is consistent with Florida law. The Challenged Rule does not require that local governments accept the levels of service created therein. The Challenged Rule establishes the levels of service that the TBRPC will use in its review and comment on DRI applications. The Challenged Rule also puts developers on notice of the levels of service that TBRPC will base its review of DRI applications on. While a local government must consider the comments of TBRPC, the Challenged Rule does nothing to change the fact that it is up to the local government, after consideration of its comprehensive plan, the State comprehensive plan and the comments of the TBRPC to make the ultimate decision as to whether a DRI application is consistent with State law. Local governments are not required to accept the levels of service contained in the Challenged Rule. Nor is TBRPC, in fulfilling its responsibility to review DRI applications, required by law to only apply levels of service established by local governments in their comprehensive plan. If a local government decides to apply a more strict level of service contained in the Challenged Rule as a result of a comment from TBRPC or as a result of an appeal to FLWAC, the costs associated with the DRI to the local government, including Pasco and the City, could be increased in order to achieve and maintain the higher level of service. Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to the authority of Section 380.06(23)(a), Florida Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs adopted Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the Department of Community Affairs' policy concerning its role in the review of DRI applications. Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, establishes the "minimum standards by which the Department will evaluate transportation conditions in development orders for developments of regional impact " As currently in effect, Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, specifically provides that the Department of Community Affairs, in evaluating a DRI application, will look to the "policies of the local comprehensive plan and Chapter 80 . . ." if a local comprehensive plan is in effect and to the "transportation conditions pursuant to 9J-5, F.A.C., and Chapter 380 . . . " if no local comprehensive plan is in effect. Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, is limited to Department of Community Affairs' evaluations of DRI applications. The Rule does not specify that regional planning councils must utilize the Rule or local government comprehensive plans in their review of DRI applications. The fact that Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, provides that, after a local comprehensive plan has been adopted and found to be in compliance, the levels of service contained therein will be used by the Department of Community Affairs for its purposes does not cause levels of service established by TBRPC for its purposes to be inconsistent with Rule 9J- 2.0255, Florida Administrative Code. The standards established in Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, are only designated as "minimum" standards. Nothing in the Challenged Rule requires the use of any standard less that those "minimum" standards even for purposes of TBRPC's review of DRI applications. The Challenged Rule even specifically provides that, to the extent that a level of service contained in a local government's comprehensive plan is more stringent than that contained in the Challenged Rule, that level of service will be applied by TBRPC. When originally adopted in January, 1987, Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, provided specific transportation levels of service which the Department of Community Affairs intended to use until comprehensive plans containing levels of service were adopted by local governments. The Rule provided, however, that it was not intended to "limit the ability of the regional planning councils and local governments to impose more stringent mitigation measures than those delineated in this rule." Rule 9J-2.0255(8), Florida Administrative Code. This provision is no longer effective. The original rule also did not specifically indicate that levels of service contained in local government comprehensive plans were to be used by the Department of Community Affairs as it now provides. While there was testimony during the final hearing of this matter that the use of different levels of service by TBRPC and the City or Pasco will result in "inconsistent" reviews of DRI applications, there is nothing in Florida Statutes or the Department of Community Affairs' rules that requires consistency in reviews. There was also testimony that such differences will "not promote efficient DRI review." If the Legislature believes the consideration by the TBRPC and local governments of different levels of service in reaching a decision on a DRI application is "inefficient", it has not made its belief clear in Florida Statutes. If the Legislature wants all of the various agencies involved in DRI review to "not disagree" in order to have "efficient" DRI reviews, it must specifically so provide. The Department of Community Affairs reviewed the Challenged Rule. During its review concern was expressed by the then Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs about the inclusion in the Challenged Rule of levels of service. TBRPC was urged "to adopt standards and methodologies for reviewing DRIs that are consistent with those used by the Department of Community Affairs." TBRPC was not, however, told that the use of levels of service consistent with local government comprehensive plans was required by Department of Community Affairs' rules or that the failure of TBRPC to comply with the Department's suggestion would cause the Challenged Rule to be considered inconsistent with Department of Community Affairs' rules. Concern was also expressed during the review of the Challenged Rule to the Department of Community Affairs by the Department of Transportation about possible inconsistencies of the Challenged Rule's levels of service with the Department of Transportation's Rules. Concerns were also raised within the Department of Community Affairs by the Bureau of State Planning. Ultimately, after considering comments from those interested in the Challenged Rule and in spite of the fact that the Department of Community Affairs would prefer that the levels of service used by the Department of Community Affairs, local governments and regional planning councils be the same, the Department of Community Affairs did not conclude that the Challenged Rule was inconsistent with Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, or any other statute or rule. I. Section 32, CS/CS/HB 2315. On April 4, 1993, Section 32, of CS/CS/HB 2315 (hereinafter referred to as "Section 32"), was enrolled. Section 32, if signed by the Governor, creates Section 186.507(14), and provides: (14) A regional planning council may not, in its strategic regional policy plan or by any other means, establish binding level-of- service standards for public facilities and services provided or regulated by local governments. This limitation shall not be construed to limit the authority of regional planning councils to propose objections, recommendations, or comments on local plans or plan amendments. Section 32 has not yet become law. Additionally, it Section 32 becomes law, it will not be effective until July 1, 1993. Section 32 was filed in this proceeding by BAGT on April 7, 1993, after the final hearing of these cases had closed. Section 32 was not available to the parties until immediately before it was filed by BAGT. Therefore, it could not have been raised at the time of the final hearing of these cases.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Pioneer Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
