<%BANNER%>

Residential Future Land Use Planning in South Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043040/00001

Material Information

Title: Residential Future Land Use Planning in South Florida Regional Analysis of Nine Counties
Physical Description: 1 online resource (198 p.)
Language: english
Creator: MCLEOD,JAY W
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 1985 -- ACT -- AFFAIRS -- BEACH -- BEBR -- BROWARD -- BUREAU -- BUSINESS -- COLLIER -- COMMUNITY -- CONSERVATION -- COUNTY -- DENSITY -- DEPARTMENT -- DEVELOPMENT -- DWELLING -- ECONOMIC -- ESTIMATION -- FLORIDA -- FLU -- FLUE -- FLUM -- FLUMS -- FUTURE -- GLADES -- GROWTH -- HARRIS -- LAND -- LANDUSE -- LEE -- LEHIGH -- LUCIE -- MANAGEMENT -- MAP -- MARTIN -- MIAMI -- MONROE -- PALM -- PLANNING -- POPULATION -- PROJECTION -- RESEARCH -- RESIDENTIAL -- SAINT -- SFWMD -- SOUTH -- UNITS -- USE -- VESTED
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Future Land Use Maps (FLUMs) are a manifestation of a community?s vision for the future development of an area, and are mandated by Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3177. The FLUMs for over 85 cities and 15 counties from among the 154 local governments within the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) were initially assembled and compiled to understand cumulative regional vision and to allow the District to coordinate with local governments and enhance their ability to integrate land use and water resource planning. Subsequently, these aggregated FLUMs were used to study future land use planning, specifically residential future land use planning, in South Florida. The FLUMs were standardized to the SFWMD Generalized Future Land Use Categories methodology, which facilitates comparisons across political boundaries. This information was used to identify large-scale trends in future land use that span municipal boundaries. These areas may benefit from future policy and planning assistance and can help focus the utilization of limited resources. Nine counties in particular are used to illustrate a trend in FLUMs toward over-allocation of residential future land use. Six of the nine counties have enough data to be investigated further. Using data from each local government FLUM within a county, a population projection is extrapolated using a full buildout scenario of the current FLUM. Mixed use and residential future land use categories populations are projected by multiplying land use density maximums (from local comprehensive plans) by acreage covered for each category, using people per dwelling unit as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is important because most population projections do not derive from, or account for, future land use. These FLUM population projections are then compared to the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population projections for each county. BEBR population projections are a state accepted standard that local governments may be used to develop their future land use demand. This gives some measure of the validity of these FLUMs in relation to accepted population projections. It is particularly interesting because most of these local governments initially used the BEBR population projections to determine their future land use demand, from which they created their FLUMs. Summaries of aggregated acreage, population projections, and compiled FLUMs are provided for each county, and are further separated by local government future land use categories. The trend toward over-allocation of residential future land use is apparent, when full buildout condition is projected. All but one county studied exceeded 125% over-allocation of residential future land use. In their adopted, approved FLUM, each county, with its cities included, could accommodate more residential population than BEBR projects them to have, even when using the highest BEBR projections. This does not indicate that local residential future land use planning has occurred in a manner consistent with state-accepted population projections, according to the Growth Management Act of 1985 and subsequent, related legislation.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by JAY W MCLEOD.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043040:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043040/00001

Material Information

Title: Residential Future Land Use Planning in South Florida Regional Analysis of Nine Counties
Physical Description: 1 online resource (198 p.)
Language: english
Creator: MCLEOD,JAY W
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 1985 -- ACT -- AFFAIRS -- BEACH -- BEBR -- BROWARD -- BUREAU -- BUSINESS -- COLLIER -- COMMUNITY -- CONSERVATION -- COUNTY -- DENSITY -- DEPARTMENT -- DEVELOPMENT -- DWELLING -- ECONOMIC -- ESTIMATION -- FLORIDA -- FLU -- FLUE -- FLUM -- FLUMS -- FUTURE -- GLADES -- GROWTH -- HARRIS -- LAND -- LANDUSE -- LEE -- LEHIGH -- LUCIE -- MANAGEMENT -- MAP -- MARTIN -- MIAMI -- MONROE -- PALM -- PLANNING -- POPULATION -- PROJECTION -- RESEARCH -- RESIDENTIAL -- SAINT -- SFWMD -- SOUTH -- UNITS -- USE -- VESTED
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Future Land Use Maps (FLUMs) are a manifestation of a community?s vision for the future development of an area, and are mandated by Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3177. The FLUMs for over 85 cities and 15 counties from among the 154 local governments within the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) were initially assembled and compiled to understand cumulative regional vision and to allow the District to coordinate with local governments and enhance their ability to integrate land use and water resource planning. Subsequently, these aggregated FLUMs were used to study future land use planning, specifically residential future land use planning, in South Florida. The FLUMs were standardized to the SFWMD Generalized Future Land Use Categories methodology, which facilitates comparisons across political boundaries. This information was used to identify large-scale trends in future land use that span municipal boundaries. These areas may benefit from future policy and planning assistance and can help focus the utilization of limited resources. Nine counties in particular are used to illustrate a trend in FLUMs toward over-allocation of residential future land use. Six of the nine counties have enough data to be investigated further. Using data from each local government FLUM within a county, a population projection is extrapolated using a full buildout scenario of the current FLUM. Mixed use and residential future land use categories populations are projected by multiplying land use density maximums (from local comprehensive plans) by acreage covered for each category, using people per dwelling unit as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is important because most population projections do not derive from, or account for, future land use. These FLUM population projections are then compared to the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population projections for each county. BEBR population projections are a state accepted standard that local governments may be used to develop their future land use demand. This gives some measure of the validity of these FLUMs in relation to accepted population projections. It is particularly interesting because most of these local governments initially used the BEBR population projections to determine their future land use demand, from which they created their FLUMs. Summaries of aggregated acreage, population projections, and compiled FLUMs are provided for each county, and are further separated by local government future land use categories. The trend toward over-allocation of residential future land use is apparent, when full buildout condition is projected. All but one county studied exceeded 125% over-allocation of residential future land use. In their adopted, approved FLUM, each county, with its cities included, could accommodate more residential population than BEBR projects them to have, even when using the highest BEBR projections. This does not indicate that local residential future land use planning has occurred in a manner consistent with state-accepted population projections, according to the Growth Management Act of 1985 and subsequent, related legislation.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by JAY W MCLEOD.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043040:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE PLANNING IN SOUTH FLORIDA : REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF NINE COUNTIES By JAY MCLEOD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Jay McL eod

PAGE 3

3 Dedicated to my parents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the employees of the South Florida Water Management District, especially the m embers of the Intergovernmental Policy and Planning Division during the summer of 2010, for all their support and expertise. I would like to thank Dr. Ruth Steiner and Dr. Kathryn Frank for serving on my committee and their guidance in the creation of this thesis. F inally I would like to thank my parents and Meg for all their support and encouragement which has been a lot!

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 The Question ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 14 Backgr ound ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15 2 FRAMEWORK ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 19 Policy Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19 Supporting Literature ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 Location of the Project ................................ ................................ ............................ 29 3 PURPOSE AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ................... 32 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 32 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 32 On Accuracy and Scale ................................ ................................ .......................... 33 Population Projection Te chniques ................................ ................................ .......... 34 SFWMD Generalized Future Land Use Categories ................................ ................ 36 On Future Land Uses ................................ ................................ .............................. 37 GIS Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 38 Results and Table Interpretation ................................ ................................ ............. 40 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 47 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 47 Broward County ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 49 Collier County ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 51 Glades County ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 53 Lee County ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 54 Martin County ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 56 Miami Dade Co unty ................................ ................................ ................................ 58 Monroe County ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 60

PAGE 6

6 Palm Beach County ................................ ................................ ................................ 61 Saint Lucie County ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 63 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 65 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 106 Regarding Population Projections ................................ ................................ ......... 106 General Comparisons ................................ ................................ ........................... 107 Comparisons among Counties ................................ ................................ .............. 109 Comp arisons between Counties ................................ ................................ ........... 109 Land Use Density Changes ................................ ................................ .................. 111 Sprawl Reduction Planning Policies (SRPPs) ................................ ....................... 113 Full Buildout Population Densities ................................ ................................ ........ 114 Federally Owned Land ................................ ................................ .......................... 115 Private Property Rights Legislation ................................ ................................ ....... 115 Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments ................................ ................... 116 A New Hierarchy ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 117 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 125 APPENDIX A SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GENERALIZED FUTURE LAND USE METHODOLOGY ................................ ............................... 134 B KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE FLUM ATLAS TABLES ................................ ... 139 C FUTURE LAND USE ATLAS FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FL .............................. 141 D FUTURE LAND USE ATLAS F OR COLLIER COUNTY, FL ................................ 145 E FUTURE LAND USE ATLAS FOR GLADES COUNTY, FL ................................ .. 149 F FUTURE LAND USE ATLAS FOR LEE COUNTY, FL ................................ ......... 152 G FUTURE LAND USE ATLAS FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FL ................................ ... 159 H FUTURE LAND USE ATLAS FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FL ........................... 163 I FUTURE LAND USE ATLAS FOR MONROE COUNTY, FL ................................ 170 J FUTURE LAND USE ATLAS FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL ......................... 173 K FUTURE LAND USE ATLAS FOR SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FL .......................... 188 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 194 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 198

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Selected planning horizons for South Florida municipalities ............................... 44 3 2 U.S. Census data and BEBR population projections for selected years and selected South Florida counties. ................................ ................................ ......... 45 3 3 U.S. Census data for selected South Florida municipalities that was used to determin e full buildout population projections. ................................ .................... 46 3 4 Explanation of fields present in the first table in each county, used to analyze FLUM data in each compiled county. ................................ ................................ 46 4 1 Future land use acreages summarized by county. ................................ ............. 70 4 2 Table summarized by county. ................................ ................................ ............. 71 4 3 Full buildout population projection comparison and percentage allocated summarized by county. ................................ ................................ ....................... 72 4 4 Future land use summary for Broward County. ................................ .................. 74 4 5 Population projection comparison for Broward County. ................................ ...... 75 4 6 Percentage allocated comparison for Broward County. ................................ ...... 75 4 7 Future land use summary for Collier County. ................................ ..................... 77 4 8 Population projection comparison for Collier County. ................................ ......... 78 4 9 Percentage allocated comparison for Collier County. ................................ ......... 78 4 10 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Collier County and the cities therein. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 79 4 11 Future land use summary for Glades County. ................................ .................... 81 4 12 Population projection comparison for Glades County. ................................ ........ 82 4 13 Percentage allocated comparison for Glades County. ................................ ........ 82 4 14 Future land use summary for Lee County. ................................ ......................... 84 4 15 Pop ulation projection comparison for Lee County. ................................ ............. 85 4 16 P ercentage allocated comparison for Lee County. ................................ ............. 85

PAGE 8

8 4 17 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Lee County and the cities therein. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 86 4 18 Future land use summary for Martin County. ................................ ...................... 88 4 1 9 Population projection comparison for Martin County. ................................ ......... 89 4 20 Percentage allocated comparison for Martin County. ................................ ......... 89 4 21 Compari son of full buildout population projections of Martin County and the cities therein. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 90 4 22 Future land use summary for Miami Dade County. ................................ ............ 92 4 23 Population projection comparison for Miami Dade County. ................................ 93 4 24 Percentage allocated comparison for Miami Dade County. ................................ 93 4 25 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Miami Dade County and the cities therein. ................................ ................................ ................................ 94 4 26 Future land use summary for Monroe County. ................................ ................... 96 4 27 Population projection comparison for Monroe County. ................................ ....... 97 4 28 Percentage allocated comparison for Monroe County. ................................ ....... 97 4 29 Future land use summary for Palm Beach County. ................................ ............ 99 4 30 Population projection comparison for Palm Beach County. .............................. 100 4 31 Percentage allocated comparison for Palm Beach County. .............................. 100 4 32 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Palm Beach County and the cities therein. ................................ ................................ .............................. 101 4 33 Future land use summary for Saint Lucie County. ................................ ............ 103 4 34 Population projection comparison for Saint Lucie County. ............................... 104 4 35 Percentage allocated comparison for Saint Lucie County. ............................... 104 4 36 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Saint Lu cie County and the cities therein. ................................ ................................ .............................. 105 4 37 Comparison of full buildout population projections for the reporting cities in Saint Lucie County. ................................ ................................ .......................... 105 5 1 Population change, as reported by Sanchez and Mandel (2007). .................... 121

PAGE 9

9 5 2 Comparison of sprawl by different methods. ................................ .................... 121 5 3 Ranking of counties by amount of sprawl. ................................ ........................ 122 5 4 Equivalent densities across different FLUs in full buildout scenario. ................ 123 5 5 Comparison of selected cities in full buildout population projection in new hierarchy scenario, where counties accommodate zero population. ................ 124 A 1 SFWMD generalized future land use categories ................................ .............. 137 B 1 Explanation of fi for each county ....... 139 C 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Broward County. ................................ .......................... 142 D 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Collier County. ................................ ............................. 146 E 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Glades County. ................................ ............................ 150 F 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Lee County. ................................ ................................ 153 G 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Martin County. ................................ ............................. 160 H 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Miami Dade County. ................................ .................... 164 I 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Monroe County. ................................ ........................... 171 J 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Palm Beach County. ................................ .................... 174 K 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Saint Lucie County. ................................ ...................... 189

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Locator map for selected counties in South Florida. ................................ ........... 31 4 1 Spatial overview of compiled, standardized Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for SFWMD. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 67 4 2 Spatial overview of compiled, standardized FLUM for northern SFWMD. .......... 68 4 3 Spatial overview of compiled, standardized FLUM for southern SFWMD. ......... 69 4 4 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Broward County. ................................ .......... 73 4 5 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Collier County. ................................ .............. 76 4 6 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Glades County. ................................ ............ 80 4 7 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Lee County ................................ ................... 83 4 8 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Martin County. ................................ .............. 87 4 9 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Miami Dade County. ................................ .... 91 4 10 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Monroe County. ................................ ............ 95 4 11 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Palm Beach County. ................................ .... 98 4 12 Co mpiled, standardized FLUM for Saint Lucie County. ................................ .... 102

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S DCA Department of Community Affairs DRI Development of Regional Impact FAC Florida Administrative Codes FLU Future Land Use FLUE Future Land Use E lement FLUM Future Land Use Map FS Florida Statutes GMA Growth Management Act (of State of Florida, 1985) IPPD Intergovernmental Policy and Planning Division (of SFWMD) SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SJRWMD Saint Johns River Water Managemen t District SRPP Sprawl Reduction Planning Policy SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District TDR Transfer of Development Rights USGS United States Geologic Survey

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Urban and Regional Planning RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE PLANNING IN SOUTH FLORIDA: REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF NINE COUNTIES By Jay McL eod May 2011 Chair: Ruth Steiner Major : Urban and Regional Planning the future development of an area, and are mandated by Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3177 T he FLUMs for over 85 cities and 15 counties from among the 154 local governments within the South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD ) were initially assembled and compiled to understand cumulative regional vision and to allow the District to coordinate with local governments and enhance their ability to integrate land use and water resource planning. Subsequently, these aggregated FLUMs were used to study future land use planning, specifically residential future land use planning, in S outh Florida. The FLUMs were standardized to the SFWMD Generalized Futu re Land Use Categories methodology, which facilitates comparisons across political boundaries. This information was used to identify large scale trends in future land use that span municipal boundaries. These areas may benefit from future policy and planni ng assistance and can help focus the utilization of limited resources. Nine counties in particular are used to illustrate a trend in FLUMs toward over allocation of residential future land use. Six of the nine counties have enough data to be investigated f urther. U sing data from each local government FLUM within a county, a

PAGE 13

13 population projection is extrapolated using a full buildout scenario of the current FLUM Mixed use and residential future land use categories populations are projected by multiplying la nd use density maximums (from local comprehensive plans ) by acreage covered for each category, using people per dwelling unit as determi ned by the U.S. Census Bureau This is important because most population projections do not derive from or account for future land use. These FLUM population projections are then compared to the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) populatio n projections for each county. BE BR population projections are a state accepted standard that local governments may be use d to develop their future land use demand. This gives some measure of the validity of these FLUMs in relation to accepted population projections. It is particularly interesting because most of these local governments initially used th e BEBR population projections to determine their future land use demand from which they created their FLUMs Summaries of aggregated acreage, population projections, and compiled FLUMs are provided for each county, and are further separated by local gover nment future land use categories. The trend toward over allocation of residential future land use is apparent, when full buildout condition is projected. All but one county studied exceeded 125% over allocation of residential future land use. In their adop ted, approved FLUM, each county, with its cities included, could accommodate more residential population than BEBR projects them to have, even when using the highest BEBR projections This does not indicate that local residential future land use planning h as occurred in a manner consistent with state accepted population projections according to th e Growth Management Act of 1985 and subsequent related legislation.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Question South Florida has experienced lots of growth, both befo re and after growth management legislation was passed by the state in 1985 South Florida (especially Miami Dade and Broward Counties) is the result of what amounts to an unregulated, development land grab: endless subdivisions, vast mono cultures of singl e land uses, and fully built out municipalities exist where there could have been coherent, intelligent ly planned communities. In part, this is why the State of Florida enacted growth management laws, designed to give citizens, and not just profit driven d evelopers, a say in the future of their community. The state of Florida, seeing the incremental development by accretion, decided that a more cohesive planning process was necessary to preserve the quality of life of residents. The state legislature issu ed and amended several growth management laws that mandated comprehensive plans, and future land use maps, among other devices, to direct future development in a community approved vision. However, local governments are generally more concerned with local development, an d increasing the local tax base to grow the community, with little regard for neighboring communities or the regional impact of their incremental growth ( Anthony 2004 ) This research seeks to understand if state mandated comprehensive planni ng processes are for producing plans and policies at the local level that accomplish the goals of higher p.458 ). Have the growth management laws of the state of Florida actually create d a plan for the future which describes controlle d, intelligent growth ?

PAGE 15

15 Background All governmental agencies need to be concerned with growth management, as the population of the United State s is expected to increase by 50% above year 2000 in the next 20 to 40 year s (US Census Bureau, 2000, US GAO, 2000). Additionally, over 75% of people in the United States now live in cities of 100,000 people or more (Carreiro 2008). Humans are converting rural land uses to urban areas at an incredible pace (Carreiro 2008, Wu 2008 ). Compounding that, metropolitan populations are using more land per capita as they expand than a few decades ago (Fulton et al., 2001). Naturally, the regulation of growth is a prime function of government whenever there are scarce resources in conflict with public health safety and welfare. Water resource provision is a primary concern of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and current technologies and water sources can only provide so much water to residents and industry. Currently, t he SFWMD has put a moratorium on the development of new water sources in many areas because of perceived future water resource deficiency. In fact, as we will see, the development that is allowed in currently approved FLUMs would not be able to provide for the water resource needs of that population at the current level of service. Additionally, although much of South Florida is designated as conservation because of the Everglades National Park, ecosystem services become a scarce public resource as land is converted to urban uses. This project was initially envisioned and designed to inform the future of water resource planning in the region by the members of the SFWMD Intergovernmental Policy and Planning Division. The project was executed by the author du ring a summer internship in 2010 for the aforementioned purpose. However, upon further inspection of

PAGE 16

16 the data that was gathered and processed, it became apparent that this data could have also be used to evaluate the degree to which the FLUMs that are crea ted are properly implemented for the purpose with which they were designed. The state of Florida has organized counties and cities on relatively equal standing under the law: each is generally considered sovereign. Although the Growth Management Act of 198 5 (GMA) requires consistency between surrounding municipalities, it is loosely enforced by the state, as it relies upon and generally defers to the expertise of local officials (Burby and Dalton, 1994) Since Florida does not have a state income tax, the r evenue of most local governments is derived from property taxes while the state relies heavily upon a state sales tax This system encourages both counties and cities to compete for development within their boundaries, to bolster their budgets and the st ate generally respects the expertise of local officials As such, vast areas are often zoned for some type of development or another, in the hopes that some business or builder with a plethora of available sellers, will be tempted to join the local tax ba se. Each governmental entity state, county, and city ha s a comprehensive plan: a document that directs future development out to a specific temporal planning horizon. However, this process has not entirely created the desired effect of regulated growth according to a community master plan. Instead we still witness sprawling, incremental accretion. Partially this is due to the nature of the planning process. The recognized planning horizon only sees the short term future, and not the end product of the d evelopment. For instance, no comprehensive plan in this study acknowledges that there will ever be an end to the amount of development allowable, just that there is a

PAGE 17

17 limit within the planning horizon. There is never a growth ceiling, just managed incremen talism. This type of incremental accretion, w began in the post WWII years with the returning soldiers, cheap, G.I. Bill home loans, and the 30 year mortgage (Lawrence, 2005). Regions of South Florida (particul arly in Miami Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties) are characterized by urban sprawl. density, noncontiguous, automobile dependent, residential and nonresidential development that consumes relatively larg e Brody, Carrasco, and Highfield (2006) also include spiraling outward growth, leap frogging development, and separation of land uses. FLUMs that encourage sprawl can cr eate negative impacts on a community, including air and water pollution, infrastructure costs, and environmental and social inequities (Anthony 2004, Bengston, Fletcher and Nelson, 2004, Johnson and Klemens, 2005, Ewing, 1997, Porter, 2000, and Squires, 20 02). The future development in South Florida is threatening the public welfare by causing a decrease in quality of life, and ecosystem resource provision future of the region. This type of incremental accretion has led to sprawl in many Florida cities, esp ecially in South Florida (Lopez and Hynes, 2003 Brody, Carrasco, and Highfield, 2006 ). S prawl can be created by a FLUM that includes more area for future growth than is predicted to occur during the planning horizon. Leap frogging development can be facilitated when any FLUM category is over allocated for the planning horizon. This is

PAGE 18

18 because market forces will dictate that a surplus in locational options for any FLU will drive the prices for that land down. Developers, who are rightly concerned with profit margins, will seek to buy and build on the cheapest land. If there is a surplus in available land, a somewhat random devel opment pattern will occur as landowners sell to developers in somewhat random locations (Clawson, 1962) This development pattern will create a spatial development pattern that does not necessarily concentrate development near existing urban centers, thus undermining the one of the primary advantages of cities: economies of scale. ( Clawson, 1962, As far houses are often reflected back (p.102). This is how a FLUM that has over allocated land when compared to its future demand projections creates a land market that encourages sprawl ( Clawson, 1962)

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 FRAMEWORK Policy Framework Due to the perceived unregulated growth in Florida during the 1970s and 1980s, state legislators enacted various growth management laws (detailed below) to re focus development in a more coherent fashion In response to anticipated local government opposition, the growth management laws had provisions that required state approval, via an agency created for that purpose, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). In holding with that common sense approach, oversight and sanctions are required to motivate lower level governments to pursue desired state policies when the two levels of government disagree on policy goals and May and Burby (1996) agreed that local governments generally required strong coercion to cooperate with state planning goals when the local government is less committed to those goals although a cooperative approach is preferred The growth management laws of Flo rida are widely recognized as progressive because they grant substantial review powers to the DCA, as well as the ability to impose fiscal sanctions by withholding state money, on communities that are found not in compliance (Burby and Dalton, 1994, Deyle and Smith, 1998) Florida growth management framework grew out of a recognized necessity for curbing unplanned development. long recognized the necessity of regulating growth (Anthony 2004). Although some of the first growth management legislation in Florida occurred in 1975, with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (Pelham, 2007 ), it did not gain real teeth until

PAGE 20

20 1 985. (GMA) which includes the 1984 Florida State and Regional Planning Act, 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act, and 1986 Glitch Bill, (Chapin, Connerly, and Higgins, 2007 p.1 ) created requirements for each mu nicipality regarding future land use planning. Among other requirements, e ach municipality must create a community supported comprehensive plan, which contains a Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM), as provided for in Florida Stat utes, Chapter 163. element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, pub lic buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other The comprehensive plan is a legally binding document between citizens and their government The comprehensive plan, FLUE, a nd FLUM are revised on a regular basis ; generally 5 7 years For a more detailed history of the sequence and explanation of growth management legislation in Florida, see Pelham, Hyde, and Banks (1985). The FLUM designates areas in the municipality where c ertain land uses can be located. The FLUE of the comprehensive plan requires that the municipality create a FLUM that specifies where future development may occur. The FLUM should be able to accommodate the growth that is expected to occur for at least 10 years from the adoption of the comprehensive plan (§163.3177(5)), although many municipalities adopt a much longer planning horizon (15 20 years from adoption). Deyle and Smith (1998 ) explain the comprehensive plan and DCA review process best:

PAGE 21

21 Local govern ments were required to submit their draft plans to DCA for review according to a schedule that spanned four years: 1988 1991. DCA reviewed the plans in two stages. Teams of planners conducted line by line reviews of the draft plans against the administrati ve requirements. They itemized each plan's deficiencies and made suggestions for revisions. The review teams' recommendations were themselves reviewed, and often amended, by senior staff in the agency. Jurisdictions then had 60 days to revise and adopt the ir comprehensive plans, after which DCA conducted a "compliance" review. The formal decision to find the plan in compliance, and if appropriate, to impose sanctions for noncompliance, was then made by the State Administration Commission, consisting o f the Governor and the Cabinet. (p.5) One of the key concepts in the 1985 Growth Management Act is the idea of concurrency; that development must be concurrent with municipal provision of services (i.e roads, water, sewer and power connection, etc.). was the first state to require all local governments to adopt adequate public facility ordinances for selected also known as concurrency d c oncurrency ha ve been criticized for failing to reduce uncontrolled, sprawling development ( Lopez and Hynes, 2003 ), they ha ve also been praised for reducing sprawl ( Nelson, 1999, and Pelham, 2007). T he FLUE and FLUM a re supposed to combine future populat ion projected demand with a geographic location for planned provision of services, and consequent areas where development would be allowed within the planning horizon. This is where the logical nexus of population projection to determine future demand and future land use planning and occurs. Municipalities determine future population projected demand by creating population projections for their communities. By examining past development trends, birth and immigration rates, municipalities create projected de mand for the period of the planning horizon. The Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) creates

PAGE 22

22 population projections for all municipalities in Florida. These are recognized in Florida Statutes Chapter 163, section 9J 5 as acceptable sources of p opulatio n projections for creating comprehensive plans, FLUMs, and projecting future demand Florida Administrative Codes, Rule 9J 5 allows, and even recommends, that municipalities use the BEBR medium population projections for their particular planning h orizon, and most generally do. Additionally, a local government can choose to perform their own population projections, so long as they justify their rationale to DCA (Population Estimation and Projection Techniques, 1986, p.6). BEBR publishes population e stimations and projections annually for certain pre established horizons (such as 10 15 and 20 year projections). Currently, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) manages the 8 million people, and includes the Everglades National Park Lake Okeechobee, and associated lands. This project was initially undertaken in order to allow the District to better manage water resources, as they pertain to future development in the 154 local governments tha t are served by the District which includes 16 counties Subsequently, this project was determined to be appropriate for investigating the integrity of residential future land use planning in S outh Florida counties. Supporting Literature The 1960s and 197 0s saw the beginnings of the environmental movement, and growing concern about the costs of sprawl and associated urban flight, as an environmental and social blight. There was a nationwide pushback against sprawl in the late 1990s, as evidenced by growing interest in growth management and smart growth (Bengston, Fletcher and Nelson, 2004, and Myers, 1999). Growth management has

PAGE 23

23 been defin guide the location, quality, and timing of ng concern with the impacts of sprawls also saw the increase in the role of regional entities in growth management ( Anthony, 2004, Weitz and Seltzer, 1998) which is embodied in Florida by the involvement of the state, Regional Planning Councils (RPCs), and Water Management Districts (WMDs). About 12 states have developed some sort of growth management efforts over the past four decades (Weitz, 1999), but exceptionally far reaching. Generally speaking, states have r esponded with growth management efforts where concerns over rapid urban development and associated impacts clash with environmental concerns ( Bengston, Fletcher and Nelson, 2004, and Weitz, 1999). Florida, with its environmental tourism (beaches) and extre me growth pressures, is a prime example, especially in South Florida However, even good legislation can be stymied if there is not a supportive administration (Deyle and Smith, 1998), a n effective administrative process, and political will (Bardach, 1979) All that said, the Florida DCA took on a considerable job when the comprehensive planning process began in the late 19 80s. Aside from DCA being required to review over 400 comprehensive plans in the first few years after GMA 1985, director Thomas Pelham also reported that in 1988 and 1989, financial sanctions had to be levied against three communities that attempted to ignore the new legislation (Deyle and Smith, 1998). In a study of South Florida coastal communities, including West Palm Beach, Palm Beac h County, Monroe Cou nty, Cape Coral, and Lee County, who had written comprehensive plans required to conform to state of Florida mandated coastal hazard

PAGE 24

24 issues, plan quality varied. T salience in th e communities that had more recent hurricane experience before they 461 ). Likewise, it could be extrapolated that when considering residential future land use planning, communities with less undeveloped land, that have experienced greater growth pressures in recent years, would have greater salience to state planning mandates requiring adherence to approved population projections. In the framework of testing in the current project, this would translate to lowe r allocation of residential Future Land Use ( FLU ) in counties that have a history of intense growth pressures, versus counties who have only recently encountered those pressures. Anthony (2004) uses population density as a measure of sprawl when analyzing the effectiveness of state growth management policies. Lopez and Hynes (2003) use population density at the census tract level in their creation of a metropolitan sprawl index. Nelson (1999) uses density per metropolitan urban area to categorize sprawl in cities. This project uses population per county as a measure of density, but does not attempt to standardize by any unit of area. Instead, the potential county population is compared to population projections that have been developed for the same land area s. Anthony (2004) conducted a study of land use change in the lower 48 states plus Hawaii for the time period 1982 1992 and 1992 1997. From 1982 1997, the average change in urban land for states with growth management legislation was 49.16%, with an avera ge change in urban land density of 9.50%. The average change in urban land for states without growth management legislation was 36.69%, with an average change in urban land density of

PAGE 25

25 without grow th management legislation was 63.12%, with an average change in urban land density of 6.66%. This study was obviously very far reaching, and did not attempt to control for factors such as interstate migrations. However, it is clear that although Florida e xperienced growth well above the national average, it did not experience as much of a decrease in urban density as even the other growth managed states. This sprawl. I n the conclusions of that study, Anthony goes on to state the following: State mandated measures need to be implemented at the local level. If at the local level there is no political support f or the state mandated measures, regardless of how significant a nd comprehensiv e those measures are, their implementation will be weak. This is certainly the case in Florida, where, in spite of state growth management law, local development planning in many jurisdictions is guided by the desire for more growth. ( 2004, p.390 ). Incidentally, of the 10 most sprawling metropolitan areas in Florida, as defined by of 75 or higher out of a possible score of 100 four were in the area covered by this study (Lopez and Hynes, 2003). The Sprawl Index for the Fort Myers Cape Coral area was 89/100; the Fort Pierce Port Saint Lucie area was 92/100; Miami was 16/100 (comparatively very dense ; probably because it has been nearly built out already ); Naples was 75/100; and the West Palm Beach Boca Raton area was 47/100 (L opez and Hynes, 2003). Nelson (1999) shows evidence, gleaned from U.S. Census reports of 1980 and 1990 urbanized population density changed by 5.14% during the decade. This is in comparison to Oregon ( 0.53%) and Georgia ( 15.85%) during t he same time period. During that time period, Oregon is an example of a state with strong state mandated growth management policies (since 1973), and Georgia is an example of a state without strong growth management legislation.

PAGE 26

26 Another facet involved in t he development of FLUMs is the strong private property movement in the United States. It could be said that the entire nation is founded on the principle of private property, and it is exemplified in Bert J. Harris Jr. Property Rights Protection Act of 1995 (Harris Act). The Harris Act provides for fair market value compensation for landowners with vested rights in real property that are disadvantaged by law or deed of a local government (Stroud and Wright, 1996). impact [of t unmeasurable, but real chilling effect the [Harris] Act will have on governmental Because of certain c oncepts within the law that can be broadly construed and have generally had their scope expanded monetary consequences, creat e a strong incentive for government to compromise its (Stroud and Wright, 1996, p.2). The Harris Act seeks to create a separate, more easily attainable, takings test regard ing vested rights and lowers the bar for determining standing to sue whenever any governmental action has caused a change in the value of their real property (Stroud and Wright, 1996). In part, the Harris Act is so extremist not only actual existing uses that may be changed, but also for those future uses that are foreseeable, nonspecula The immeasurable effects of this law on FLU

PAGE 27

27 planning may have been partially revealed in the assessment of residential FLU planning in this study. Giv en the large areas in many county FLUMs of residential and mixed use designation, it is important to explore the idea of Development of Regional Impact (DRI). A DRI is a development that will have a disproportionately large impact upon the surrounding area The DRI process represents an exemption to the GMA that allows large, often well funded developments to, in effect, skirt the local comprehensive p lan. According to Florida Administrative Codes (FAC ) Rule 28 24.023, the following residential developments thresholds trigger the designation of a DRI: (a) In counties with a population of less than 25,000 250 dwelling units. (b) In counties with a population between 25,000 and 50,000 500 dwelling uni ts. (c) In counties with a population between 50,001 and 100,000 750 dwelling units. (d) In counties with a population between 100,001 and 250,000 1,000 dwelling units. (e) In counties with a population between 250,001 and 500,000 2,000 dwelling unit s. (f) In counties with a population in excess of 500,000 3,000 dwelling units. And according to FAC Rule 28 24.032, the following mixed use development thresholds trigger the designation of a DRI: (1) Any proposed development with two or more land uses where the sum of the percentages of the appropriate thresholds identified in Rules 28 24.015 through 28 24.017, 28 24.019 through 28 24.021, 28 24.023 through 28 24.024, 28 24.026 through 28 24.027 and 28 24.029 through 28 24.031, F.A.C., for each land use in the development is equal to or greater than 145 percent; or

PAGE 28

28 (2) Any proposed development with three or more land uses, one of which is residential and contains 100 dwelling units or 15 percent of the applicable residential threshold, whichever is great er, where the sum of the percentages of the appropriate thresholds identified in Rules 28 24.015 through 28 24.017, 28 24.019 through 28 24.021, 28 24.023 through 28 24.024, 28 24.026 through 28 24.027 and 28 24.029 through 28 24.031, F.A.C., for each land use in the development is equal to or greater than 160 percent. The thresholds listed in subsections (1) and (2) of this paragraph are in addition to, and do not preclude, a development from being required to undergo development of regional impact review under any other threshold. Also fairly unique to Florida growth management planning is the express division of the powers of state. Executive, legislative, and judicial powers are expressly reserved for their respective branch, and are prohibited from bei ng executed by members o f another branch, according to the state of Florida constitution (Scoules, 2002). This means that it is unconstitutional in Florida for a body to designate areas, and then regulate them as well. Therefore, it is important for an exe cutive body, such as a state or local planning entity to have their mission delegated to them by an appropriate legislative body. This disconnect in the planning process is designed to maintain balance in government. Bengston, Fletcher, and Nelson (2004) s ummarize the reports of several authors (p.279). Very few studies examine the impact t hat state growth management policies have had in reducing sprawl (Anthony 2004). Since growth management has a strong effect on the economics of a region, both in terms of lost potential development and impacts of sprawl (Burchell et al., 1998) the lack o f empirical studies is notably small (Bengston, Fletcher, and Nelson, 2004) The project described in this paper will address

PAGE 29

29 the impact that the comprehensive plan FLUM has had i n directing residential FLU planning in South Florida Location of the Projec t South Florida makes a good study site because in the region is experiencing high centers have forced the Everglades ecosystem and associated biodiversity into a state recently been sued by the federal government for the degradation of water quality in the Everglades, most of which occurs from runoff from human inhabited areas, such as the Everglades Agricultural Area and urban centers. It is a landmark case, where the ultimate question is whether downstream landowners can demand unpolluted water runoff from a manageme nt authority that does not own the upstream lands. As South Florida develops, humans not only impact water resources by withdrawal for consumptive purposes and through leaky wastewater disposal systems but also through the use of fertilizers and pesticide s This also justifies the study of future development patterns in South Florida because continued sprawl could continue to negatively impact the Everglades. In this project, the FLUMs for 8 counties and 78 cities were assembled, standardized, and analyze d in order to determine the general condition of future land use planning in South Florida and the specific condition of residential future land use planning. Figure 1 1 shows the location of the counties used in this study. These counties were chosen bec ause they are within the South Florida Water Management District, and reported back enough information to make a whole county analysis

PAGE 30

30 relevant. Hendry County did not report back at all, and was not used in the analysis. Miami Dade and Palm Beach Counties reported back a good amount of data, but not enough to justify a more in depth analysis; however, they do represent a trend, even with a limited amount of data. Only Broward, Collier, Glades, Lee, Martin, and Saint Lucie Counties reported back enough infor mation to justify making further more in depth comparisons and analysis. The area of this study encompasses upwards of 30% of the population in the state of Florida.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 1 1 Locator map for selected counties in South Florida.

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 3 PURPOSE AN D METHODS Overview The Future Land Use Maps ( FLUMs ) for 9 counties and many of the cities located within their boundaries were combined in ArcGIS 9.3 and standardized to Future Land Use ( FLU ) categories. Each county was then analyzed by comparing a full b uildout scenario to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research ( BEBR ) Medium 2020 Population Projections; a relevant comparative time period to the planning horizon for each county. Full buildout is what would occur if every acre of residential or mixed use land on the FLUM were built to maximum density, as specified in each local as currently allowable in the adopted FLUMs. In this way, the aggregated FLUM for each county wa s determined to be over or under allocated, with respect to residential future land use. Purpose This project was implemented in order to examine future land use planning from a regional perspective. Comprehensive plans and FLUMs are necessarily local in nature, and tailored to local needs. This means that neighboring municipalities may have different future land use designations and different future land use objectives. In order to better anticipate, plan for, and evaluate future planning issues, it is n ecessary to evaluate large scale trends in future land use planning. For that reason, I assimilated and categorized F LUM s from as many counties and cities as would respond during the period of this study ( June 01, 2010 through August 20, 2010 ) in the South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD ) : 15 counties, covering 85+ municipalities, and including

PAGE 33

33 the vast majority of the population served by the SFWMD. This data is as current as the FLUMs that were received during that time period, and a ll local gove rnments should be contacted for updated FLUM information. However, t he model s developed during this project can be run in the future with updated information, whenever new FLUMs become available ; it The FLUMs for these loca l governments were then extrapolated to their logical endpoint: full buildout. Full buildout represents the condition that would be achieved if all land was developed at maximum density and intensity according to the currently approved FLUM. At full buildo ut, the population they could accommodate on various land types with their currently approved comprehensive plans is compared to the BEBR population projections that represent a comparable time frame. In fact, the BEBR population projections were supposedl y used to determine the future residential demand for the local government comprehensive plan FLUMs in the first place. This sheds some light on the condition of future land use planning in South Florida On Accuracy and Scale Due to the semi regional focu s of this project, it should not be relied upon as completely accurate at all scales. In fact, when analyzing trends and areas using the SFWMD Generalized Future Land Use Categories (Appendix A) the data is more accurate and relevant over a larger scale t han a smaller scale. However, when examining local future land use maps using local future land use categories, the data is as accurate as when the data was collected at all scales A ll diligence has been taken to maintain the original data fr om each loca l government FLUM. The resultant maps are still useful for showing regional spatial trends in future land use using the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories

PAGE 34

34 When analyzed using the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories the FLU comparisons and population projec tions derived from this data repre sent coarse scale estimates. At best, this data may be 90% accurate for the area over which it is summarized; that is assuming that the GIS files received from local municipalities were accurate The FLU data and populatio n projection s from th is data are intended for some summary evaluation, and guidance in identifying potential areas of further research and examination. Th e data and maps presented here are more useful in the large scale exploration of general trends in fut ure land use planning in South Florida It is also important to note that in Broward and Miami Dade counties, there is a provision in the charter that requires city and county FLUMs to be consistent. For that reason, no city within those counties can have less restrictive FLUM designations for a given area than the county within which it exists. Therefore, by assembling the county FLUMs for Broward and Miami Dade, I was able to assume that the FLUMs for cities therein were also accurate There is the possi bility that a city within one of these counties has a more restrictive FLUM, but this is rarely the case In other counties, such as Palm Beach County, the cou nty does not maintain a default FLUM for the cities within its boundaries. For that reason, there County. Population Projection Techniques outlines several ways to project future demand, as required by Chapter 9J 5, Florida Administrative Code. BEBR populati on projections are DCA approved and may be used by any municipality. In general, the population projection horizon should take into account historical population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau for the same length of time (i.e. when

PAGE 35

35 projecting forwa rd 30 years, be sure to evaluate population trends from the last three However, a local government may also choose to create their own population projections using techniques outl : 1) Mathemati cal Extrapolation, 2) Ratio, 3) Cohort Component and 4) Economic Demographic nments use the Mathematical The Mathematical Extrapolation method utilize s simple algebra, such as linear regression. For this stu dy, Mathematical Extrapolation was used to determine population projections from FLUM data. This means my projections are com pati ble with comprehensive plan FLUMs because they use a comparable method. Each FLUM category that accommodates residential future land uses also has a density restriction, usually described in terms of dwelling units allowable per acre. By taking the density restriction for a FLUM category and multiplying it times the acreage that the FLUM category encompasses, it is possible to det ermine the maximum amount of dwelling units allowable in that municipality at full buildout Multiplying the number of dwelling units by the most recent U.S. Census density estimates, we can determine the maximum population that can be accommodated in the FLUM when every acre is developed to the maximum extent possible, as allowable in the comprehensive plan. When extrapolating population at full buildout I always use the local government density restrictions for the multiplier.

PAGE 36

36 Some local government FLUMs are necessarily intricate and complex, and they occasionally include more than one different density restrictions for one FLUM category. In some instances, there are allowances for denser development if certain criteria are met, like providing affordable housing or Section 8 housing in a development. When this occurred, the regular density restriction and the maximum density restriction are recorded. The comparisons are interesting, and are provided for perspective, however the full buildout condition usin g only the most common density is of greater concern to this study. SFWMD Generalized Future Land Use Categories The South Florida Water Management District g eneralized f uture l and u se c ategories methodology (Appendix A) w as created and implemented in orde r to facilitate continuity in the comparison of F LUMs from different local governments. For assistance understanding the compiled FLUM Atlases presented in Appendices C through K, see Appendix B. The Categories are adapted from Southwest Florida Water Mana gement District (SWFWMD) Intergovernmental Policy and Planning Division (IPPD), and allow for comparisons across political boundaries: between municipalities, and between Water Management Districts. However, the SFWMD categories also incorporate a n additio nal category, Very High Density Residential which fits within the SWFWMD framework, yet also provides recognition for areas in the SFWMD of extremely high density. In all Generalized Future Land Use Category. In cases where there was some uncertainty, the local government or SFWMD I PPD planning expert was consulted.

PAGE 37

37 Each local government FLUM s density restrictions were then incorporated into the GIS database. This allowed the tracking of densities for each local government based on their own future land use designation. Essentially, all local government FLUM data was preserved, although each future land use category was re categorized according to the SFMWD Generalized Futu re Land Use Categories methodology. On Future Land Uses Since housing generally represents the largest portion of land use in an urban area (Lopez and Hynes, 2003), it stands to reason that a measure of housing sprawl would be a good measure of overall spr awl in an area. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the local planners who developed the FLUMs for their community have provided enough non residential services and land uses (such as Commercial/Office, Industrial, Institutional, and Transpo rtation ) to provide for the population that they will have at full buildout. In fact, th is is one of the prime concerns of the comprehensive planning process. In this case, it is assumed that the amount that the residential future land use is over allocate d is also mirrored in the designation of other future land uses in the community. For instance, and local government FLUM with residential future land use equal to twice the BEBR projection will be assumed to also have twice the Commercial/Office, Industri al, Instituti onal, and other associated land uses. Garreau (199 2 ) suggests that housing sprawl may drive employment sprawl, as business follow their customers and workers to the suburbs. Therefore, a measure of over allocation or sprawl of residential FLU is a proxy measurement for overall over allocation or sprawl of an entire area. However, this does not hold true for all future land uses. For instance, Agriculture is often a default FLU designation in most rural areas. This may be a consequence of

PAGE 38

38 local governments feeling compelled by the GMA 1985 to designate FLU for all land within their jurisdiction. Conservation is often not designated in FLUMs unless there are specific plans in the future for its establishment, or if it already exists. This is becau se a FLU designation of Conservation usually means that the land will be forever protected from development and removed from the tax rolls. Additionally, some local governments do not designate areas as transportation or utilities, because it is inherent t hat other land uses should contain Rights of Way to provide for road building and utilities. GIS Methods The Future Land Use Maps were received in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) format (usually in shapefiles or feature classes) and combined and stand ardized to the SFWMD Generalized Future Land Use Categories methodology (Appendix A). This methodology allows comparisons across political boundaries by standardizing the data to common categories. The GIS data was manipulated summarized, and analyzed usi ng ESRI software ArcGIS 9.3 and ModelBuilder The local governments FLUMs were re categorized by comparing the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories to the local gove Additionally, the density limits for each local government fu ture land use category were recorded in the GIS geodatabase, for purposes of later computations, and to preserve local government information (see Appendix B) T ypically, the DCA will not object to a local comprehensive plan or FLUM that contain s enough FL U allocations to accommodate the growth predicted by BEBR plus 25% 1 This apparently occurs because DCA does not want to overly hinder the local and accommodate unforeseen growth booms and also because plannin g is not an exact science. Therefore, 125% become s

PAGE 39

39 the test statistic to determine whether a FLUM is over allocated at full buildout. An allocation of 100% 125% will be considered a FLUM that is consistent with BEBR projections, and anything under 100% wil l be considered under allocated. However, there are no local governments for which all data was collected that have less than 100% allocation at full buildout. The percentage allocated will be determined by dividing the population projection at full buildo ut fr om residential and mixed use FLU s by the BEBR projected population for a given year. Although Anthony (2004) uses density as a measure of sprawl, this study uses a slightly different measure which is density on a county wide scale. Table 3 1 details t he planning horizons for the local governments relevant to this study. It is not always possible to determine the planning horizon for a comprehensive plan because its format is not specific ally defined. According to T able 3 1 all local governments plann ing horizons are between 2015 and 2030, and most are around 2020 or earlier. Since there was a recent crash in the housing market, and planning is not an exact science, it would be unfair to compare the FLUMs residential full buildout condition against onl y one BEBR report. Therefore, three test statistics are provided for each county. The test statistic are compared against the BEBR medium population projections for year 2020 (from BEBR reports for 2004 and 2010) and year 2025 ( from BEBR report for 2010) ( Table 3 2 ) The 2004 BEBR report represents a population projection that was closer to the condition under which the FLUM was developed initially. The 2010 BEBR reports represent the population projections expected after the housing market crash, and the 2 025 horizon gives perspective on the future expected for each area.

PAGE 40

40 United States Census (2000, 2008) household density estimates and Bureau of Economic Business Research (BEBR, reports 2004, 2010) population projections were used for comparative analysis of FLUM full buildout population projections (Table 3 2 and Table 3 3 ). For cities that did not have Census household density estimates because they were too small I used the same household density estimate as the county in which they exist for estimation purposes Results a nd T able Interpretation Each county is initially summarized in two tables accompanied with a map of the county, and followed in the appendix by a comprehensive table summarizing local government FLUMs. Data that has been gathered for e ach county is initially presented and analyzed in a standardized fashion: 1. t able(s) summarizing acreages and population projections based on full buildout for each SFWMD Generalized FLU Category ; 2. t able(s) comparing population projections at full buildout to BEBR medium population project ions for different time periods; 3. o ne map spatially depicting the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories f or each county ; 4. one large table for each county (in the Appendices) presenting all data collected for each local government organized by the local governments future land use designations. The first table summarizes land area, allowable development density, and associated population projections combining all reporting municipalities (Table 3 4 ) To facilitate comparisons be tween counties, the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories have been standardized to display percentage of the land area of that county. It is important to note that in some counties (Broward, Collier, Monroe, Miami Dade, and others ) there is a significant propo rtion of the county that is designated as

PAGE 41

41 C This is primarily because of the Everglades National Park and associated lands. Therefore, percentage of non conservation FLUM compiled land area was calculated in order to examine what proportion o f each county that was actually available for development was designated in each FLU category. The second table displays density and population projections in a full buildout scenario for each county. and s high are project ed dwelling units for the specified land uses, combined. This number i s derived by multiplying total acreage for each future land use category by their respective density maximums, and summing. T high gher density allowances for special circumstances, such as planned developments providing multiple land uses, or density bonuses associated with affordable housing, etc. and are projected population that would live in these dwellings in a full buildout scenario These numbers were derived by multiplying the allowable dwelling units by the most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates for number of people per household in the ir respective municipalities. Two se parate scenarios are explored: R esidential and Mixed U se only, and all l and except A griculture or water bodies. The reason for this is that Agriculture is often the default FLU category in many municipalities, and this study i s attempting to determine the extent of purposeful residential future land use planning in South Florida; not de facto planning. These mathematically extrapolated population projections are then compared to BEBR projections from two different reports (2004 and 2010) attempting to acco mmodate for the recent crash in residential demand in South Florida.

PAGE 42

42 However, the 200 4 BEBR projections are likely closer to the numbers that were used to create the local government comprehensive plans originally. Within t he second table, the is a compar ison of BEBR population projections to the total development currently allowable at full buildout for each county ; it is the full buildout p opulation projection divided by the BEBR M edium Population P rojection. For instance, a p ercent age allocated amount of 200% indicates that, at full buildout the county in question could accommodate twice the BEBR predicted population for the planning horizon specified The BEBR projections are usually for a planning horizon of 2020 or 2025, because most of these FLUMs would have been created for the same planning horizon. Even though the p ercentage allocated metric is based on very rough estimates of density and population projections, it is still worth noting when a municipality has enough future l and use allocated to meet over 3 times more than its BEBR projected need. This could indicate the necessity for more examination. The yellow numbers indicate which figures were compared to each other to derive the p ercentage allocated below them. Additiona lly, it is important to note that the fields D welling units allowable in and P are potentially under estimates This is because the density estimates are based on a multiplicative function, so fractions a re carried over and summed. Often a municipality stipulate s that any fractional density unit would be rounded up (for instance, a 0.5 acre lot with future land use of 1 dwelling unit per acre could not house a half of a dwelling unit, and would be rounded up to 1 allowable dwelling unit). Additionally, it is possible that given infrastructure requirements (roads, utility rights of ways, stormwater control, etc.), a

PAGE 43

43 given development might not be able to reach the maximum density allowable. However, these pr ojections are still good representations of overall trends in future land use for the entire county. The following data is used to describe local government F LUM s, and explore the possibility of a full buildout scenario for each county where all lands ar e developed according to the current FLUM at full residential density. These scenarios are currently allowable under each governments adopted comprehensive plan, which have been reviewed and approved by the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

PAGE 44

44 Table 3 1 Selected planning horizons for South Florida municipalities Municipality Planning Horizon Page Broward C ounty 2015 1 1 Collier C ounty 2020 9 Naples undeterminable Glades C ounty undeterminable Lee C ounty 2030 361 Cape C oral 2030 4 1 Fort M yers 2017 vii Martin C ounty 2020 Section 4.3 Stuart undeterminable Miami Dade C ounty undeterminable Coral G ables unavailable North Miami B each unavailable Surfside unavailable Monroe C ounty undeterminable Palm Beach C ounty 202 0 2 1A Boynton B each unavailable Jupiter unavailable Wellington unavailable West Palm B each unavailable Saint Lucie C ounty 2030 1 1 Fort P ierce 2017 1 2 Port Saint L ucie undeterminable

PAGE 45

45 Table 3 2 U.S. Census data and BEBR population p rojections for selected years and selected South Florida counties Source U.S Census Bureau of E conomic and B usiness R esearch, UF County Persons per household ( C ensus 2000) Housing units ( C ensus 2008 est) Medium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2004) Medium 2 020 P opulation P rojection (2010) Medium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Broward C ounty 2.45 805,772 2,244,600 1,824,300 1,866,000 Collier C ounty 2.39 193,808 489,900 406,500 446,400 Glades C ounty 2.51 6,079 13,600 11,900 12,200 Lee C ounty 2.31 364,93 2 728,000 779,000 866,500 Martin C ounty 2.23 75,920 179,600 158,000 165,600 Miami D ade C ounty 2.84 979,082 2,885,900 2,664,200 2,764,200 Monroe C ounty 2.23 53,813 82,700 76,900 76,200 Palm B each C ounty 2.34 640,851 1,666,100 1,415,700 1,485,200 Saint L ucie C ounty 2.47 132,341 295,400 350,400 391,300

PAGE 46

46 Table 3 3 U.S. Census data for selected South Florida municipalities that was used to determine full buildout population projections U.S. Census City Persons per household ( C ensus 2000) Housing unit s (Census 2000) Boynton Beach 2.26 30,643 Cape C oral 2.49 45,653 Coral G ables 2.31 17,849 Fort M yers 2.40 21,836 Fort P ierce 2.56 17,170 Jupiter 2.32 20,943 Naples N / a N / a North M iami B each 2.89 15,350 Port S aint L ucie 2.60 36,785 Stuart N / a N / a Surfside N / a N / a Wellington 2.95 14,761 West P alm B each 2.26 40,461 Table 3 4 Explanation of fields present in the first table in each county, used to analyze FLUM data in each compiled county Field name Description/Information SFWMD G eneralize d FLU C ategory Organized by SFWMD Generalized Future Land Use Categories to allow county wide comparisons across all local governments Acreage Combined acreage for that future land use category across the whole county Dwelling units at full buildout Maxi mum number of dwelling units allowable in the adopted, local comprehensive plan if all areas are developed at maximum density. Aggregated by county Population projections at full buildout Population projection for that part icular future land use category if all areas are developed to maximum density, and the number of occupants are equivalent to the most current U.S. Census (2000) density per household. Aggregated by county. Percentage of FLUM compiled land area The percentage of the total county land ar ea (i.e. water bodies excluded) Percentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area The percentage of the non C onservation, total county land area (i.e. water bodies and conservation lands excluded). Depicts the representative quantities of land avail able for development. In counties with large areas that are unavailable for development ( such as Broward, Miami Dade, Monroe, or Collier Counties ) this is a more relevant comparison than percentage of FLUM compiled land area

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Overview Th e following maps represent the South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD ) Generalized Future Land Use (FLU) c ategories map for the entire project area, plus some bordering counties (Figures 4 1, 4 2, and 4 3) Of particular note are the Everglades Nat ional Park (Everglades) and associated lands, on the southern tip of Florida, colored in dark green, which represents Conservation lands. The large tracts of Agricultural lands surrounding Lake Okeechobee, which account for a large majority of oduce and cattle industry are also visible. The Kissimmee River running from Orlando (and the northern tip of the SFWMD boundary) into Lake Okeechobee from the north can also be seen in dark green (Conservation). The Kissimmee River Basin has been a large focus for SFWMD towards meeting requirements for nutrient pollution reduction, flood protection, and restoring historic hydrologic regimes. The warm colors (reds, oranges, yellows, purples, and pinks) represent urban development, ranging from, and are gene rally clustered along the water. To the west, coastal areas like Naples (in Collier County) and Cape Coral and Fort Myers (in Lee County) have experienced considerable growth in recent years, and their Future Land Use Maps ( FLUMs ) anticipate and accommodat e more development. To the east, areas like Miami Dade County and Broward County are already mostly built out to the edges of non conservation land, and must rely on denser redevelopment to continue growing. In the north, Orlando and Kissimmee are expandin g southward, creating water quality concerns for water flowing into Lake Okeechobee. And areas to the north east, in Martin and Saint Lucie Counties, are balancing continued growth with areas of environmental

PAGE 48

48 concern, such as the Indian River and St. Lucie Estuary. Meanwhile, smaller urban centers such as Okeechobee, Babcock Ranch (in eastern Charlotte County), and areas west of Port St. Lucie have their own plans to expand and accommodate development. Throughout the SFWMD, the Mixed Use FLU designation has gained usage in an attempt to encourage growth of multiple, compatible uses within compact areas, or for the purposes of large planned developments and some DRIs, almost like new cities in themselves. Data was not obtained for Hendry County, although the default land use in that c ounty is Agricultural. Table 4 1 details the acreage for each SFWMD Generalized FLU Category in summary form. Collier is the largest county, and Conservation is the most prevalent FLU, although that is due primarily to federal ow nership of the Everglades National Park, and associated lands. It is also interesting to note that Lee has no Agricultural land in its FLUM. T able 4 1 is the starting point for comparisons that will be made in subsequent chapters. Table 4 2 displays the f ull buildout population projections for all residential and mixed use FLU categories, summarized by county, for the entire study area, organized by the SFWMD Genera lized FLU Categories. From the information, comparisons of gross acreage can be made between counties. T able 4 3 compares the full buildout population projections to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research ( BEBR ) Medium 2020 Population Projections (2010 Report). It is worth noting that at full buildout, the 8 counties included in this study, minus large parts of Palm Beach County and Miami Dade County, will accommodate nearly 17.5 million residents. That is close to the current population of Florida, all living in the southernmost 8 counties. Currently,

PAGE 49

49 ulation, and this includes people in counties that are split between WMDs; in counties such as Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hendry). Appendix A contains a summary of the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories, including Table A 1 which presents the Categories and their equivalent local government designations. Appendix B describes the key to understanding the information in the FLUM Atlases in Appendices C through K. A summary of all data collected in this study is presented in A ppendi ces C through K for the purposes of providing an archived data source for future research. Tables C 1 through K 1 detail the in formation. The FLU designations of the local government and their associated density maximums are recorded in those tables as well as the SFWMD Generalized FLU Category for each. Each county is examined in depth in the remainder of this chapter. When speaking of the county, it is generally assumed to reference the aggregated results for the county, unless otherwise specified. Broward County Broward County, like Miami Dade County, is a special case, in that all local be more restrictive than the County FLUM, but not less restrictive. As such, all local governments in Broward County are accounted for; 31 municipalities. Broward County has attempted to incorporate the entirety of the buildable county area, and only a fe w areas are currently completely unincorporated. Figure 4 4 is a map of the county, displaying the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. It focuses on the eastern half of the county to provide greater detail

PAGE 50

50 because the western half of the county is considered Conservation; Everglades National detailed GIS FLUM; in many instances, even roads are designated as separate from the surrounding future land uses. Table 4 4 summarize s the acreages, dwelling units, and population allowable in the current FLUMs, organized according to the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. The majority of Broward County is Conservation over a half million acres, 66% of the county because of the Evergla des National Park. FLUM are Residential and Mixed Use lands, with the primary FLU being Low Density Residential (62,346 acres). accommodated in High De nsity Residential, Low Density Residential, and Unknown Density Residential. Broward County does not list a residential density maximum for their Mixed Use areas, so the final population projections may appear slightly lower than reality. It is interesting that, in terms of future population accommodation, Broward County municipalities are not utilizing Medium Density Residential land uses as a relatively large intermediate repository between High and Low Density Residential. The SFWMD Generalized FLU Categ primarily created to accommodate the Broward County local government FLUM restrictions that are significantly different from and dep endent upon the neighboring parcels, and are treated on an individual basis by the County. As such, it was difficult to sort out the impact these parcels might have on future land use. Table 4 4 also

PAGE 51

51 demonstrates the extreme variability in density restrict ions for Residential in Irregular Areas. Table s 4 5 and 4 6 summarize information relating to the comparison of the current FLUM allowable development and associated population capacity, to the appropriate BEBR population projections for relevant time peri ods. The differences in the BEBR Medium Population Projections for 2020 between report years 2004 and 2010 demonstrate the impact that the collapse of the housing bubble had on South Florida. So, with that knowledge in mind, it appears that Broward County has appropriately allocated their residential future land uses to accommodate their BEBR projected future demand. However, that Broward County is already mostly built out, and contains very little undeveloped land, which may be one of the primary reasons that th ey match their BEBR projections. Appendix C contains all the data collected for county organized by each local s haped piece of Very Low Density Residential was recently transferred from Palm Beach County to Broward County by the State. Collier County Within Collier County, data was collected for the County and Naples. FLUMs were not received from Everglades City or Marco Island, although the County does maintain default FLU designations as part of its own FLUM. Figure 4 5 is a map of the county, displaying the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. The vast majority of Collier County is designated Conservation, primarily because of the Everglades National Park. The Mixed Use district in the northern part of the County is the Imokalee

PAGE 52

52 area, and is not yet incorporated. Overall, the County is similar to most of South Florida, with primarily coastal development, and an Agric ultural or Conservation interior. Table 4 7 summarizes the acreages, dwelling units, and population allowable in the current FLUMs, organized according to the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. Over half of the County is Conservation, with the next largest land area covered by agriculture. (27.7%), and Conservation lands cover over 900,000 acres (55.3%). Of the 253,866 acres of combined Residential and Mixed Use lands, 133,188 acres are Low Density Residential, and 90,738 acres are Mixed Use. residential population will be housed in Mixed Use centers, which has generally become a catch all FLU for many municipalities. Table s 4 8 and 4 9 summariz e information relating to the comparison of the current FLUM allowable development and associated population capacity, to the appropriate BEBR population projections for relevant time periods. According to the FLUMs that were received, Collier County can a ccommodate one and a half to two times the BEBR medium population projections within their currently adopted FLUMs. Table 4 10 compares the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories and their associated population projections at full buildout for the county versus the reporting cities. T able 4 10 begins to uncover culpability regarding over allocation of residential FLU, and the culprit is the county. Even if you do not account for the higher densities that can be reached through meeting certain criteria, the Count y alone can accommodate over twice the BEBR projected population for year 2020 (2010) at full buildout.

PAGE 53

53 Appendix D contains all the data collected for this project, organized by each local rnment FLUMs, including density restrictions. Also worth noting is that with density bonuses generally population accommodation could be more than doubled. This is beca use of a Residential Density Rating System that the County has created; designed to encourage denser development around previously developed centers. designations to encourage Transf er of Development Rights (TDR). This is a program that attempts to create a market solution for the conservation of some land, usually significant environmental resources, and densification of other priority areas, usually near cities or in areas planned f TDR program seemingly only allows the transfer of 0.8 dwelling units per acre (an increase from 0.2 DU/acre to 1.0 DU/acre), into a FLU category barely equivalent to Low Density Residential, it is questi onable how this program will discourage sprawl. I t would seem more beneficial to transfer that 0.8 DU/acre from rural sites to encourage much higher density residential sites within existing urban areas. Glades County Within Glades County, data was collect ed only for the County; Moore Haven did not report back within the time constraints of this study. Figure 4 6 is a map of the county, displaying the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categ ories. The large Unknown area i n the northwest is an Indian Reservation. Otherwi se, there is scattered development, but the county is primarily agricultural and rural in nature.

PAGE 54

54 Table 4 11 summarizes the acreages, dwelling units, and population allowable in the current FLUMs, organized according to the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories The vast majority of the Glades C ounty is Agricultural (420,378 acres, 71.3%) Of the 29,869 acres of Residential and Mixed Use, 11,339 acres are Mixed Use and 16,247 acres are Medium Density Residential, which represent the vast majority of those lands. The Glades County FLUM has allocated 638 acres of Institutional land in their FLUM to accommodate a full buildout population of 561,418 residents. Future population will primarily be accommodated in Mixed Use and Medium Density Residential areas. Medium D ensity Residential lands can accommodate 199,231 and 285,929 residents at full buildout, respectively. Table s 4 1 2 and 4 13 summar ize information relating to the comparison of the current FLUM allowable development and associated population capacity, to th e appropriate BEBR population projections for relevant time periods. Mixed Use and Glades County, by far, has the largest mismatch between their currently allowable future residential capacity and the BEBR population projections; the current county FLUM ca n accommodate over forty times the residential capacity projected to be necessary by 2020. Appendix E contains all the data collected for this project, organized by each local including density restrictions. The Glades County FLUM categories for Residential and Transitional (a mixed use catch all category) are primarily responsible for the excess future residential capacity. Lee County Within Lee County, data was collected for t he County, Cape Coral, and Fort Myers. FLUMs were not received from Bonita Springs, Fort Myers Beach, or Sanibel,

PAGE 55

55 although the County does maintain default FLU designations as part of its own FLUM. Figure 4 7 is a map of the county, displaying the SFWMD Ge neralized FLU Categories. The vast majority of the county is slated for some type of development, with only fragments being designated Conservation. The large wedge of Mixed Use on the eastern border of the county is LeHigh Acres; a large, platted subdivis ion that was established in the mid 1900s, well before the growth management legislation of the 1980s. Aside from LeHigh Acres, Mixed Use has become a dominant FLU category in the county. distinct in that it designates no Agricultural land in its FLUM The primary FLUM categories by land area are Conservation (130,881 acres, 25.1%), Mixed Use (125,761 acres, 24.1%), and Very Low Density Residential (120,705 acres, 23.1%). Table 4 1 4 summarizes the acreages, dwelling units, and populatio n allowable in the current FLUMs, organized according to the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. Mixed Use and Very Low Density Residential are the predominant future residential ed in Mixed Use areas. Table s 4 1 5 and 4 16 summarize information relating to the comparison of the current FLUM allowable development and associated population capacity, to the appropriate BEBR population projections for relevant time periods. Although th is area will probably experience significant growth in the future, the currently adopted FLUMs can accommodate over six times the BEBR medium projected population. Table 4 1 7 compares the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories and their associated population pr ojections at full buildout for the county versus the reporting

PAGE 56

56 cities. The table begins to uncover culpability regarding over allocation of residential FLU, and the culprit is the county. At full buildout, Lee County currently can accommodate nearly five t imes the BEBR Medium 2020 Population Projection (2010). Appendix F contains all the data collected for this project, organized by each local including density restrictions. Th e Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource area is a special future land use designation designed to protect the regions well fields and water resources for the future. In Cape Coral, over a half million people could be housed in Multiple Family Residential areas alone, according to the currently adopted FLUM; nearly as much as the BEBR projected population for the entire county in 2020. Lee category) could house over 2.6 million re sidents at full buildout and cover nearly 100,000 acres. Martin County Within Martin County, data was collected for the County and Stuart, the largest Point, although the Cou nty does maintain default FLU designations as part of its own FLUM. The vast majority of the area and population of the county are accounted for. Martin County has been experiencing growth in recent years as more southerly counties have reached the limits of their developable land. Figure 4 8 is a map of the county, displaying the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. Like many South Florida counties, the bulk of development is concentrated on the coast, with density intensifying nearer the coast, and with int erior Agricultural and

PAGE 57

57 Conservation areas. There is future accommodation for a large industrial facility near Lake Okeechobee: an inland port. Table 4 1 8 summarizes the acreages, dwell ing units, and population allowable in the current FLUMs, organized according to the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. Of the 50,397 acres of Residential and Mixed Use land, Low Density Residential (27,652 acres, 8.1%, 219,712 full buildout residents) is t he primary means of accommodating future residential growth followed by Medium Density Residential (5,250 acres, 1.5%, 94,469 full buildout residents). Table s 4 1 9 and 4 20 summarize information relating to the comparison of the current FLUM allowable dev elopment and associated population capacity, to the appropriate BEBR population projections for relevant time periods. Martin County alone can accommodate over twice the BEBR projected growth for 2020 within its currently adopted FLUM. Table 4 21 compares the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories and their associated population projections at full buildout for the county versus the reporting cities. The table begins to uncover culpability regarding over allocation of residential FLU, and the culprit is the count y. Martin County currently can accommodate nearly five times the BEBR Medium 2020 Population Projection (2010) at full buildout. Appendix G contains all the data collected for this project, organized by each local es an atlas of local government FLUMs, including density restrictions. Although Agricultural areas could accommodate much

PAGE 58

58 future population growth, the majority of the future population will likely be FLU category. Miami Dade County Miami Dade County, like Broward County, is a special case, in that all local rnments FLUM can be more restrictive than the County FLUM, but not less restrictive. Therefore, the data presented here is representative of the majority of the local governments within the county. However, noticeably absent are Homestead, Hialeah, and El Portal, because they did not report back within the time constraints of this project. Accordingly, Miami Dade County will not be used for further comparisons or analysis, except to demonstrate that the trend toward over allocation of residential future lan d use is ubiquitous in South Florida. Figure 4 9 is a map of the county, displaying the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. As has been seen before, the majority of development is on the coast, while the interior is mostly Conservation because of the Evergl ades National Park. The Everglades are the primary constituent of the Conservation lands, which account for 69.7% of Miami Recreational/Open Space land (54,101 acres, 4.4%) is generally situated as a buffer between the E verglades and the more heavily developed areas. Homestead and several small municipalities are noticeably absent from the map because they did not report data during the project Table 4 22 summarizes the acreages, dwelling units, and population allowable in the current FLUMs, organized according to the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. Nearly three fourths of Miami

PAGE 59

59 future land uses accounting for the next largest proportion. Miami Dade County plans to ac commodate the majority of its future population in Medium Density Residential or denser. Of the Residential and Mixed Use land (164,434 acres) in Miami FLUM, the majority of future residents are slated to be accommodated in High Density Resi dential (39,114 ares, 1.86 million residents), Medium Density Residential (91,600 acres, 1.56 million residents), and Very High Density Residential (6,131 acres, 1.10 million residents) areas. Mixed Use areas (2,993 acres, 0.2%) play a smaller role in Miam i Table s 4 23 and 4 24 summarize information relating to the comparison of the current FLUM allowable development and associated population capacity, to the appropriate BEBR population projections f or relevant time periods. Despite the absence of data for Homestead and other Miami Dade County municipalities, the trend is that the county can accommodate over one and a projected future population within the currently adopted FLUM. Table 4 25 compares the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories and their associated population projections at full buildout for the county versus the reporting cities. The table begins to uncover culpability regarding over allocation of residential FLU, and the culprit is the county. Miami Dade County alone can accommodate over one and a half times the BEBR Medium 2020 Population Projection (2010) at full buildout. Appendix H contains all the data collected for this project, organized by each local FLUM designations. It provides an atlas of local government FLUMs,

PAGE 60

60 including density restrictions. From this table, it becomes apparent that the majority of Miami rather to tens o f thousands of acres designated as some form of Residential FLU. Monroe County Within Monroe County, data was collected for the County and Key Colony Beach. FLUMs were not received from Islamorada, Key West, Layton, or Marathon, although the County does ma intain default FLU designations as part of its own FLUM. Figure 3 10 is a map of the county, displaying the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. Monroe County is an interesting case, because the vast majority of the county is federally protected Everglades N ational Park, and the majority of developed land is stretched along the Florida Keys This makes Monroe County not preferable for further comparisons or analysis, except to demonstrate that the trend toward over allocation of residential future land use is ubiquitous in South Florida. Table 4 2 6 summarizes the acreages, dwelling units, and population allowable in the current FLUMs, organized according to the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. As expected, nearly nine tenths of the county is Conservation (58 1,026 acres), primarily Everglades The majority of future residents are to be accommodated in Medium Density Residential : 95,082 future residents on 5,330 acres Only 416 acres of Industrial land is designated; the primary industry of Monroe County and th e Florida Keys is tourism. A large proportion of the county has a n Unknown FLU M category (2.0%, 12,819 acres) because the nature of mapping the constantly shifting keys presents challenges. Table s 4 2 7 and 4 28 summarize information relating to the compari son of the current FLUM allowable development and associated population capacity, to the

PAGE 61

61 currently adopted FLUM can provide for nearly twice the BEBR projected residential g rowth in the area until the year 2020. Appendix I contains all the data collected for this project, organized by each local including density restrictions. It is interesting to note that Monroe County offers density bonuses for, and seems to place a premium on, Planned Developments. Palm Beach County Within Palm Beach County, data was collected for the County, Boynton Beach, Jupiter, Wellington, and West Palm Beach. FLUMs were n ot received from over 30 other municipalities, and the county FLUM does not cover these areas. Noticeably absent are Belle Glade, Delray Beach, Boca Raton, Juno Beach, Lake Worth, Palm Beach, and Tequesta. Since large areas of Palm Beach County are missing it will not be used for further comparisons or analysis, except to demonstrate that the trend toward over allocation of residential future land use is ubiquitous in South Florida. Figure 4 11 is a map of the county, displaying the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. Like most coastal cities, the majority of the development is on the coast, with some near Lake Okeechobee as well. More dense residential development is near the water, and there are large areas of federally owned and SFWMD owned Conservation l ands. The Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) is south of Lake Okeechobee. Table 4 2 9 summarizes the acreages, dwelling units, and population allowable in the current FLUMs, organized according to the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. A majority of the coun ty is either Conservation (374,054 acres, 32.7%) or Agricultural

PAGE 62

62 (498,703 acres, 43.6%) land. According to the FLUMs assembled, the vast majority of the future population in the county would be in SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories for Medium Density Residen tial (34,620 acres accommodating 700,254 future residents) and Low Density Residential (73,783 acres accommodating 618,229 future residents) High Density and Very High Density Residential areas make up a very small proportion of the total land area (6,976 acres combined, 0. 6% combined ), but can accommodate over a quarter of a million residents. allocated for Commercial/Office space (8,247 acres, 0.7%). Table s 4 30 and 4 31 summarize information relating to th e comparison of the current FLUM allowable development and associated population capacity, to the appropriate BEBR population projections for relevant time periods. The currenly adopted FLUMs that have been assembled for Palm Beach County could easily acco mmodate the 2020 BEBR medium population projections, even without the extra capacity of the FLUMs from the missing 34 municipalities. This indicates a that this county has likely over allocated its residential future land use. Table 4 32 compares the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories and their associated population projections at full buildout for the county versus the reporting cities. It is important to remember that although many significant cities did contribute FLUMs, not enough information was collecte d in Palm Beach County to justify the sufficient coverage necessary for using this county in further analysis. However, Palm Beach County comes the closest to a balanced approach in residential FLU allocation, when compared to the BEBR Medium 2020 Populati on Projections; more than any other county.

PAGE 63

63 Appendix J contains all the data collected for this project, organized by each local including density restrictions. Palm Beach Cou nty has a highly structured FLUM with detailed and complex FLU designations. Saint Lucie County Within Saint Lucie County, data was collected for the County, Fort Pierce, and Port Saint Lucie. FLUMs were not received from Saint Lucie Village, although the population or area of that town is not significant compared to the rest of the data collected for this county. Figure 4 12 is a map of the county, displaying the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. Noticeably absent are vast Conservation areas (only 17,676 a cres, 5.0%) although nearly the entire western half of the county is Agricultural (190,423 acres, 53.4%) Two large Mixed Use areas in the north and south of the county are visually prominent, and might represent DRIs or other large planned developments. A large proportion of the county is Low Density Residential (57,552 acres, 16.1%) Table 4 33 summarizes the acreages, dwelling units, and population allowable in the current FLUMs, organized according to the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories. Mixed Use (4 4,198 acres, 12.4%) will accommodate the majority of future residents (844,291 future residents) in the currently adopted FLUMs for this county, followed in magnitude by Low Density Residential (687,688 future residents) Medium Density Residential covers 9,132 acres (2.6%) and can accommodate 222,527 future residents. Table s 4 34 and 4 35 summarize information relating to the comparison of the current FLUM allowable development and associated population capacity, to the appropriate BEBR population project

PAGE 64

64 currently adopted FLUMs could accommodate over five times the BEBR projected future residential demand for the year 2020. Table 4 36 compares the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories and their associated pop ulation projections at full buildout for the county versus the reporting cities. The FLUM for Saint Lucie County covers 272,792 acres, including 190,423 acres of Agriculture and 11,889 acres of Conservation. Saint Lucie County contradicts the general trend observed so far, and the cities are responsible for the over allocation of residential future land use. Table 4 37 compares the SFWMD Generalized FLU Categories for the cities only, s FLUM covers a modest 10,846 acres. It is Port Saint Lucie that is most over allocated when compared g 5,187 acres of Conservation. The New Community District in Port Saint Lucie, a FLU designation occurring on over 14,500 acres, is responsible for the buildout population projection accommodating capacity of over three quarters of a million people, as cur rently adopted. This FLU is only available for DRIs, and is the large Mixed Use area located in the south central part of Saint Lucie County in Figure 12 2. Additionally, Port Saint 7,000 acres is capable of accommodating nearly half a million residents at full buildout. If evenly spaced at current densities, this would equate to one single family household per 0.2 acres, over 37,113 acres, in the town of Port Saint Lucie alone. It is interesting that one

PAGE 65

65 city can account for so much divergence from the BEBR Population Projections for an entire county. Appendix K contains all the data collected for this project, organized by each local as of local government FLUMs, including density restrictions. The Saint Lucie County FLU designation Special District (western half of the large Mixed Use area in the north central part of Figure 12 2) is an interesting case with a large density range. D ep ending on the density allowed, this area would accommodate between 2,773 and 2 08 ,000 people on 5,616 acres at full buildout This large range of both density and potential mix of uses over such a large area does not indicate that much thought has been put into the actual planning of this area; it seems as if it is a place holder to keep all options open. The large eastern half of that same area is also under the jurisdiction of Saint Lucie County (Figure 12 2). It is 13,660 acres and is designated as Towns Villages, & Countryside, which coincides the SFWMD Generalized FLU category of Mixed Use. This area has an unspecified density, so it is unknown how much future residential growth is allotted there. However, assuming a conservative density allowance of 0 .2 2, this area could still accommodate between 6,700 and 67,000 people at full buildout. Saint Lucie County also has a FLUM designation known as Mixed Use Development, covering 2,222 acres, where density restrictions were undeterminable at the time of thi s study. It is clear that Saint Lucie S ummary All of the counties in this study showed a trend toward over allocation of residential FLU when compared to the BEBR Medium 2020 Populat ion Projections (2010). Even the counties that had a significant proportion of non reporting municipalities (Miami

PAGE 66

66 Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach) displayed the trend. The majority of aggregated over allocation of residential FLU for each was due to the coun ty designating vast tracts of land as residential FLU, although some counties also contained cities which also did this. These results indicates an over abundance of spatial options for residential development, and by extension of this over allocation it is assumed that associated FLUs (Commercial/Office, Institutional, Industrial, Transportation, Recreation/Open Space) are also over allocated.

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 1 Spatial overview of compiled, standardized F uture Land Use Map (FLUM) for SFWMD.

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4 2 Spatial overview of compiled, standardized FLUM for northern SFWMD.

PAGE 69

69 Figure 4 3 Spatial overview of compiled, standardized FLUM for southern SFWMD.

PAGE 70

70 Table 4 1 Future l and u se acreages summar ized by county SFWMD Generalized FLU Category acreages for selected South Florida counties (in thousands, where applicable) SFWMD Generalized FLU Category Broward Collier Glades Lee Martin Miami Dade Monroe Palm Beach Saint Lucie T otal Acreage Percentage Agricultural 9.9 451 .5 420 .3 0 221 .6 79 .4 .0 21 498 .7 190 .4 1,871 .9 24.6% Commercial/Office 24.0 1.1 1.1 9.2 3.0 21.0 2.3 8.2 6.7 76.5 1.0% Conservation 514.5 901.0 100.1 130.8 43.9 863.9 581.0 374.0 17.7 3,527.0 46.3% Industrial 11.1 2.8 0 11.6 16.5 26.1 .416 16.2 4.7 89.4 1.2% Institutional 7.9 .215 .638 8.6 3.7 11.9 5.1 7.4 5.5 50.8 0.7% Mining/Extractive 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 .043 0 1.8 0.02% Mixed Use 9.5 90.7 11.3 125.8 1.7 3.0 0 4.0 44.2 290.2 3.8% Recreation/Open Space 8.2 1 .1 .5 2.9 1.7 54.1 2.0 10.2 3.5 84.1 1.1% Residential, Unknown Density 41.1 13.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54.8 0.7% Residential, Very High Density 1.2 0 0 0 0 6.1 0 1.0 0 8.3 0.1% Residential, High Density 13.7 4.2 0 17.5 .5 39.1 1.3 6.0 1.6 83.9 1.1% Residenti al, Medium Density 11.3 0 16.3 42.0 5.3 91.6 5.3 34.6 9.1 215.5 2.8% Residential, Low Density 62.4 12.1 2.3 45.2 27.7 24.6 0 73.8 57.6 305.5 4.0% Residential, Very Low Density 23.2 133.2 0 120.7 15.3 0 22.3 92.4 5.4 412.5 5.4% Transportation 42.1 .7 .05 8 6.0 0 18.2 .182 8.2 9.8 85.3 1.1% Unknown .000001 18.0 35.3 2.0 2.6 .076 12.8 8.6 .432 79.8 1.0% Water Body 7.6 0 134.5 .22 61.1 28.7 0 151.7 .021 383.8 5.0% Total Acreage 787.5 1,630.0 724.2 522.6 404.5 1,267.9 632.8 1,295.1 356.7 7.621.3 Percent age 10.3% 21.4% 9.5% 6.9% 5.3% 16.6% 8.3% 17.0% 4.7% 100.0% = A significant proportion of municipalities did not report data. Available data is shown. These estimates represent an und erestimate.

PAGE 71

71 Table 4 2 Full buildout population projection in Re sidential and Mixed Use summ arized by county Full buildout scenario population projections for selected South Florida counties by SFWMD Generalized FLU Category. County Residential, Very Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Re sidential, High Density Residential, Very High Density Residential, Unknown Density Mixed Use Full buildout population projection total Broward 43,402 653,723 227,283 629,301 146,226 446,452 0 2,146,387 Collier 112,141 115,696 0 89,343 0 97,997 537,759 9 52,936 Glades 0 4,732 285,929 0 0 0 199,231 489,892 Lee 114,494 365,605 601,441 694,885 0 0 3,336,874 5,113,299 Martin 19,259 219,712 81,579 0 0 0 25,434 345,984 Miami Dade* 0 174,634 1,561,396 1,866,798 1,103,550 0 31,193 4,737,571 Monroe* 14,583 0 9 5,082 47,530 0 0 0 157,195 Palm Beach* 74,761 618,229 700,254 208,955 71,248 0 47,305 1,720,752 Saint Lucie 8,113 687,668 222,527 63,069 0 0 844,291 1,825,668 Total 386,753 2,839,999 3,775,491 3,599,881 1,321,024 544,449 5,022,087 17,489,684 = A sign ificant proportion of municipalities did not report data. Available data is shown. These estimates represent an underestimate

PAGE 72

72 Table 4 3 Full buildout population projection comparison and percentage allocated summ arized by county Full buildout scenario population projections for Residential and Mixed Use FLU categories summarized by county County Total Residential and Mixed Use Acreage Total f ull buildout population projection BEBR Medium 2020 Population Projection (2010) Percentage Allocated Broward 162,348 2,146,387 1,824,300 118% Collier 253,866 952,936 406,500 234% Glades 29,869 489,892 11,900 4117% Lee 351,115 5,113,299 779,000 656% Martin 50,397 345,984 158,000 219% Miami Dade* 164,434 4,737,571 2,664,200 178% Monroe* 29,009 157,19 5 76,900 204% Palm Beach* 211,871 1,720,752 1,415,700 122% Saint Lucie 117,865 1,825,668 350,400 521% Total 1,370,774 17,489,684 7,686,900 708% = A significant proportion of municipalities did not report data. Available data is shown. These estimates represent an underestimate.

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4 4 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Broward County.

PAGE 74

74 Table 4 4 Future l and u se s ummary for Broward County. SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory A creage Dwelling units at full buildout Populati on projections at full buildout Percentage of FLUM compiled land area Percentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area Agricultural 9,895 0 0 1.3% 3.7% Commercial/ O ffice 23,958 0 0 3.1% 9.0% Conservation 514,474 0 0 66.0% Industrial 11,126 0 0 1.4% 4.2% Institutional 7,882 0 0 1.0% 3.0% Mixed use 9,466 0 0 1.2% 3.6% Recreation/ O pen S pace 8,167 0 0 1.0% 3.1% Residential, H igh D ensity 13,722 256,858 629,301 1.8% 5.2% Residential, L ow D ensity 62,364 266,826 653,723 8.0% 23.5% Residential, M ed ium D ensity 11,318 113,177 277,283 1.5% 4.3% Residential, U nknown D ensity 41,132 182,225 446,452 5.3% 15.5% Residential, V ery H igh D ensity 1,194 59,684 146,226 0.2% 0.4% Residential, V ery L ow D ensity 23,152 17,715 43,402 3.0% 8.7% Transportation 42,122 0 0 5.4% 15.9% Water B ody 7,555 0 0 Grand T otal 787,529 896,485 2,196,388 100.0% 100.0%

PAGE 75

75 Table 4 5 Population projection comparison for Broward County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Dwelling units at full buildout Populat ion projection at full buildout Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Pop Projection Pop Projection high Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 162,348 896,485 896,485 2,196,388 2,196,388 Total allowable (without A griculture or W ater) 770,078 896,485 896,485 2,196,388 2,196,388 Table 4 6 Percentage allocated comparison for Broward County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Population projection at full buildout B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2004) B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2010) B EBR M edium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 162,348 2,196,388 2,244,600 1,824,300 1,866,000 Percentage allocated 98% 120% 118%

PAGE 76

76 Figure 4 5 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Collier County.

PAGE 77

77 Table 4 7 Future l and u se s ummary for Collier County. SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory A creage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projections at full buildout Percentage of FLUM compiled land area Percentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area Agricultural 451,465 90,293 215,800 27.7% 61.9% Commercial/Office 1,070 837 2,000 0.1% 0.1% Conservation 900,980 0 0 55.3% Industrial 2,757 0 0 0.2% 0.4% Institutional 215 0 0 0.01% 0.03% Mixed Use 90,738 225,004 537,759 5.6% 12.4% Recre ation/Open Space 1,064 0 0 0.1% 0.1% Residential, High Density 4,170 37,382 89,343 0.3% 0.6% Residential, Low Density 12,102 48,408 115,696 0.7% 1.7% Residential, Unknown Density 13,668 41,003 97,997 0.8% 1.9% Residential, Very Low Density 133,188 46,9 21 112,141 8.2% 18.3% Transportation 651 0 0 0.04% 0.1% Unknown 17,922 0 0 1.1% 2.5% Grand Total 1,629,990 489,848 1,170,736 100.0% 100.0%

PAGE 78

78 Table 4 8 Population projection comparison f or Collier County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projection at full buildout Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Pop Projection Pop Projection high Total allowable: R esiden tial and M ixed U se 253,866 398,718 803,239 952,936 1,919,741 Total allowable (without A griculture or W ater) 1,178,525 399,555 804,076 954,936 1,921,741 Table 4 9 Percentage allocated comparison for Collier County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Population projection at full buildout B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2004) B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2010) B EBR M edium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 253,866 952,936 4 89,900 406,500 446,400 Percentage allocated 195% 234% 213%

PAGE 79

79 Table 4 10 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Collier C ounty and the cities therein Currently allowable in adopted FLUM, at full buildout Municipality SFWMD G eneralized FLU C ategory Acreage Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Population projection Population projection high Percentage allocated (as compared to BEBR Medium 2020 Population P rojection (2010 report)) County Residential & Mixed U se 249,186 361,300 765,821 863,507 1,830,311 212.4% County All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 270,304 362,137 766,658 865,507 1,832,312 212.9% All reporting cities Residential & Mixed Use 4,680 37,418 37,418 89,429 89,429 22.0% All re porting cities All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 7,240 37,418 37,418 89,429 89,429 22.0%

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4 6 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Glades County.

PAGE 81

81 Table 4 11 Future l and u se s ummary for Glades County. SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory A creage Dwelling units at full buildout Popul ation projections at full buildout Percentage of FLUM compiled land area Percentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area Agricultural 420,376 23,455 58,872 71.3% 85.9% Commercial/Office 1,061 0 0 0.2% 0.2% Conservation 100,131 5,007 12,566 17.0% Institutional 638 0 0 0.1% 0.1% Mining/Extractive 1,789 0 0 0.3% 0.4% Mixed Use 11,339 79,375 199,231 1.9% 2.3% Recreation/Open Space 499 0 0 0.1% 0.1% Residential, Low Density 2,256 1,885 4,732 0.4% 0.5% Residential, Medium Density 16,274 113,916 285,929 2.8% 3.3% Transportation 58 35 87 0.0% 0.01% Unknown 35,295 0 0 6.0% 7.2% Water Body 134,504 0 0 Grand Total 724,221 223,672 561,418 100.0% 100.0%

PAGE 82

82 Table 4 12 Population pro jection comparison for Glades County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projection at full buildout Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Pop Projection Pop Projection high Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 29,869 195,176 195,176 489,892 489,892 Total allowable (without A griculture or W ater) 169,341 200,218 200,218 502,546 502,546 Table 4 13 Percentage allocated comparison for Glades County. Approved comprehensive pl an allows Acreage Population projection at full buildout B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2004) B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2010) B EBR M edium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 29,86 9 489,892 13,600 11,900 12,200 Percentage allocated 3602% 4117% 4016%

PAGE 83

83 Figure 4 7 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Lee County

PAGE 84

84 Table 4 1 4 Future l and u se s ummary for Lee Co unty. SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory A creage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projections at full buildout Percenta ge of FLUM compiled land area Percentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area Commercial/Office 9,245 1,945 4,842 1.8% 2.4% Conservation 130,881 0 0 25.1% Industrial 11,612 0 0 2.2% 3.0% Institutional 8,591 0 0 1.6% 2.2% Mixed Use 125,761 1,4 35,753 3,336,874 24.1% 32.1% Recreation/Open Space 2,893 0 0 0.6% 0.7% Residential, High Density 17,463 279,410 694,885 3.3% 4.5% Residential, Low Density 45,221 152,940 365,605 8.7% 11.6% Residential, Medium Density 41,965 258,780 601,441 8.0% 10.7% Residential, Very Low Density 120,705 49,553 114,494 23.1% 30.8% Transportation 6,035 0 0 1.2% 1.5% Unknown 2,027 0 0 0.4% 0.5% Water Body 220 0 0 Grand Total 522,619 2,178,382 5,118,141 100.0% 100.0%

PAGE 85

85 Table 4 1 5 Population projection comparison for Lee County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projection at full buildout Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Po p Projection Pop Projection high Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 351,115 2,176,437 2,296,749 5,113,298 5,404,632 Total allowable (without A griculture or W ater) 522,399 2,178,382 2,298,694 5,118,141 5,409,475 Table 4 1 6 Percentage allocate d comparison for Lee County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Population projection at full buildout B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2004) B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2010) B EBR M edium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 351,115 5,113,298 728,000 779,000 866,500 Percentage allocated 702% 656% 590%

PAGE 86

86 Table 4 1 7 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Lee County and the cities therein. Currently allowable in adopted FLUM, at full buildout Municipality SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory Acreage Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Population projection Population projection high Percentage allocated (as compared to BEBR Medium 2020 Population P rojection (2010 report)) County Residential & Mixed Use 296,321 1,647,607 1,686,383 3,805,973 3,895,546 488.6% County All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 318,813 1,647,607 1,686,383 3,805,973 3,895,546 488.6% All reporting cities Residential & Mixed Use 54,795 528,830 610,366 1,307,325 1,509,087 167.8% All reporting cities All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 72,705 530,775 612,310 1,312,168 1,513,929 168.4%

PAGE 87

87 Figure 4 8 Compi led, standardized FLUM for Martin County.

PAGE 88

88 Table 4 1 8 Future l and u se s ummary for Martin County. SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory A creage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projections at full buildout Percentage of FLUM compiled land area Percentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area Agricult ural 221,624 15,752 35,126 64.5% 74.0% Commercial/Office 2,998 9,672 21,568 0.9% 1.0% Conservation 43,887 0 0 12.8% Industrial 16,473 0 0 4.8% 5.5% Institutional 3,699 1,512 3,373 1.1% 1.2% Mixed Use 1,680 18,788 41,898 0.5% 0.6% Recreation/Open Sp ace 1,686 0 0 0.5% 0.6% Residential, High Density 502 5,023 11,200 0.1% 0.2% Residential, Low Density 27,652 98,525 219,712 8.1% 9.2% Residential, Medium Density 5,250 42,363 94,469 1.5% 1.8% Residential, Very Low Density 15,312 8,636 19,259 4.5% 5.1% Unknown 2,597 0 0 0.8% 0.9% Water Body 61,135 0 0 Grand Total 404,496 200,271 446,604 100.0% 100.0%

PAGE 89

89 Table 4 1 9 Population projection comparison for Martin County. Approved comprehensi ve plan allows Acreage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projection at full buildout Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Pop Projection Pop Projection high Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 50,396 173,335 180,61 8 386,538 402,778 Total allowable (without A griculture or W ater) 121,737 184,519 196,638 411,478 438,502 Table 4 20 Percentage allocated comparison for Martin County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Population projection at full buildo ut B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2004) B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2010) B EBR M edium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 50,396 386,538 179,600 158,000 165,600 Percentage allocated 2 15% 245% 233%

PAGE 90

9 0 Table 4 21 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Martin County and the cities therein. Currently allowable in adopted FLUM, at full buildout Municipality SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory Acreage Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Population projection Population projection high Percentage allocated (as compared to BEBR Medium 2020 Population P rojection (2010 report)) County Residential & Mixed Use 48,528 155,149 155,149 345,983 345,983 219.0% County All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 74,482 155,149 155,149 345,983 345,983 219.0% All reporting cities Residential & Mixed Use 1,868 18,186 25,469 40,555 56,795 25.7% All reporting cities All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 3,368 29,370 41,488 65,495 92,519 41.5%

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4 9 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Miami Dade County.

PAGE 92

92 SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory A creage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projections at full bu ildout Percentage of FLUM compiled land area Percentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area Agricultural 79,388 0 0 6.4% 21.2% Commercial/Office 20,974 0 0 1.7% 5.6% Conservation 863,928 0 0 69.7% Industrial 26,137 0 0 2.1% 7.0% Institutiona l 11,889 0 0 1.0% 3.2% Mixed Use 2,993 10,793 31,193 0.2% 0.8% Recreation/Open Space 54,101 0 0 4.4% 14.4% Residential, High Density 39,114 657,508 1,866,798 3.2% 10.4% Residential, Low Density 24,596 61,491 174,634 2.0% 6.6% Residential, Medium Densi ty 91,600 553,474 1,561,396 7.4% 24.4% Residential, Very High Density 6,131 389,350 1,103,550 0.5% 1.6% Transportation 18,238 0 0 1.5% 4.9% Unknown 76 0 0 0.01% 0.02% Water Body 28,705 0 0 Grand Total 1,267,870 1,672,617 4,737,570 100.0% 100.0% T able 4 22 Future l and u se s ummary for Miami Dade County.

PAGE 93

93 Table 4 23 Population projection comparison for Miami Dade County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projection at full buildout Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Pop Projection Pop Projection high Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 164,434 1,672,617 2,671,521 4,737,570 7,573,627 Total allowable (without A griculture or W ater) 1,159,777 1,672,617 2, 671,521 4,737,570 7,573,627 Table 4 24 Percentage allocated comparison for Miami Dade County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Population projection at full buildout B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2004) B EBR M edium 2020 P opulati on P rojection (2010) B EBR M edium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 164,434 4,737,570 2,885,900 2,664,200 2,764,200 Percentage allocated 164% 178% 171%

PAGE 94

94 Table 4 25 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Miami Dade County and the cities therein. Currently allowable in adopted FLUM, at full buildout Municipality SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory Acreage Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Population projection Po pulation projection high Percentage allocated (as compared to BEBR Medium 2020 Population P rojection (2010 report)) County Residential & Mixed Use 158,330 1,603,405 2,599,904 4,553,669 7,383,726 170.9% County All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Cons ervation 286,782 1,603,405 2,599,904 4,553,669 7,383,726 170.9% All reporting cities Residential & Mixed Use 6,104 69,212 71,618 183,901 189,900 6.9% All reporting cities All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 9,067 69,212 71,618 183,901 1 89,900 6.9%

PAGE 95

95 Figure 4 10 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Monroe County.

PAGE 96

96 SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory A creage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projections at full buildout Percentage of FLUM compiled land area P ercentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area Agricultural 21 0 0 0.003% 0.04% Commercial/Office 2,257 13,997 31,213 0.4% 4.4% Conservation 581,026 0 0 91.8% Industrial 416 416 927 0.1% 0.8% Institutional 5,079 29,043 64,765 0.8% 9.8% Recre ation/Open Space 2,014 503 1,123 0.3% 3.9% Residential, High Density 1,332 21,314 47,530 0.2% 2.6% Residential, Medium Density 5,330 42,638 95,082 0.8% 10.3% Residential, Very Low Density 22,347 6,539 14,583 3.5% 43.1% Transportation 182 0 0 0.03% 0.4% Unknown 12,819 0 0 2.0% 24.7% Grand Total 632,822 114,450 255,223 100.0% 100.0% Table 4 2 6 Future l and u se s ummary for Monroe County.

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 2 7 Population projection comparison for Monroe County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acre age Dwelling units at full buildout Population projection at full buildout Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Pop Projection Pop Projection high Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 29,008 70,491 70,491 157,195 157,195 Tota l allowable (without A griculture or W ater) 632,801 114,450 168,748 255,223 376,308 Table 4 28 Percentage allocated comparison for Monroe County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Population projection at full buildout B EBR M edium 2020 P op ulation P rojection (2004) B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2010) B EBR M edium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 29,008 157,195 82,700 76,900 76,200 Percentage allocated 190% 204% 206%

PAGE 98

98 Figure 4 11 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Palm Beach County.

PAGE 99

99 Table 4 2 9 Future l and u se s ummary for Palm Beach County. SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory A creage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projections at full buildout Percentage of FLUM compiled land area Percentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area A gricultural 498,703 21,085 49,339 43.6% 64.8% Commercial/Office 8,247 30,757 71,449 0.7% 1.1% Conservation 374,054 0 0 32.7% Industrial 16,204 2,530 5,920 1.4% 2.1% Institutional 7,358 1,108 2,594 0.6% 1.0% Mini ng/Extractive 43 0 0 0.004% 0.01% Mixed Use 4,047 19,653 47,305 0.4% 0.5% Recreation/Open Space 10,182 2,932 6,861 0.9% 1.3% Residential, High Density 5,999 90,873 208,955 0.5% 0.8% Residential, Low Density 73,783 260,450 618,229 6.5% 9.6% Residential Medium Density 34,620 299,118 700,254 3.0% 4.5% Residential, Very High Density 977 31,526 71,248 0.1% 0.1% Residential, Very Low Density 92,445 30,562 74,761 8.1% 12.0% Transportation 8,186 37 86 0.7% 1.1% Unknown 8,573 0 0 0.7% 1.1% Water Body 151, 673 0 0 Grand Total 1,295,093 790,631 1,857,000 100.0% 100.0%

PAGE 100

100 Table 4 30 Population projection comparison for Palm Beach County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Dwelling u nits at full buildout Population projection at full buildout Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Pop Projection Pop Projection high Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 211,871 732,182 733,836 1,720,753 1,725,630 Total allow able (without A griculture or W ater) 644,716 769,546 771,200 1,807,661 1,812,539 Table 4 31 Percentage allocated comparison for Palm Beach County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Population projection at full buildout B EBR M edium 2020 P o pulation P rojection (2004) B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2010) B EBR M edium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 211,871 1,720,753 1,666,100 1,415,700 1,485,200 Percentage allocated 103% 122% 116%

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 32 Comparison of full buildout population projections of Palm Beach County and the cities therein. Currently allowable in adopted FLUM, at full buildout Municipality SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory Acreage Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Population projection Population projection high Percentage allocated (as compared to BEBR Medium 2020 Population P rojection (2010 report)) County Residential & Mixed Use 170,454 489,648 489,648 1,145,777 1,145,777 80.9% Cou nty All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 206,634 520,476 520,476 1,217,913 1,217,913 86.0% All reporting cities Residential & Mixed Use 41,417 242,534 244,188 574,975 579,853 40.6% All reporting cities All except Agricultural, Water Body and Conservation 64,028 249,070 250,724 589,748 594,626 41.7%

PAGE 102

102 Figure 4 12 Compiled, standardized FLUM for Saint Lucie County.

PAGE 103

103 Table 4 33 Future l and u se s ummary for Saint Lucie County. SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory A creage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projectio ns at full buildout Percentage of FLUM compiled land area Percentage of non C onservation FLUM compiled land area Agricultural 190,423 38,810 95,861 53.4% 56.2% Commercial/Office 6,729 17,176 43,970 1.9% 2.0% Conservation 17,676 0 0 5.0% Industrial 4, 720 0 0 1.3% 1.4% Institutional 5,461 0 0 1.5% 1.6% Mixed Use 44,198 324,826 844,291 12.4% 13.0% Recreation/Open Space 3,534 0 0 1.0% 1.0% Residential, High Density 1,622 24,684 63,069 0.5% 0.5% Residential, Low Density 57,552 268,642 687,668 16.1% 17 .0% Residential, Medium Density 9,132 87,188 222,527 2.6% 2.7% Residential, Very Low Density 5,361 3,293 8,133 1.5% 1.6% Transportation 9,839 0 0 2.8% 2.9% Unknown 432 0 0 0.1% 0.1% Water Body 21 0 0 Grand Total 356,701 764,618 1,965,520 100.0% 1 00.0%

PAGE 104

104 Table 4 34 Population projection comparison for Saint Lucie County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Dwelling units at full buildout Population projection at full b uildout Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Pop Projection Pop Projection high Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 117,865 708,632 827,795 1,825,689 2,120,048 Total allowable (without A griculture or W ater) 166,257 725,808 8 65,785 1,869,659 2,217,304 Table 4 35 Percentage allocated comparison for Saint Lucie County. Approved comprehensive plan allows Acreage Population projection at full buildout B EBR M edium 2020 P opulation P rojection (2004) B EBR M edium 2020 P opulati on P rojection (2010) B EBR M edium 2025 P opulation P rojection (2010) Total allowable: R esidential and M ixed U se 117,865 1,825,689 295,400 350,400 391,300 Percentage allocated 618% 521% 467%

PAGE 105

105 Table 4 36 Comparison of full buildout popula tion projections of Saint Lucie County and the cities therein. Currently allowable in adopted FLUM, at full buildout Municipality SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory Acreage Projected dwelling units Projected dwelling units high Population projection Popula tion projection high Percentage allocated (as compared to BEBR Medium 2020 Population P rojection (2010 report)) County Residential & Mixed Use 54,933 111,927 230,773 276,459 570,010 78.9% County All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 70,47 9 111,927 230,773 276,459 570,010 78.9% All reporting cities Residential & Mixed Use 62,932 596,706 597,021 1,549,230 1,550,038 442.1% All reporting cities All except Agricultural, Water Body, and Conservation 78,101 613,881 635,012 1,593,200 1,647,294 4 54.7% Table 4 37 Comparison of full buildout population projections for the reporting cities in Saint Lucie County. Currently allowable in adopted FLUM, at full buildout Municipality SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory Acreage Projected dwelling units Pr ojected dwelling units high Population projection Population projection high Percentage allocated (as compared to BEBR Medium 2020 Population P rojection (2010 report)) Fort Pierce Residential & Mixed Use 5,802 55,116 55,432 141,098 141,906 40.3% Port Sai nt Lucie Residential & Mixed Use 59,756 541,589 541,589 1,408,132 1,408,132 401.9%

PAGE 106

106 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Regarding Population Projections D the size of the population group being observed increases P rojections, 1986 p.4 ). F or instance, in the data presented for Glades County may be less accurate than Broward County, because it h as a smaller population. All of t hese factors must be considered subjectively when evaluating these projections. But the significant discrepancies uncovered by the data presented here still present themselves as relevant and important, despite potential im perfections in forecasting accuracy. F or instance, the difference Bureau of Economic and Business Research ( BEBR ) medium projected population for 2020 (between 11,900 and 13,600) and their current FLUM, which could accommodate nearl y 500,000 people, still warrant s further investigation regarding a n institutional breakdown in future land use planning, at both the local and state level In regards to the idea that communities that had experienced greater growth pressure in recent year s would have greater salience to state mandates (Deyle and Smith, 1998) regarding incorporating approved population projections into Future Land Use Maps ( FLUMs ) it would appear to generally hold true. Broward, Miami, and Palm Beach Counties generally hav e lower allocations than counties that have not experienced as much growth pressure in recent years, such as Lee, Glades, Collier, and Martin Counties. However, as previously stated, all municipalities have not been reported for Miami and Palm Beach Counti es Furthermore, Lee County has the

PAGE 107

107 particular distinction of having LeHigh Acres, a large, unincorpora ted, vested development. A possible confounding factor is that counties that have experienced recent growth pressures are likely closer to a buildout sce nario (i.e. reaching the limits of developable land) than counties that have only recently experience intense growth pressures. T he general trend is that counties with a history of high growth pressure tend to conform better to state mandated growth contro ls, as represented in their FLUMs. These results are examined in the next section. General Comparisons From the data presented, it is certain that municipalities in South Florida are over allocated in terms of residential future land use. This trend spans all municipalities measured. Even if one considers that, typically, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ( DCA ) will not object to a comprehensive plan or FLUM that contain s enough allocations to accommodate the growth predicted b y BEBR plus 25% 1 This can be explained by DCA desire to allow local governments to plan for themselves and accommodate unforeseen growth and because planning is not an exact science. Florida has often encountered unprecedented growth where growth occurs unexpectedly and quickly and only those municipalities ready for that eventuality benefit most. However, by this measure each government FLUM should accommodate less than 125% of their BEBR me dium projected population. T his is obviously not the case, except perhaps in mun icipalities that have already reached the l i mits of their developable land, like Broward County (120% allocated) Palm Beach County (122% allocated) also contradicts the trend, but the results for this county are incomplete; a significant 1 Bittaker, H. South Florida Water Management District, summer 2010, personal conversation

PAGE 108

108 proportion of the county did not report back. E ven without a significant proportion of the county reporting, Palm Beach County is over allocated for residential Future Land Use ( FLU ) N early all counties have allocated more than twice the residential capacity of their BEB R 2010 report projected population for 2020. T he BEBR 2010 report was created after the catastrophic failure of the housing market. Thus, a better comparison for many counties may be the 2004 BEBR report, which was created before the drop in the housing ma rket, and perhaps may be more representative of the optimistic planning that created these over allocated FLUMs. However, that comparison still shows a gross discrepancy between the BEBR report projections, which supposedly were used to create each FLUM, a nd the actual residential population that each currently adopted set of FLUMs can accommodate at full buildout. To review, the results show that the currently approved comprehensive plans of the nine counties analyzed can nearly accommodate the entire curr ent population of Florida: 17.5 million people. For instance, when compared to the BEBR 2004 Medium Population Projections, all counties except Broward are still vastly over allocated for residential FLU. It is generally agreed that the more funding spent on planning, the better the FLUM will be, and the better the overall comprehensive plan will be (Deyle and Smith, 1988) In evaluating studies of other comprehensive plans where the state of Florida mandated certain planning procedures, Deyle and Smith agr

PAGE 109

109 This could perhaps explain the variation in the future re sidential over allocation s between the counties. Comparisons a mong Counties One possible explanation for the differences in residential FLU over allocation among the counties studied could be administrative. In the first years after the Florida Growth Mana gement Act of 1985 (GMA), the DCA had to review, usually twice, over 400 comprehensive plans, some of which were hundreds of pages long (Deyle and Smith, 1998). Additionally, each local government is allowed two large scale amendments per year, which also require DCA approval. W hen the cumulative and direct impact of vested development rights which were approved prior to the GMA, are also considered, as in LeHigh Acres, it may have been the case that each comprehensive plan was over allocated from the begi nning. Given those financial and physical realities, the mere presence of a coherent FLUM may have been more important that the substance contained therein. DCA may have given greater scrutiny to l arger, more populated communities than smaller more rural communities, such as Glades County. Additionally, larger, more wealthy counties, like Broward and Miami Dade Counties, have more funding and staff to devote to planning than smaller, less wealthy counties, like Glades County These factors could, in part, lead to the over allocation of residential FLU that is apparent in this study. Comparisons b etween Counties Due to the mostly incomplete nature of the data collected for Miami Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach, and Hendry Counties the se counties will not be used i n case study comparisons. They have been presented to show that the general trends towards over allocation in residential land are present across all counties in South Florida However,

PAGE 110

110 for the remaining counties Broward, Collier, Glades, Lee, Martin, and Saint Lucie interesting connections can be drawn. Figure 5 1, summarizes the trends in these remaining counties to help explain the dynamic of population allocation in South Florida. Broward County can be envisioned as the future condition of all the ot her counties; it is fully built out on all developable land, has the highest population, and retains no areas for future expansion. Low d ensity r esidential is Glades County is a unique situation, because it has enough room for forty times the growth it is predicted to have, according to BEBR primarily accommodated with Medium Density Residential With sea level rise occurring, Fl orida stands to lose quite a bit of coastal land, not only because it is a peni nsula, but also because it has relatively residents will seek higher ground inland. Glades County is centrally located to receive a mass exodus from both the southeast a nd southwest coasts. Perhaps Glades County is far sighted enough to plan for the mass exodus of people from the coastal regions that will soon be flooded due to sea level rise But that is not likely. It is more likely that Glades County has created it s co mprehensive plan on the tail end of the enormous land grab, development craze that has fundamentally altered South Florida over the past 50 years. However, it is doubtful that the planners in Glades County have over allocated their FLUMs in specific prepar ation for this event, and even if they have, they have not specifically outlined this in their comprehensive plan as the reason for such over allocation.

PAGE 111

111 Martin and Saint Lucie Counties are relat ively similar, in that they are both still fairly undeveloped and have populated coastal regions, and rural interi ors. They are areas where spill over from Miami Dade and Broward will likely occur. However, the majority of residential future land use in Martin County will be accommodated by l ow d ensity r esidential, but it will be m ixed u se via two very large areas in Saint Lucie County. Both counties have much less future a gricultural and c onservation land th an Broward County Martin has similar m ixed u se future land use to Broward, but Saint Lucie does not. On the west coast, Lee and Collier Counties provide an interesting comparison to both their east coast counterparts (Martin and Saint Lucie Counties) and as shown by Broward County Lee and Collier Counties have both experience large amounts of g rowth in recent years, and these trends are predicted to continue. However, they have different reasons for over allocating residential future land use: in Lee it is due to primarily to LeHigh Acres which was vested before the GMA, and in Collier it is du e to primarily m ixed u se and l ow d ensity r esidential areas. LeHigh Acres has been a vested development since the mid 1900s, but is still under the jurisdiction of the county. c onservati on areas, while Lee County is primarily slated for future development according to adopted comprehensive plans. Land Use Density Changes Sanchez and Mandel (2007) attempted to quantify the change in residential land use patterns between 1970 and 2000 using census tract data, and quantifying land into

PAGE 112

112 1970 1980 land use to 1990 2000 land use Although they suggest that the 1985 GMA might have slowed the increase in low density sprawl (Sanchez and Mandel, 2007, p.97). Furthermore, the authors also state that due to conflicting trends in densification, population growth and land use change in as a Pearson coefficient test result falling below an unstated alpha value, and not as regionally important or some alternative measure of impact. It has been my experience, as a scientist, that statistical significance and real world significance are very different; trends that do not attain an arbitrary alpha value may still be important, especially in studies that are not carefully controlled and executed in a laboratory setting. Therefore, I would suggest that the trends the authors h ave observed are important. The population changes that Sanchez and Mandel (2007, p.96) report for six selected counties are listed in the second column of Table 5 1 ; all else has been calculated using the data they presented which was collected for post GMA Florida Compared to the state average, population growth in the six South Florida counties has been higher than other counties in the state. Perhaps this comparative difference caused the planners in these municipalities to allocate more land for future residential development, hoping to grab the future p opulation and tax base that would come with it. Though this study dealt primarily with residential density since the 1985 GMA, it

PAGE 113

113 contributes support to the case that future residential allocation in South Florida is uncontrolled. Sprawl Reduction Planning Policies (SRPPs) In 2006, Brody, Carrasco, and Highfield published a paper examining South Florida municipalities and the extent to which they exhibited Sprawl Reduction Planning Policies (SRPPs). Of interest here, they compared the counties according to how many and how intensely SRPPs were applied. The metric they developed ranked the counties, where the average was calculated as 5.761 within a range of 0 to 10 where 10 was the presence of many, strongly implemented SRPPs in the comprehensive plan of a m unicipality (Table 5 2 ). In some senses, residential future land use over allocation can be seen as sprawl, as it encourages residential land uses to be developed wherever they may, as opposed to a specific area within a specifically proscribed plan. Altho ugh the Ratio method ( Table 5 2 ), which is derived simply by dividing the Residential Percentage Allocated by the SRPP Index, is not the most accurate means of comparison (as it is influenced disproportionately by Residential Percentage Allocated), it is s till another means of comparison that may glean some knowledge when ranked. As such, it bears comparing the counties by ranking them by the amount of sprawl they may encourage ( Table 5 3 ). When ranked in this fashion, some trends become apparent. Firstly, Glades County consistently ranks as the mu nicipality with the most sprawl encouraging FLUM. The FLUM of Collier County generally ranks lower, while Lee, Saint Lucie, and Martin generally fall in the middle (as arranged from most sprawl encouraging FLUM to least). Broward County is difficult to determine, because its FLUM ranks as least spawl encouraging according to the Residential Percentage Allocated

PAGE 114

114 test (likely because that county has already reached the physical limits of development), and most sprawl encouraging according to the SRPP Index. Full Buildout Population Densities The population densities that would result from full buildout are very high for this region. Table 5 4 displays the equivalent densities in people per acre for each county if thei r full buildout population projections are normalized over three different land areas: Buildable Land ( the entire county excluding Conservation lands ) Urban Land (which excludes Conservation and Agricultural lands, but includes Commercial/Office, Industri al, Institutional, Recreation/Open Space, Transportation, Unknown, Mixed Use, and all Residential), and just Residential and Mixed Use Lands. The resulting densities wh en densities for Glades County are computed, it is apparent that much of that county is Agricultural land because the equivalent density of Buildable Land would be 1.00 people/acre. However, when considering only where the people would be living (Residenti al and Mixed Use Lands), the densities are very high (16.40 people/acre). Glades County, in addition to having the highest percentage allocated also has the highest projected density at full buildout, behind Miami Dade County. Only Collier, Martin, Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties have projected densities below 10 people/acre; all other counties projected densities are in the teens or higher. As a reference point, incorporated part of Jacksonville has 1.52 people/acre Miami (city) has 15.88 people/acre, and Orlando has 3.11 people/acre. (U.S. Census, 2000) By comparison, if each currently adopted FLUM is developed at full buildout across all Urban Land, all counties except Monroe (which had non reporting municipalities) will be more dense tha n Orlando. Resi dential and Mixed Use Land

PAGE 115

115 densities within Broward, Glades, Lee, Miami Dade, and Saint Lucie Counties will all be close to or exceeding the year 2000 density of Miami (city). Even if the amount of development that occurs is only half of full buildout, the equivalent densities are very dense, especially in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive lands, such as the Everglades. This development may occur in many diverse locations, spatially speaking, since the FLUMs allow residential development over vast areas of land. At what point does this become recognized as sprawl? Future research could spatially examine current densities and compare these to FLUM allowable future densities to determine a sprawl index, similar to Lopez and Hynes (2003), for each cou nty aggregated FLUM. Federally Owned Land It is important to note that in some counties ( e.g. Broward, Collier, Monroe, Miami Dade) there is a significant proportion of the county that is designated as C onservation This is primarily because of the Evergla des National Park and associated lands. It bears further exploration in these counties to determine what proportion not preserved in federal lands is actually destined for conservation based land uses. This would help elucidate whether Conservation is a pr iority in these counties. Conservation lands serve a valuable role in ecosystem services provisions, such as groundwater recharge, air pollution mitigation, and fisheries and wildlife spawning grounds. This will be relevant in the maintenance of a consiste nt level of ecosystem services for these residents, as their populations grow. Private Property Rights Legislation As previously mentioned, legislation such as the Harris Act may have contributed significantly to the patterns of FLU in the FLUMs that are r evealed here. This type of

PAGE 116

116 legisl ation is of significant concern in areas with large vested developments, such as LeHigh Acres in Lee County, and could be a significant reason for local g overnments apparent reservation in maintaining more restrictive FLUMs And since the current FLUMs have been in effect for quite some time, the y are already fully established so to speak, and many parties may have created vested developments in areas unsuitable for dense residential development. So that even to create more restrictive FLUMs now might bankrupt a local government because of the costs associated with buying out these new vested developments at fair market value. Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments DCA re viewed comprehensive plan amendments per year for each local government there are unlimited small scale amendments allowable Small scale amendments are generally those that affect less than 10 acres with some caveats (Florida Statutes 163.3187), and are not required to be reviewed by DCA. Although there are checks in place to keep these small scale amendments from creating a large change in FLUMs, it is possible for that to occur. In effect, these small scale amendments can create a moving target, as the FLUMs are ever changing, and have no doubt changed betw een the time of this study and when this paper is published These small scale amendments may have a large repercussions in FLU over long term time frames. Research into the effect that small scale am endments have on changes in FLUMs would be invaluable in determining the effect that these incremental, small scale amendments have in long term time frames.

PAGE 117

117 A New Hierarchy It is interesting to explore what would happen if we were to implement a scenario similar to this right now, using the currently approved FLUMs for the local governments discussed in this project. There exists enough data to conduct this exploration for Collier, Lee, Martin, and Saint Lucie Counties. Broward, Glades, Miami Dade, and Mon roe Counties do not have enough specific city FLUM data for this inquiry. As previously shown for Saint Lucie County, the implementation of this new county city hierarchy would not change the over allocation of that county much. Port Saint Lucie is the mai n offender in over allocation of residential FLU (Table 12 4). Table 5 5 shows the result of this exploration in the other three counties. Lee County would still be well over allocated for residential FLU; there is over 160% of the BEBR medium 2020 popula tion projection accommodated in just Cape Coral and Fort Myers alone, although most of that is Fort Myers. No data was reported for the other cities in Lee County Bonita Springs, Fort Myers Beach, and Sanibel but the two largest cities are accounted fo r here. It is also important to remember that LeHigh Acres is a vested residential development in Lee County, and if it were incorporated in its current incarnation, it would also accommodate a significantly large population. In Collier and Martin Counties this new hierarchy scenario would definitely lead to a less developed future, although it is difficult to make any conclusions with the data contained here. No data was collected for Everglades City and Marco Island, in Collier County, or for Jupiter Isl of these cities residential FLUM may change the outcome. And although the data collected from cities is incomplete for these counties, the same trend can begun to be seen in Miami Da de and Palm Beach Counties (Tables 9 3 and 11 3). As expected,

PAGE 118

118 growth as it is describe in their FLUMs, there is a significant reduction in the amount of over allocation of residential FLU. This study may be one of the first to suggest a relationship between over allocation of residential FLU and sprawl. Land values within the cities in this new hierarchy would be higher, as the decrease in supply affects an increase in d emand. With the residential land supply in the county restricted, development would be encouraged in the city boundaries, where infrastructure exists to support it. This increase in city land demand would potentially create an increase in city tax revenue, some of which would be shared with the county and regional administrations for their continued role in protecting the higher level planning interests of the city and state. This new hierarchy between county and city governments would be a positive step t allocation and sprawl. However, a strong framework for cooperation and achievement, involving carrot and stick tactics, must be in place for such a hierarchy to work properly (May and Burby, 1996). A new funding framework for each governmental level would have to be created to ensure the capabilities of each could be performed properly (Bengston, needed to help avoid situations in which growth management policies in one jurisdiction and Nelson, 2004, p.281). Some coercive ability is necessary for the state to ensure coop eration in state planning goals from local governments that may not support the state goals (May and Burby, 1996) and the ability to ensure that rests in the funding

PAGE 119

119 agency c apacity leads to stronger sprawl mitigation measures within local

PAGE 120

120 Figure 5 1 Comparison of counties and exploration for residential FLU over allocation Ag: different Consv: different MU: same Alloc: same Reason: LDR Lee West coast Growing Mostly Mixed use, D RI, LeHigh Acres DRGR Broward East coast Built out Mostly LDR St. Lucie East coast Growing Mostly Mixed use, DRI Collier West coast Growing Mostly Mixed Use, LDR Ag: different Consv: different MU: different Alloc: different Reason : DRI ( x 2 ) Similar geographic restrictions Ag: same Consv: same MU: different Alloc: different Reason: DRI, LeHigh Acres (est. ~1950) Ag: different Consv: same MU: same Alloc: same Reason: MU, LDR Conservation restrictions similar Ag: different Consv : different MU: same Alloc: same Reason: DRIs, MU similar in each Similar location/context Similar location/context Martin East coast Growing Mostly LDR =West Coast =Central Florida =East Coast Legend : similarities are determined according to perce ntage of county land area. Ag=Agriculture DRGR=Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource Consv=Conservation LDR=Low Density Residential MU=Mixed Use MDR=Medium Density Residential Alloc=Residential Allocation DRIs=Developments of Regional Impact Glades Central FL Rural, little growth Everywhere MDR Indian Reservation, lots of Conservation

PAGE 121

121 Ta ble 5 1 Population change, as reported by Sanchez and Mandel (2007). County 1990 2000 p op ulation c hange Broward 2.9% Collier 6.5% Glades 3.9% Lee 3.2% Martin 2.6% Saint Lucie 2.8% Average 3.65% Average of all other Florida counties 2.72% Table 5 2 Comparison of sprawl by different methods. County Residential Percentage Allocated SRPP Index Ratio Broward 120% 5 24 Collier 198% 8 24.8 Glades 4117% 5 823.4 Lee 656% 7 93.7 Martin 245% 7 35 Saint Lucie 521% 8 65.1 Average 976% 6.67 146.3

PAGE 122

122 Table 5 3 Ranking of counties by amount of sprawl. Method Ranking Residential Percentage Allocated SRPP Index Ratio Least sprawl Broward Collier and Saint Lucie Broward Collier Collier Moderate Sprawl Martin Lee and Martin Martin Sai nt Lucie Saint Lucie Lee Lee Most sprawl Glades Broward and Glades Glades

PAGE 123

123 Table 5 4 Equivalent d ensities across different FLUs in f ull b uildout s cenario. County Full b uildout p opulation projection Buildable l and (non Conservation) (acres) Equiva lent d ensity (people/acre) Urban (non Conservation, non Agricultural) l and (acres) Equivalent d ensity (people/acre) Residential and Mixed Use l and (acres) Equivalent d ensity (people/acre) Broward 2,146,387 265,500 8.08 255,604 8.40 162,349 13.22 Collier 952,936 729,010 1.31 277,545 3.43 253,866 3.75 Glades 489,892 487,796 1.00 67,420 7.27 29,869 16.40 Lee 5,113,299 391,518 13.06 391,518 13.06 351,115 14.56 Martin 345,984 299,475 1.16 77,851 4.44 50,397 6.87 Miami Dade 4,737,571 375,237 12.63 295,849 16.01 164,434 28.81 Monroe 157,195 51,797 3.03 51,776 3.04 29,009 5.42 Palm Beach 1,720,752 769,323 2.24 270,620 6.36 211,871 8.12 Saint Lucie 1,825,668 339,004 5.39 148,580 12.29 117,865 15.49 Totals 17,489,684 3,708,659 5.32 1,836,764 8.26 1,370,77 4 12.52 = A significant proportion of municipalities did not report data. Available data is shown. These calculations are an undere stimate.

PAGE 124

124 Table 5 5 Comparison of selected cities in full buildout population projection in new hierarchy scenario where counties accommodate zero population. Currently allowable in adopted FLUM, at full buildout Municipality SFWMD Generalized FLU C ategory County Acreage Proj. d welling units Proj. d welling units high Pop. p rojection Pop. p rojection high BEBR M edium 20 20 P op. Projection (2010 report ) for the whole county Percentage allocated (as compared to BEBR M edium 2020 P op. Projection (2010 report)) Naples Residential & Mixed Use Collier 4,680 37,418 37,418 89,429 89,429 406,500 22.0% Cape Coral Residential & Mix ed Use Lee 39,309 423,709 491,210 1,055,035 1,223,113 779,000 135.4% Fort Myers Residential & Mixed Use Lee 15,486 105,121 119,155 252,290 285,973 779,000 32.4% Stuart Residential & Mixed Use Martin 1,868 18,186 25,469 40,555 56,795 158,000 25.7%

PAGE 125

125 CHAP TER 6 CONCLUSION Although it may be better than what existed previously, our current system of residential Future Land Use ( FLU ) planning and allocation is not functioning properly. It is clear that South Florida counties, and I suspect all Florida counti es, are still just preparing their counties for development wherever and whenever they can get it. There is no real evidence of coherent, intelligent residential FLU planning. We have in place a system that encourages counties and cities to compete for dev elopment; the more development, the higher the tax base the more revenue generated Anthony (2004) agrees that this land undermines the ability of the state to encourage intelligent local plan ning. This system is counter productive to the very intention of 1985 Growth Management Act ( GMA ) It is also possible that the current comprehensive planning and concurrency requirement s of the GMA are not better than what previously existed (P endall, 1999) Indeed, by specifically designating the maximum allowable use of a given parcel, the local government is seen as vesting certain development rights within a parcel. In Property Rights Act, this confers upon the property owner certain rights. Additionally, when a FLUM designates the best and most beneficial use of a property, it may force a rise in property taxes upon the owner. If the owner cannot pay the new, higher pr operty taxes, they may be forced to sell the land, which, depending upon the location, may further the sprawling development pattern that can be created by over allocated FLUMs. Clawson (1962) agrees that the type of speculative land market created in subu rban areas creates an

PAGE 126

126 incentive for land owners to cash in their land as soon as a development opportunity presents itself regardless of location With over allocated Future Land Use Maps ( FLUMs ) the door is opened for many more landowners to sell, creat ing a spatially incongruent development pattern. Combined with the infrastructure construction and operation costs of sprawling development which are higher per capita than a more compact development (Burchel et al, 1998 Clawson, 1962 ) it may be in a lo cal allocating FLUM categories and create a more spatially restricted FLUM. Instead, we need to redesign the suite of functional relationships between the entities that determine local and regional planning. Changin g one facet at a time cannot address the current failure in residential FLU planning. Understand that planning techniques are determined by the interrelationship of the entities that administer them; effective se individual techniques are interlinked and coordinated in a synergistic manner rather than applied incrementally as stated by Porter ( 1997, p.13) becomes more relevant to this discussion Coordination and cooperation between the state, counties, cities, and other regional planning entities is essential. The U.S. General Accounting Office has determined that local communities are more likely to support federal intervention in coordinating growth management (2000). This trend toward accep tance of centralized planning from higher level government will continue as resources become scarcer (Bengston, Fletcher, and Nelson, 2004). Therefore, I propose a new structure of local government planning in Florida that aligns the goals of state, county and city together,

PAGE 127

127 instead of pitting them against each other in a race to court development, where only sprawl wins. But before we embark on defining that structure, it is important to determine what Florida does in planning that sets it above other ju risdictions. Anthony identifies the following elements of a state growth management program that may help control sprawl: (1) a mandatory requirement for local planning (like in Florida) (2) e ncouraging actual implementation of local plans through requir ing agencies to program and develop consistent with local plans (as in Washington [state] and California); (3) providing local governments financial incentives for growth management planning (as in Washington [state] ); (4) limiting the number of amendments to local plans (as in Florida); and (5) integrating strong agricultural land preservation elements into their growth management programs (as in Hawaii). Having several of these features in a state growth management program may increase its effectiveness i n checking sprawl. (Anthony, 2004, p.392). From this analysis, we can see that Florida has implemented perhaps the most important condition: required comprehensive plans for all local governments. Additionally, Florida has streamlined the administrative bu rden by accepting only two major comprehensive plan amendments per year, although even this is still an enormous amount of burden on the state. Unlimited small scale, local comprehensive plan amendments are allowed, which may have a large aggregate impact. And we see development to be consistent with local and state plans. This is especially apparent in light of the findings regarding residential FLU described in this project. And although the DCA can withhold state funds to ensure consistent local planning, it rarely does. Another part of the problem is that the implementation of the comprehensive plan is

PAGE 128

128 icker, 1994). This further pits local governments against their neighbors in a develop or die paradigm. With this in mind, perhaps Floridians should consider another way to encourage less sprawling development that is more consistent with expert populatio n projections: restructuring the institutional hierarchy of local governments. We should encourage a new s tructure of planning, whereby counties seek to discourage all development especially residential development even at the border of cities, and citie s should seek to become denser and encourage redevelopment and infill In this new scenario, a new method of revenue sharing between counties and cities would need to be determined. No longer would both be able to garner revenue from the development within their political boundaries because the county would now be discouraging development Counties would need to be funded, in part by the success of their own and surrounding cities. All green field development outside of city boundaries should cease permane ntly. This is a drastic approach, but is necessary when considering the current condition of FLU planning that encourages any and all growth everywhere. Any development of a regi onal nature, which would be better suited to more rural parts of a county or inbetween larger metropolitan areas, should be relegated to the Regional Planning Councils (RPC) state, and adjacent counties for pr oper siting and allocation (Weitz and Seltzer, 1998) T his way, developments that might be better suited for rural contexts could still locate, but in the appropriate location, consistent with state and regional planning goals. Of course, workforce housing and the objectives of the business would also play a role in the location negotiations of the business.

PAGE 129

129 Furthermore, the c urrent legal structure that places cities and counties FLU planning on even ground under the state, needs to be reformed. Counties should be hierarchically in between the state and cities with regional planning entities between the state and counties. As such, counties would take over some large scale service coordination, such as fire rescue, waste management and police Furthermore, cities should no longer have sovereign control over their ability to annex new areas. Some new political structure should be developed to approve the annexation request, consisting of the county and the state and other regional entities, all of whom should of In this new hierarchy, counties would be able to reject cit y annexation requests, and since there would be no significant new development outside of city boundaries, this would preserve the urban boundary and increase redevelopment, where infrastructure already exists Another alternative is for local governments to implement capped capacities for their FLUM designations. For instance, suppose a county has a future land use category called Medium Residential, which cover 10,000 acres county wide and allows up to 8 dwelling units per acre. This would lead to a full buildout of 80,000 dwelling units, and an approximate future population of 184,000 residents (at 2.3 people per dwelling unit). If there were a maximum capacity for that FLUM category of 10,000 dwelling units during the period of the planning horizon, then we would only have the possibility of a full buildout condition of 23,000 residents. This is one way to curb the rampant expansion that is currently entrenched in these types of over allocated FLUMs. Although this would regulate overall growth in the coun ty, it is not a spatially sensitive planning tool. Creating capped capacity would not be effective in reducing sprawling

PAGE 130

130 development because it does not spatially designate appropriate areas as suitable for development, and preserve the rest of the area fo r other uses. O ther potential solution s are rate of growth controls and growth phasing regulations (Kelly, 1993). These regulations typically slow development by placing a cap on the number of building permits issued annually. And although this may create a more reasonable residential FLU for the stated planning horizon, it still does not address the spatial component of these sprawling FLUMs. These types of regulations may be ideal for areas like LeHigh Acres, especially if combined with a Transfer of Deve lopment Rights program that seeks to increase density in currently developed areas. Cities should be incentivizing infill and redevelopment (Bengston, Fletcher and Nelson, 2004) Especially in the wake of the burst of the housing bubble, and speculation of a commercial real estate bubble, infill development is a great way to encourage density and reuse of existing infrastructure. Some communities near Albuquerque, NM have encouraged infill development by waiving concurrency fees for developers that build wi thin the existing infrastructure service boundary Within five years, they have noticed an increase in building permits for lots served by existing infrastructure (N e lson 2011). Many other communities have experimented successfully with waiver of developm ent fees in selected infill areas (Lorentz and Shaw, 2000), tax exemptions, administrative zoning changes, subsidized land costs, and other incentivized methods (Bengston, Fletcher, and Nelson, 2004, and Porter, 1997). T hese approach es would work exception ally well to reduce excessive, sprawling future residential development, especially when combined with the new county city hierarchy proposed here.

PAGE 131

131 Another method of reducing over allocation of residential FLU, especially in rural areas of a county, is exc lusive agricultural or forestry zoning based on soil and/or climate characteristics (Bengston, Fletcher, and Nelson, 2004). The protection of agricultural land and associated domestic food production capacity based on inherent landscape characteristics pro vides a legal nexus for legislation Land is zoned restricted to uses other than the cultivation of agricultural or silvicultural products, with some small amount of accessory buildings allowed. The downfall of this approach is that it can potentially be c hallenged in court as a takings (Gillham, 2002) Additionally, for this method to work best the land zoned as such mu st stay that way in perpetuity. Otherwise, it will be re designated to some other urban land use in future FLUMs. Right to farm laws also p rovide a similar type of protection, but they rely on a willing farmer to participate, and do not prevent the selling of the land for residential conversion. Since agricultural land is where people get their domestic food and is one of the most susceptible land uses to urban conversion, it is important to address this issue in FLU planning Of course there are assumptions within this study that bear further examination. The county as the unit of analysis can be seen as fairly arbitrary, but when considering the nature and scale of the data collected, and the number of reporting local governments it becomes more justifiable. This is a regional analysis, and since all comp rehensive plan), it seems reasonable to use this grouping. Also, the nature of this analysis presented in this study mean that the results are more accurate when analyzed io.

PAGE 132

132 Often times, infrastructure and rights of way requirements imposed on developers in building and land development regulations prevent them from ever achieving the maximum density allowable in a given zoning category. However, that is the legal limit an d the letter of the law governing those areas, and is therefore possible in many cases. And, as stated before, the method for calculating full buildout population projections is a gross method that glosses over some of the intricacies of land development i n the interest of a large scale picture. The converse argument stands that if a local government does not ever expect all of the areas in their FLUM to be developed to the maximum extent, then why are they designated as such in the first place. It was beyo nd the scope of this project to analyze the difference between the current population and extent of these local governments and the designations within their FLUMs. However, it would be most interesting to compare not only the acreages and equivalent popul ations of each, but also the spatial distribution of population. Spatial statistics could be used to determine a measurement of comparison for different future scenarios. A more accurate knowledge of each local communities exact densities in each zoning ca tegory would also help to refine the full buildout population projections presented herein, and would perhaps exonerate some of the local planning entities for their generous FLU allocations. And finally we must ask ourselves if the planning horizon in a FLUM means anything at all. For instance, the idea of a planning horizon is to plan growth up to a certain time period in the future. But as we approach that horizon, we set another horizon even farther in the future, with increased development potential. Is there ever an

PAGE 133

133 conversion? So far, the answer is no. The comprehensive plan fails to address issues of carrying capacity. Some regional entities, like the South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD ) have begun to ask these questions, but only from the limited point of view of their own mission statement. For instance, the SFWMD has started to restrict growth in certain areas where communities seek to withdraw water from t he aquifers for their water source. The SFWMD has the authority to do this to protect the future water resources for the region by protecting the aquifers. But the SFWMD does not have the jurisdiction to limit local governments growth supported by developi ng other sources of water, such as desalinization or water conservation efforts. And with property rights laws as they are in the United States, it may be beyond even the purview of the state or even federal government to limit development in perpetuity.

PAGE 134

134 APPENDIX A SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GENERALIZED FUTURE L AND USE METHODOLOGY ( internal document, SFWMD, Intergovernmental Policy and Planning Division 2010 ) Obtain Future Land Use maps and the FLU Goals, Objectives, and Policies for each jur isdiction. Regional planning councils should have generally up to date information here, as should FDOT districts if there are organizational restrictions that prevent loaning hard copy maps to be taken from the office, additional time will need to be a llocated to ensure that the most current maps can be obtained. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies in each Future Land Use element should be reviewed to determine which original FLU categories are used for each jurisdiction. Concurrently, a crosswalk tabl e (spreadsheet) should be developed showing to which generalized FLU category each original FLU category corresponds we strongly recommend this spreadsheet also include a field where text from or a brief summary of the original Future Land Use category c an be documented (for example, Low Density Residential in Jurisdiction X is 1 to 3 dwelling units per acre). (Optional: Also, early in the process the organization developing the files should obtain digital parcel data where available. This is important in that it allows for data from the various jurisdictions to be aligned to the same base, so that major gaps and overlaps are eliminated early in the process.) For jurisdictions where digital Future Land Use data can not be obtained, we recommend creating individual shapefiles for each such jurisdiction. As these jurisdictions are typically small municipalities, such files average approximately several

PAGE 135

135 hours when created over a parcel base. Larger jurisdictions without GIS could take much longer. Create s tandardized tables based upon the fields delivered by the TBRPC. Once table standardization is complete, the generalized FLU categories need to be applied. The Statewide Generalized Categories and Definitions are listed below. The categories within eac h generalized land use are to be used when classifying the land uses. It is imperative that the jurisdictional DEFINITION be reviewed to determine the correct Generalized Landuse as some jurisdictions may have the same name for a landuse but the types of uses included may vary, thus determining which general land use it will fall under. Using the crosswalk table, each modified FLU category receives a generalized FLU. In some cases, a Future Land Use category not found in a municipal comprehensive plan wil l actually be a county FLU category for a recently annexed area in these cases, a generalized FLU can be obtained from the rows of the spreadsheet pertaining to the county. Residential classifications should be determined individually for each local g overnment to ensure the best fit with the generalized categories. For example, if City X has categories for 1 3 units per acre, 3+ 9 units per acre, and 9+ 22 units per acre, these would be classified as Low Density Residential, Medium Density Resid ential, and High Density Residential. If City Y has categories for 1 4 units per acre, 4.0+ 7 units per acre, and 7+ 12 units per acre, these would be classified as Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential there would be no High Density Residential for this city.

PAGE 136

136 Please note that each jurisdiction may include various land uses in one category. For example, one may have Central Business District in which the land uses are professional and commercial, thus to be classified as Commercial. Another may include residential in the Central Business District, therefore causing this jurisdictions CBD to be classified as Mixed Use. A review of boundaries is necessary to be performed. The process involves pulling al l shapefiles for a county together and evaluating gaps and overlaps. A final general review /quality control check of sample areas is performed.

PAGE 137

137 Table A 1 SFWMD g eneralized f uture l and u se c ategories Category Additional Information Very High Density Re sidential Residential development where the maximum allowable density exceeds approximately 25 units per acre High Density Residential Residential development up to approximately 25 units per acre, but generally greater than that allowed in the Medium Density Residential category Medium Density Residential Residential development up to approximately 12 units per acre, but generally greater than that allowed in the Low Density Residential category Low Density Residential Residential development up to approximately 5 units per acre, but greater than that allowed in the Very Low Density Residential category Very Low Density Residential Residential development of less than one unit per acre* Unknown Density Residential Residential development o f which the density is unknown. Agricultural Land specifically designated as Agricultural in the comprehensive plan. May include silvicultural uses. Recreation / Open Space Public or privately owned/operated recreational sites or facilities to include both active and passive recreational opportunities {All Recreation, Open Space, Parks, Public Active, Water Dependent uses (beach), Institutional/Recreational, recreational/public mixed use, Golf course, corridor open space, Multi purpose open space, gree nbelt, commercial recreation (low intensity outdoor rec uses campgrounds, fish camps, etc), natural resources/rec/openspace, rural recreation and other recreational or open space categories. Conservation Areas known to require environmental protection fr om development, areas being preserved wich contain wetlands and/or habitats which serve to protect valuable threatened species and natural resources{Private and public conservation lands, Wetlands categories, passive recreation, institutional/conservation, marsh, conservation open space, public resource, wetland conservation, natural resource, conservation/floodplains, resource management/recreation, resource protection, passive park/buffer area, potential environmentally significant, preserve, environmenta lly sensitive lands, environmental systems corridor, conservation/protected, conservation/restricted, } Institutional private or institutional entities {Institutional, governmental, publ ic/semi public, public facilities, public land (except parks), Federal, Military, church use/religious, educational/schools, private wellfield, public grounds (except park), hospitals, utilities (treatment plants, water wells, quasi public}

PAGE 138

138 Table A 1. Co ntinued. Category Additional Information Mining / Extractive Mining and mineral extraction Industrial Indoor manufacturing, assembling, fabricating, and warehouse activities conducted indoors, mini storage {heavy, light and medium industrial, planned i ndustrial, industrial, industrial park, planned industrial park, general industrial, industrial employment center, wholesale commercial, commercial/industrial, airport industrial} Commercial/Office Property designated as stores, offices or other establis hments used to serve the needs of the public {General Commercial, Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, commercial/manufacturing, low intensity commercial, general commercial development, limited commercial development, downtown business, marine commercial, high intensity commercial, commercial and services (including lodging), historical resources, marina, tourist commercial, local convenience center, mixed commercial industrial, central business district, office/commercial, office, wholesale, community com mercial, highway commercial, mixed use commercial, water oriented commercial, business, retail services, historic commercial, lakefront commercial, business district overlay, regional commercial, integrated office commercial, limited interchange, commercia l village, Lodging, hotel/resort, RV Park, tourist accommodations.} Mixed Use PUDs (except where it is locally known the PUD is strictly residential or commercial or another land use), Mixed Use, regional activity center, Commercial/Residential, commerci al/industrial, shoreline mixed use, residential/recreation, regional mixed use, residential/professional, downtown mixed use, mixed use planning district, residential/business, community mixed development, mixed use neighborhood, urban village, town cente r, redevelopment area, DRIS, Coordinated Development District, Planned Community} Transportation ROWs, Airports, Transportation Utilities, Etc Water Body Not all Future Land Use Maps include water as a category. In these cases, water bodies include a l and use for an adjacent use. Unknown Information not available

PAGE 139

139 APPENDIX B KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE FLUM ATLAS TABLE S This appendix contains all the data that was collected for each FLUM in this study. It is intended to be used as a reference for the c ondition of each FLUM at the time it was collected (June August 2010). The first table contains a legend for understanding the atlas tables. Table B 1 Explanation of fi elds present in for each county Field name Description/Informa tion Source LOCAL GOVT NAME Local government name Local g overnment LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION FLUM designation Local g overnment c omprehensive p lan SFWMD GEN FLU SFWMD Generalized Future Land Use Category SFWMD Generalized Future Land Use Categories (See Appendix A) TOTAL ACREAGE Acreage for that Future Land Use category Calculated in ArcGIS DENSITY FLUM maximum density in dwelling units per acre (DU/acre) Local government comprehensive plan DENSITY HIGH FLUM alternative maximum density (DU/acre); an e xceptionally high density often available as a bonus for including workforce housing or meeting other criteria within a specific development. Local government comprehensive plan COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM Additional information relevant to the local FLUM cate gory Local g overnment FLUM GIS file or l ocal g overnment Comprehensive Plan (often from the Future Land Use Element). BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS The total number of dwelling units allowable under the current adopted comprehensive plan for this FLU, if all are as were built out at full capacity This value is equal to DENSITY times TOTAL ACREAGE BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH The total number of dwelling units allowable under the current adopted comprehensive plan for this FLU, if all areas were built out at full capacity, using all available density bonuses. This value is equal to DENSITY HIGH times TOTAL ACREAGE

PAGE 140

140 Table B 1. Continued. Field name Description/Information Source BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTION The estimated population that could be accommodated, if all areas were built out at full capacity This value is equal to BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS multiplied by the appropriate U.S. Census persons per household. BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTION HIGH The estimated population that could be accommodated, if all ar eas were built out at full capacity, using all available density bonuses. This value is equal to BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH multiplied by the appropriate U.S. Census persons per household.

PAGE 141

141 APPENDIX C FUTURE LAND USE ATLA S FOR BROWARD COUNTY FL The f ollowing table represents the compiled FLU data for all reporting local governments in this county. It clearly records local government FLU density maximums, which were used to calculate full buildout population projections. The table also displays which S FWMD Generalized FLU Category was used to categorize each local government FLU designation.

PAGE 142

142 Table C 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Broward County. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSIT Y DENSI TY HIGH COMM ENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTION S BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTION S HIGH BROWARD COUNTY AGRICULTURAL Agricultural 9,895 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY COMMERCIAL Commercial/Off ice 14,20 5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECREATION Commercial/Off ice 4,327 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY EMPLOYMENT CENTER HIGH Commercial/Off ice 1,812 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY EMPLOYMENT CENTER LOW Commercial/Off ice 17 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY OFFICE PARK Commercial/Off ice 749 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY TRANSIT ORIENTED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 2,721 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 128 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY CONS ERVATION NATURAL RESERVATIONS CONSERVATION 2,753 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY CONSERVATION RESERVE WATER SUPPLY AREAS CONSERVATION 78 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY EVERGLADES CONSERVATION 511,643 0.0 0.0 POLYGON INTERPOLATED BASED ON COUNTY BOUND ARY 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 11,126 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY COMMUNITY FACILITIES INSTITUTIONAL 5,564 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY ELECTRICAL GENERATION FACILITIES INSTITUTIONAL 563 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 143

143 Table C 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSIT Y DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTION S BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTION S HIGH B ROWARD COUNTY UTILITIES INSTITUTIONAL 1,755 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY LOCAL ACTIVITY CENTER MIXED USE 985 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTER MIXED USE 8,481 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE RECREATION /O PEN SPACE 8,167 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY MEDIUM (16) RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 9,578 16.0 16.0 153,253 153,253 375,470 375,470 BROWARD COUNTY MEDIUM HIGH (25) RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 4,144 25.0 25.0 103,605 103,605 25 3,832 253,832 BROWARD COUNTY LOW (2) RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 3,030 2.0 2.0 6,060 6,060 14,847 14,847 BROWARD COUNTY LOW (3) RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 17,952 3.0 3.0 53,855 53,855 131,946 131,946 BROWARD COUNTY LOW (5) RESIDENTI AL RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 41,382 5.0 5.0 206,910 206,910 506,931 506,931 BROWARD COUNTY LOW MEDIUM (10) RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 11,318 10.0 10.0 113,177 113,177 277,283 277,283 BROWARD COUNTY RESIDENTIAL IN IRREGULAR AREAS RESIDENTIAL UNKNOWN DENSITY 41,132 1.4 37.0 FLEXIBLE DENSITY UNSPECIFIED; DEPENDS ON NEIGHBORING LAND USES. 182,225 182,225 446,452 446,452 BROWARD COUNTY HIGH (50) RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 1,194 50.0 50.0 59,684 59,684 146,226 146,226 BROWARD C OUNTY ESTATE (1) RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 15,052 1.0 1.0 15,052 15,052 36,876 36,876 BROWARD COUNTY PALM BEACH COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL 10 RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 2,014 0.1 0.1 201 201 493 493

PAGE 144

144 Table C 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT N AME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSIT Y DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTION S BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTION S HIGH BROWARD COUNT Y RURAL ESTATES RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 1,254 1.0 1.0 1,254 1,254 3,073 3,073 BROWARD COUNTY RURAL RANCHES RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 4,832 0.3 0.3 1,208 1,208 2,959 2,959 BROWARD COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY TRANSPORTATI ON 30,415 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BRO WARD COUNTY TRANSPORTATIO N TRANSPORTATI ON 11,707 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY UNKNOWN 0.00033 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BROWARD COUNTY WATER WATER BODY 7,555 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 145

145 APPENDIX D FUTURE LAND USE ATLA S FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FL The following table represents the compiled FLU data for all reporting local governments in this county. It clearly records local government FLU density maximums, which were used to calculate full buildout population projections. The table also displays which SFWMD Gen eralized FLU Category was used to categorize each local government FLU designation.

PAGE 146

146 Table D 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Collier County. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSIT Y DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTIONS BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S HIGH COLLIER COUNTY Agricultural / Rural Designation AGRICULTURAL 266,498 0.2 0.2 53,300 53,300 127,386 127,386 COLLIER COUN TY Agricultural / Rural Mixed Use District AGRICULTURAL 184,966 0.2 0.2 36,993 36,993 88,414 88,414 COLLIER COUNTY Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdist COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 161 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial I nfill Subdistrict COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 98 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 15 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Livingston/ Eatonwood Ln Commercial Infill Subdist COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 20 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistric COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 65 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Livingston/Radio Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 5 16.0 16.0 87 87 209 209 COLLIER COUNTY Livingston/Vet erans Mem Commercial Infill Subdist COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 11 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Vanderbilt Beach Rd Neighborhood Commercial Subdis COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 17 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Vanderbilt Beach/Coller Blvd Commercial Subdist COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 47 16.0 16.0 750 750 1,791 1,791 NAPLES COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 631 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Conservation Designation CONSERVATION 857,563 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 147

147 Table D 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GE NERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSIT Y DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTIONS BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S HIGH COLLIER COUNTY RF Sending CONSERVATION 42,580 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 NAPLES CONSERVATION CONSERVATION 837 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Industrial District INDUSTRIAL 2,173 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Rural Industrial District INDUSTRIAL 584 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 NAPLES INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL 215 0. 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment MIXED USE 1,770 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict MIXED USE 55 15.0 15.0 822 822 1,966 1,966 COLLIER COUNTY Collier Blvd Community Facility Subdistrict MIXED USE 80 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Davis Blvd / County Barn Rd Mixed Use Subdistrict MIXED USE 27 4.0 4.0 106 106 254 254 COLLIER COUNTY Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict MIXED USE 82 0.0 0.0 360 360 860 860 COLLIER COUNTY Interchang e Activity Center Subdistrict MIXED USE 454 26.0 26.0 11,798 11,798 28,198 28,198 COLLIER COUNTY Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict MIXED USE 2,600 4.0 16.0 10,400 41,601 24,857 99,426 COLLIER COUNTY Orange Blossom Mixed Use District MIXED USE 45 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Rural Settlement Area District MIXED USE 2,813 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict MIXED USE 5,378 16.0 16.0 86,049 86,049 205,657 205,657 COLLIER COUNTY Urban Residential Subdistrict MIXED USE 76,978 1.5 1.5 115,467 115,467 275,967 275,967 NAPLES DOWNTOWN MIXED USE 394 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 NAPLES WATERFRONT MIXED USE 62 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 148

148 Table D 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY T OTAL ACREAG E DENSIT Y DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATION PROJECTIONS BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S HIGH NAPLES RECREATION RECREATION/OPEN SPACE 1,064 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 NAPLES RESI DENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 4,170 25.0 25.0 37,382 37,382 89,343 89,343 COLLIER COUNTY Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 12,102 4.0 4.0 48,408 48,408 115,696 115,696 COLLIER COUNTY Residential Density Bands RESIDENTIAL, UNKNOWN DENSITY 13,668 3.0 29.0 41,003 396,362 97,997 947,306 COLLIER COUNTY Estates Desingation RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 101,289 0.4 0.4 40,515 40,515 96,832 96,832 COLLIER COUNTY RF Neutral RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 9,395 0.2 0.2 1,879 1 ,879 4,491 4,491 COLLIER COUNTY RF Receiving RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 22,451 0.2 1.0 4,490 22,451 10,732 53,658 NAPLES BEACH FRONT ESTATES RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 54 0.7 0.7 36 36 86 86 NAPLES AIRPORT TRANSPORTATION 622 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 NAPLES RUNWAY TRANSPORTATION 28 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 COLLIER COUNTY Incorporated Area UNKNOWN 17,922 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 149

149 APPENDIX E FUTURE LAND USE ATLA S FOR GLADES COUNTY, FL The following table represents the compiled FLU data for all reporting local gov ernments in this county. It clearly records local government FLU density maximums, which were used to calculate full buildout population projections. The table also displays which SFWMD Generalized FLU Category was used to categorize each local government FLU designation.

PAGE 150

150 Table E 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Glades County. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOU T DWELLIN G UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUIL DOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTI ONS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTI ONS HIGH GLADES COUNTY Agriculture AGRICULTURAL 404,136 0.1 0.1 20,207 20,207 50,719 50,719 GLADES COUNTY Agriculture/Re sidential AGRICULTURAL 16,240 0.2 0.2 3,248 3,248 8,153 8,153 GLADES COUNTY Commerical COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 1,061 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 GLADES COUNTY Conservation Overlay CONSERVATION 100,131 0.1 0.1 5,007 5,007 12,566 12,566 GLADES COUNTY Institution INSTITUTIONAL 596 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 GLADES COUNTY Landfill INSTITUTIONAL 41 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 GLADES COUNTY Industrial MINING/EXTRAC TIVE 1,789 0.0 0.0 Mostly includes sand mines at this time. 0 0 0 0 GLADES COUNTY Transitional MIXED USE 11,339 7.0 7.0 Allows a mix of uses, residential maximum density is 7 units per acre 79,375 79,375 199 ,231 199,231 GLADES COUNTY Park RECREATION/OP EN SPACE 499 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 GLADES COUNTY American Prime RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 988 1.6 1.6 1.58 dwelling units per acre 1,561 1,561 3,919 3,919 GLADES COUNTY Muse Village RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 1,268 2 .8 2.8 2.76 dwelling units per acre, but limited to 324 due to the level of service on SR 29 324 324 813 813 GLADES COUNTY Residential RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 16,274 7.0 7.0 113,916 113,916 285,929 285,929 GLADES COUNTY Muse Airpark TRANSPORTATIO N 5 8 0.6 0.6 35 35 87 87 GLADES COUNTY Brighton Indian Reservation UNKNOWN 35,295 0.0 0.0 Not within Glades County Jurisdiction 0 0 0 0

PAGE 151

151 Table E 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSI TY D ENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOU T DWELLIN G UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTI ONS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTI ONS HIGH GLADES COUNTY Lake Okeechobee WATER BODY 134,504 0.0 0.0 Not landuse classification 0 0 0 0

PAGE 152

152 AP PENDIX F FUTURE LAND USE ATLA S FOR LEE COUNTY, FL The following table represents the compiled FLU data for all reporting local governments in this county. It clearly records local government FLU density maximums, which were used to calculate full buildout population projections. The table also displays which SFWMD Generalized FLU Category was used to categorize each local government FLU designation.

PAGE 153

153 Table F 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Lee County. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED F LU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DENSI TY DENSIT Y HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDOU T DWELLIN G UNITS HIGH) BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH CAPE CORAL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTER COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 442 4. 4 4.4 OVERALL DENSITY IS REGULATED. 1,945 1,945 4,842 4,842 CAPE CORAL COMMERCIAL/PROFES SIONAL COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 1,465 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS COMMERCIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 34 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS General Commercial COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 2,347 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS Intensive Commercial COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 2,753 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS Profession al Office COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 616 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Commercial COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 143 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY General Commercial Interchange COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 61 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY General Interchange COMMERCIAL/O FFICE 1,383 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL NATURAL RESOURCES/PRESERVA TION CONSERVATION 9,868 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS CONSERVATION LANDS CONSERVATION 1,063 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Conservation Lands Upland CONSERVATION 25,432 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Conservation L ands Wetland CONSERVATION 43,228 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Wetlands CONSERVATION 51,289 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 752 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 154

154 Table F 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEG ORY TOTAL ACREAGE DENSI TY DENSIT Y HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDOU T DWELLIN G UNITS HIGH) BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH FORT MYERS Heavy Industrial INDUSTRIAL 1,065 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MY ERS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 13 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS Light Industrial INDUSTRIAL 1,193 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Industrial Commercial Interchange INDUSTRIAL 377 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Industrial Development INDUSTRIAL 4,865 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Industrial Interchange INDUSTRIAL 165 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Tradeport INDUSTRIAL 3,120 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY University Village Interchange INDUSTRIAL 63 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL PUBLIC FACILITY INSTITUTIONAL 2,119 0.0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS CIVIC INSTITUTIONAL 71 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Public Facilities INSTITUTIONAL 6,401 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL DOWNTOWN MIXED MIXED USE 285 40.0 40.0 11,383 11,383 28,344 28,344 CAPE CORAL FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DIST RICT MIXED USE 5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL MIXED USE MIXED USE 2,000 4.4 4.4 DENSITY BONUS AVAILABLE. 8,798 8,798 21,908 21,908 CAPE CORAL MIXED USE PRESERVE MIXED USE 1,004 4.4 4.4 4,419 4,419 11,004 11,004 CAPE CORAL MIXED USE PRESERVE DISTRICT MIX ED USE 161 4.4 4.4 711 711 1,769 1,769 CAPE CORAL PINE ISLAND ROAD DISTRICT MIXED USE 2,503 24.0 24.0 60,070 60,070 149,575 149,575

PAGE 155

155 Table F 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DENSI TY DE NSIT Y HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDOU T DWELLIN G UNITS HIGH) BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH CAPE CORAL SUB DISTRICTS MIXED USE 794 0.0 0.0 LOCATION SPECIFIC CAPPED DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES APPLY. 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS EASTWOOD VILLAGE MIXED USE MIXED USE 850 0.0 0.0 MAX 2600 DWELLING UNITS. 2,600 2,600 6,240 6,240 FORT MYERS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MIXED USE 1,824 20.0 20.0 36,489 36,489 87,575 87,575 FORT MYERS Mixed Use MIXED USE 2,411 0 .0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS Mixed Use Residential MIXED USE 499 3.0 3.0 1,497 1,497 3,593 3,593 FORT MYERS NeighborHood Redevelopment District MIXED USE 82 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA MIXED USE 2,706 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS URBAN CENTER MIXED USE 266 30.0 60.0 7,982 15,964 19,156 38,313 FORT MYERS URBAN CORE MIXED USE 113 50.0 100.0 5,643 11,286 13,543 27,086 FORT MYERS URBAN GENERAL MIXED USE 68 6.0 12.0 410 820 984 1,968 LEE COUNTY Burnt Store Marina Village MIXED US E 19 0.0 0.0 160 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED 160 160 370 370 LEE COUNTY Central Urban MIXED USE 33,098 15.0 15.0 496,473 496,473 1,146,854 1,146,854 LEE COUNTY Destination Resort Mixed Use Water Dependent MIXED USE 30 9.4 9.4 ALSO COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND RESORT USES. 281 281 650 650 LEE COUNTY Intensive Development MIXED USE 6,013 22.0 22.0 132,286 132,286 305,580 305,580

PAGE 156

156 Table F 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DENSI TY DENSIT Y HIG H COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDOU T DWELLIN G UNITS HIGH) BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH LEE COUNTY New Community MIXED USE 2,498 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY University Community MIXED USE 2,501 2.5 15.0 CLUSTERED DENSITIES OF 15 DU/ACRE. 6,252 37,512 14,442 86,652 LEE COUNTY Urban Community MIXED USE 66,030 10.0 10.0 660,298 660,298 1,525,288 1,525,288 CAPE CORAL OPEN SPACE RECREATION/OP EN SPACE 87 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL PARKS AND RECREA TION RECREATION/OP EN SPACE 1,932 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS CIVIC RECREATION RECREATION/OP EN SPACE 14 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS Recreation & Open Space RECREATION/OP EN SPACE 860 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, HIG H DENSITY 16,875 16.0 20.0 DENSITY BONUS UP TO 20 DU/ACRE POSSIBLE. 270,005 337,506 672,312 840,390 FORT MYERS High Density Multi Family (Max Density 16 du/ac) RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 588 16.0 16.0 9,405 9,405 22,573 22,573 CAPE CORAL SINGLE FAMILY RE SIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 15,496 4.4 4.4 68,182 68,182 169,772 169,772 FORT MYERS HERITAGE LAKES SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 273 1.0 1.0 MAX 185 DWELLING UNITS. 185 185 444 444 FORT MYERS Low Density Single Family (Max Densi ty 1.36 du/ac) RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 197 1.4 1.4 267 267 642 642 LEE COUNTY Outlying Suburban RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 25,796 3.0 3.0 77,388 77,388 178,767 178,767 LEE COUNTY Sub Outlying Suburban RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 3,459 2.0 2.0 6,918 6,918 15,980 15,980

PAGE 157

157 Table F 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DENSI TY DENSIT Y HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDOU T DWELLIN G UNITS HIGH) BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH FORT MYERS Low Density Single Family (Max Density 5.45 du/ac) RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 550 5.5 5.5 2,997 2,997 7,194 7,194 FORT MYERS Low Density Single Family (Max Density 6.22 du/ac) RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 1,955 6.2 6.2 12,157 12,157 29,177 29,177 FORT MYERS Medium Density Multi Family (Max Density 12 du/ac) RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 622 12.0 12.0 7,467 7,467 17,920 17,920 FORT MYERS Medium Density Single Family / Duplex (Max Density 7.26 du/ac) RESIDE NTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 361 7.3 7.3 2,623 2,623 6,296 6,296 FORT MYERS Medium Density Single Family (Max Density 7.26 du/ac) RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 2,121 7.3 7.3 15,398 15,398 36,955 36,955 LEE COUNTY Suburban RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 36,356 6.0 6.0 218,138 218,138 503,900 503,900 CAPE CORAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 65 0.5 0.5 30 30 75 75 CAPE CORAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL II RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 120 0.9 0.9 111 111 276 276 LEE COUNTY Coastal Rural RES IDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 6,927 0.1 1.0 HIGHER DENSITY (1 DU/ACRE) POSSIBLE IF NATIVE HABITAT PRESERVED. 693 6,927 1,600 16,002 LEE COUNTY Density Reduction / Groundwater Resource RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 59,262 0.1 0.1 5,926 5,926 13,689 13,689 L EE COUNTY Open Lands RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 12,819 0.1 0.2 CLUSTERED DENSITIES OF 0.2 DU/ACRE. 1,282 2,564 2,961 5,922

PAGE 158

158 Table F 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DENSI TY DENSIT Y HIG H COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDOU T DWELLIN G UNITS HIGH) BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH LEE COUNTY Outer Island RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 761 1.0 1.0 761 761 1,758 1,758 LEE COUNTY Rural RE SIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 31,830 1.0 1.0 31,830 31,830 73,527 73,527 LEE COUNTY Rural Community Preserve RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 8,921 1.0 1.0 8,921 8,921 20,608 20,608 CAPE CORAL PRIVATELY OWNED ROADWAYS WITH A STRAP NUMBER TRANSPORTATIO N 121 0.0 0.0 THIS IS NOT A LOCAL GOVT FLUM CATEGORY. 0 0 0 0 LEE COUNTY Airport TRANSPORTATIO N 5,914 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND UNKNOWN 1,608 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT MYERS NA UNKNOWN 418 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CAPE CORAL PRIVATELY OWNED LAKES WITH A STRAP NUMBER WATER BODY 220 0.0 0.0 THIS IS NOT A LOCAL GOVT FLUM CATEGORY. 0 0 0 0

PAGE 159

159 APPENDIX G FUTURE LAND USE ATLA S FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FL The following table represents the compiled FLU data for all reporting local governments in this county. It clearly records local government FLU density maximums, which were used to calculate full buildout population projections. The table also displays which SFWMD Generalized FLU Category was used to categorize each local government FLU designation.

PAGE 160

160 Table G 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Martin County. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DEN SITY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH MARTIN COUNTY AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL 191,251 0.1 0.1 9,563 9,563 21,324 21,324 MARTIN COUNTY AGRICULTURE RANCHETTE AGRICULTURAL 29,990 0.2 0.2 5,998 5,998 13,376 13,376 MARTIN COUNTY RURAL HERITAGE AGRICULTURAL 382 0.5 0.5 191 191 426 426 MARTIN COUNTY COMMERCIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL/OFFIC E 1,677 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MARTIN COUNTY COMMERCIAL LIMITED COMMERCIAL/OFFIC E 355 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MARTIN COUNTY CONSERVATION CONSERVATION 43,636 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MARTIN COUNT Y INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 4,870 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MARTIN COUNTY POWER GENERATION INDUSTRIAL 11,510 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MARTIN COUNTY GENERAL INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL 3,308 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MARTIN COUNTY COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT MIXED USE 462 10.0 10.0 4,622 4,622 10,306 10,306 MARTIN COUNTY COMMERCIAL/OFFIC E/RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 678 10.0 10.0 6,784 6,784 15,128 15,128 MARTIN COUNTY RECREATIONAL RECREATION/OPEN SPACE 1,639 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MARTIN COUNTY ESTATE DENSITY 2UPA RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 13,245 2.0 2.0 26,489 26,489 59,071 59,071 MARTIN COUNTY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 14,407 5.0 5.0 72,036 72,036 160,641 160,641 MARTIN COUNTY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 594 10.0 10.0 5,943 5,943 13,252 13,252 MARTIN COUNTY MEDIUM DE NSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 2,516 8.0 8.0 20,124 20,124 44,877 44,877 MARTIN COUNTY MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 1,314 8.0 8.0 10,515 10,515 23,449 23,449 MARTIN COUNTY ESTATE DENSITY 1UPA RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 1,961 1.0 1.0 1 ,961 1,961 4,372 4,372

PAGE 161

161 Table G 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DEN SITY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJE CTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH MARTIN COUNTY RURAL DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 13,351 0.5 0.5 6,675 6,675 14,886 14,886 MARTIN COUNTY UNKNOWN 143 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MARTIN COUNTY NO DATA UNKNOWN 2,454 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MART IN COUNTY LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATER BODY 60,844 0.0 0.0 INTERPOLATED FROM ORIGINAL COUNTY FLUM SHAPEFILE 0 0 0 0 MARTIN COUNTY WATER WATER BODY 292 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 STUART COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL/OFFIC E 967 10.0 15.0 DENSITY AND INTENSITY VARY IF WITHIN CRA BO UNDARIES 9,672 14,507 21,568 32,351 STUART CONSERVATION CONSERVATION 251 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 STUART INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 94 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 STUART PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL 151 10.0 10.0 1,512 1,512 3,373 3,373 STUART PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL 44 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 STUART PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL 197 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 STUART DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT MIXED USE 270 15.0 30.0 4,056 8,112 9,045 18,090 STUART EAST STUART MIXED USE 56 15.0 15.0 840 840 1,872 1,872 STUART MARINE/INDUSTRIA L MIXE D USE 13 15.0 15.0 191 191 426 426 STUART NEIGHBORHOOD/SP ECIAL DISTRICT MIXED USE 58 15.0 15.0 DENSITY AND INTENSITY VARY IF WITHIN CRA BOUNDARIES 866 866 1,931 1,931

PAGE 162

162 Table G 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FL U CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DEN SITY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH STUART OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 143 10.0 15.0 DENSITY AND IN TENSITY VARY IF WITHIN CRA BOUNDARIES 1,431 2,146 3,190 4,786 STUART RECREATION RECREATION/OPEN SPACE 47 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 STUART MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 502 10.0 15.0 DENSITY AND INTENSITY VARY IF WITHIN CRA BOUNDARIES 5,023 7, 534 11,200 16,801 STUART LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 826 7.0 7.0 5,780 5,780 12,890 12,890

PAGE 163

163 APPENDIX H FUTURE LAND USE ATLA S FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FL The following table represents the compiled FLU data for all reporting local g overnments in this county. It clearly records local government FLU density maximums, which were used to calculate full buildout population projections. The table also displays which SFWMD Generalized FLU Category was used to categorize each local governmen t FLU designation.

PAGE 164

164 Table H 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Miami Dade County. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DEN SITY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLIN G UNITS BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS HIG H BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S HIGH MIAMI DADE COUNTY AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL 79,388 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES COMMERCIAL HIGH RISE INTENSITY COMMERCIAL/OFF ICE 111 0.0 0.0 ADDITIONAL 25% FAR AVAILABLE FOR TDRs. RE SIDENTIAL USES PERMITTED AS PART OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES COMMERCIAL LOW RISE INTENSITY COMMERCIAL/OFF ICE 112 0.0 0.0 ADDITIONAL 25% FAR AVAILABLE FOR TDRs. RESIDENTIAL USES PERMITTED AS PART OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES COMMERCIAL MID RISE INTENSITY COMMERCIAL/OFF ICE 61 0.0 0.0 ADDITIONAL 25% FAR AVAILABLE FOR TDRs. RESIDENTIAL USES PERMITTED AS PART OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY BUSINESS AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL/OFF ICE 20,222 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 NORTH MIAMI BEACH BUSINESS COMMERCIAL/OFF ICE 462 0.0 0.0 15 STORIES OR 150 FEET 0 0 0 0 SURFSIDE GENERAL RETAIL/SERVICES COMMERCIAL/OFF ICE 6 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES CONSERVATION AREAS CONSERVATION 1,188 0.0 0.0 FAR 0.0, EXCEPT FOR DESIGNATED AREA S SPECIFIED FOR LIMITED SUPPORT FACILITIES 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONSERVATION 333,951 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 165

165 Table H 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DEN SITY D ENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLIN G UNITS BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S HIGH MIAMI DADE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTALL Y PROTECTED PARKS CONSERVATION 528,789 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DA DE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL 22,753 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL 3,318 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 NORTH MIAMI BEACH INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 66 0.0 0.0 4 STORIES OR 45 FEET. 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES EDUCA TION INSTITUTIONAL 76 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES HOSPITAL INSTITUTIONAL 10 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS INSTITUTIONAL 27 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES RELIGIOUS/INSTIT UTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL 161 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL 229 0.0 0.0 0.5 FAR IS FOR ENTIRE CAMPUS AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE. 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY INSTITUTIONS, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATION INSTITUTIONAL 11,279 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 NORTH MIAMI BEACH PUBLIC AND QUASI PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL 104 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SURFSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES INSTITUTIONAL 1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SURFSIDE PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS INSTITUTIONAL 2 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 166

166 Table H 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALI ZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DEN SITY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLIN G UNITS BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S HIGH MIAMI DADE COUNTY OFFICE/RESIDENTI AL MIXED USE 2,826 0.0 0 .0 DENSITY ALLOWED AT OR 1 CATEGORY HIGHER THAN ADJACENT LAND USE. 0 0 0 0 NORTH MIAMI BEACH MIXED USE MIXED USE 24 32.0 32.0 18 STORIES AND 210 FEET. 755 755 2,181 2,181 NORTH MIAMI BEACH MU/12 40 MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 20 40.0 40.0 12 STORIES AND 160 FEET. 789 789 2,280 2,280 NORTH MIAMI BEACH MU/18 75 MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 8 75.0 75.0 18 STORIES AND 210 FEET. 600 600 1,735 1,735 NORTH MIAMI BEACH MU/TC MIXED USE TOWN CENTER MIXED USE 115 75.0 75.0 15 STORIES AND 150 FEET 8,649 8,64 9 24,997 24,997 CORAL GABLES OPEN SPACE RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 22 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES PARKS AND RECREATION RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 1,007 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY MIAMI METRO ZOO ENTERTAINMENT AREA RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 172 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY OPEN LAND RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 39,339 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 13,165 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 NORTH MIAMI BEACH RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 352 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SURFSIDE PRIVATE RECREATION RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 167

167 Table H 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DEN SITY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLIN G UNITS BU ILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S HIGH SURFSIDE PUBLIC RECREATION RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 40 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES RESIDENTIAL (MULTI FAMILY) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 57 20.0 25 .0 1,138 1,423 2,630 3,287 MIAMI DADE COUNTY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL with DENSITY INCREASE 1 RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 637 13.0 20.8 17% TO 60% DENSITY INCREASE POSSIBLE WITH AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR NON PROFIT HOUSING. 8,277 13,243 23,505 37,609 MIAM I DADE COUNTY LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL W/ DENSITY INCREASE 1 RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 271 25.0 40.0 GOV_DU_HI2 REPRESENTS THE 17% TO 60% DENSITY INCREASE POSSIBLE WITH AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR NON PROFIT HOUSING. 6,784 10,854 19,266 30,826 MIAMI D ADE COUNTY LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LMDR) 5 13 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 25,975 13.0 20.8 GOV_DU_HI2 REPRESENTS THE 17% TO 60% DENSITY INCREASE POSSIBLE WITH AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR NON PROFIT HOUSING. 337,675 540,28 0 958,996 1,534,394 MIAM I DADE COUNTY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) 13 25 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 12,083 25.0 40.0 GOV_DU_HI2 REPRESENTS THE 17% TO 60% DENSITY INCREASE POSSIBLE WITH AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR NON PROFIT HOUSING. 302,084 483,33 5 857,920 1,372,671 NORTH MIAMI BEACH RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 91 17.0 17.0 1,550 1,550 4,480 4,480 MIAMI DADE COUNTY ESTATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (EDR) 1 2.5 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 24,596 2.5 4.0 17% TO 60% DENSITY INCREASE POSSIBLE WITH AFFOR DABLE, WORKFORCE, OR NON PROFIT HOUSING. 61,491 98,385 174,634 279,414 CORAL GABLES RESIDENTIAL (MULTI FAMILY) DUPLEX DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 69 9.0 9.0 621 621 1,435 1,435

PAGE 168

168 Table H 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION S FWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DEN SITY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLIN G UNITS BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S HIGH CORAL GABLES RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE FAMILY) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 3,398 6.0 6.0 20,386 20,386 47,091 47,091 MIAMI DADE COUNTY ESTATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL with DENSITY INCREASE 1 RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 159 6.0 9.6 17% TO 60% DENSITY INCREASE POSSIBLE WITH AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, O R NON PROFIT HOUSING. 956 1,529 2,714 4,343 MIAMI DADE COUNTY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) 2.5 6 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 86,141 6.0 10.0 VARIOUS DENSITY BONUSES AVAILABLE, FROM 10 DU/ACRE TO 60% INCREASE. 516,844 861,40 7 1,467,838 2,446,397 NO RTH MIAMI BEACH RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 1,658 8.0 8.0 13,267 13,267 38,342 38,342 SURFSIDE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 175 8.0 8.0 1,400 1,400 3,976 3,976 CORAL GABLES RESIDENTIAL (MULTI FAMILY) HIG H DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 27 60.0 75.0 1,644 2,055 3,798 4,748 CORAL GABLES RESIDENTIAL (MULTI FAMILY) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 88 40.0 50.0 3,500 4,375 8,086 10,107 MIAMI DADE COUNTY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) 50 125 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 474 125. 0 200.0 17% TO 60% DENSITY INCREASE POSSIBLE WITH AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR NON PROFIT HOUSING. 59,292 94,867 168,389 269,423 MIAMI DADE COUNTY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL W/ DENSITY INCREASE 1 RESIDENTI AL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 7 60.0 96.0 GOV_DU_HI2 REPRESENTS THE 17% TO 60% DENSITY INCREASE POSSIBLE WITH AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR NON PROFIT HOUSING. 391 625 1,109 1,774 MIAMI DADE COUNTY MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR) 25 60 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 5,160 60.0 96.0 GOV_DU_HI2 REPRESENTS THE 17% TO 60% DENSITY INCREASE POSSIBLE WITH AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR NON PROFIT HOUSING. 309,612 495,37 9 879,297 1,406,876

PAGE 169

169 Table H 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERA LIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DEN SITY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLIN G UNITS BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S BUILDOUT POPULATIO N PROJECTION S HIGH NORTH MIAMI BEACH RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 326 32.0 32.0 10,429 10,429 30,141 30,141 SURFSIDE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/TOU RIST RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 26 109. 0 109.0 2,859 2,859 8,120 8,120 SURFSIDE MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 3 58.0 10 8.0 GOV_DU_HI2 REPRESENTS HOTEL UNITS/ACRE. 179 333 508 946 SURFSIDE MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/TOU RIST RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 5 58.0 108.0 GOV_DU_HI2 REPRESENTS HOTEL UNITS/ACRE. 274 510 778 1,448 SURFSIDE MODERATE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RES IDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 15 79.0 109.0 GOV_DU_HI2 REPRESENTS HOTEL UNITS/ACRE. 1,170 1,615 3,323 4,585 CORAL GABLES RIGHT OF WAYS TRANSPORTATION 30 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY TERMINALS TRANSPORTATION 7,408 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION (ROW, RAIL, METRORAIL, ETC.) TRANSPORTATION 10,796 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SURFSIDE PARKING TRANSPORTATION 4 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES UNKNOWN 11 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MIAMI DADE COUNTY WATER WATER BODY 28,705 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 CORAL GABLES UNKNOWN 65 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 170

170 APPENDIX I FUTURE LAND USE ATLA S FOR MONROE COUNTY, FL The following table represents the compiled FLU data for all reporting local governments in this county. It clearly records local government FLU density maximum s, which were used to calculate full buildout population projections. The table also displays which SFWMD Generalized FLU Category was used to categorize each local government FLU designation.

PAGE 171

171 Table I 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Monroe County. LOCAL GOVT NA ME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS HIGH BUILDO UT POPULA TION PROJECT IONS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH MONROE COUNTY Agriculture AGRICULTURAL 21 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MONROE COUNTY Airport District TRANSPORTATION 42 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MONROE COUNTY Conservation CONSERVATION 581,026 0.0 0.0 MOSTLY EVERGLADES 0 0 0 0 MONROE COUNTY Education INSTITUTIONAL 61 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 M ONROE COUNTY Industrial INDUSTRIAL 416 1.0 1.0 DENSITY BONUS AVAILABLE WITH TDR 416 416 927 927 MONROE COUNTY Institutional INSTITUTIONAL 131 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MONROE COUNTY Military INSTITUTIONAL 4,840 6.0 12.0 DENSITY BONUS 12 DU/ACRE AVAILABLE WITH TDR 29,043 58,086 64,765 129,531 MONROE COUNTY Mixed Use/Commercial COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 2,029 6.0 18.0 DENSITY BONUS 18 DU/ACRE AVAILABLE WITH TDR 12,171 36,514 27,142 81,426 MONROE COUNTY Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 228 8.0 12.0 DENSITY BO NUS 12 DU/ACRE AVAILABLE WITH TDR 1,826 2,738 4,071 6,107 MONROE COUNTY Public Buildings/Grounds INSTITUTIONAL 47 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MONROE COUNTY Public Facilities TRANSPORTATION 140 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 MONROE COUNTY Recreation RECREATION/OPEN SPACE 2,014 0 .3 0.3 503 503 1,123 1,123 MONROE COUNTY Residential Conservation RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 18,535 0.3 0.3 4,634 4,634 10,333 10,333 MONROE COUNTY Residential High RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 1,332 16.0 16.0 DENSITY BONUS 12 DU/ACRE AVAILABLE WITH TD R 21,314 21,314 47,530 47,530

PAGE 172

172 Table I 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAGE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS BUILDO UT DWELLI NG UNITS HIGH BUILDO UT POPULA T ION PROJECT IONS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH MONROE COUNTY Residential Low RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 3,811 0.5 0.5 DENSITY BONUS 5 DU/ACRE AVAILABLE WITH TDR 1,906 1,906 4,250 4,250 MONROE COUNTY Residential Medium RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 5,330 8.0 8.0 42,638 42,638 95,082 95,082 MONROE COUNTY Undesignated UNKNOWN 12,819 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 173

173 APPENDIX J FUTURE LAND USE ATLA S FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL The following table represents the compiled FLU data for all reporting local governments in this county. It clearly records local government FLU density maximums, which were used to calculate full buildout population projections. The table also displays which SFWMD Generalized FLU Category was used to categorize each local government FLU designa tion.

PAGE 174

174 Table J 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Palm Beach County. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT P OPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH PALM BEACH COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE AGRICULTURAL 3,804 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AGRICULTURAL 473,8 07 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY Agricultural RESERVE AGRICULTURAL 21,08 1 1.0 1.0 21,081 21,081 49,328 49,328 PALM BEACH COUNTY AGRICULTURAL RESERVE, WITH AN UNDERLYING CL AGRICULTURAL 5 1.0 1.0 5 5 11 11 PALM BEACH COUNTY SPECIAL AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL 7 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BOYNTON BEACH General Commerci al COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 25 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BOYNTON BEACH Local Retail Commercial COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 554 11.0 11.0 Multifamily residential allowed 6,098 6,098 13,780 13,780 BOYNTON BEACH Office Commercial COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 68 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 JUPITER COMMER CIAL COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 593 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 271 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH OFFICE COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 65 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH OFFICE, WITH AN UNDERLY ING HR 8 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 10 8.0 8.0 83 83 195 195

PAGE 175

175 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNIT S HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH OFFICE, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 3 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 6 3.0 3.0 18 18 43 43 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH OFFICE, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 COMME RCIAL/OF FICE 44 5.0 5.0 220 220 514 514 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH WITH CROSS HATCHING COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 6 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH WITH CROSS HATCHING, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 8 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 3 8.0 8.0 28 28 64 64 P ALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH WITH CROSS HATCHING, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 2 5.0 5.0 9 9 21 21 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 12 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 32 12.0 12.0 388 388 908 908 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 18 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 3 18.0 18.0 61 61 142 142 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 8 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 1,991 8.0 8.0 15,925 15,925 37,266 37,266 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH, WITH AN UNDERLYING IND COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 317 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 1 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 31 1.0 1.0 31 31 71 71 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 2 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 23 2.0 2.0 45 45 106 106

PAGE 176

176 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECT IO NS HIGH PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 3 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 141 3.0 3.0 424 424 992 992 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL HIGH, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 763 5.0 5.0 3,817 3,817 8,931 8,931 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMME RCIAL LOW COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 34 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW OFFICE COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 35 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW OFFICE, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 8 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 35 8.0 8.0 277 277 649 649 PALM BEACH COUNT Y COMMERCIAL LOW OFFICE, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 2 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 3 2.0 2.0 6 6 14 14 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW OFFICE, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 3 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 21 3.0 3.0 63 63 148 148 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW OFFICE, WITH AN UNDERLYI NG MR 5 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 45 5.0 5.0 224 224 523 523 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW OFFICE, WITH AN UNDERLYING RR 10 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 27 0.1 0.1 3 3 6 6 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW OFFICE, WITH AN UNDERLYING RR 5 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 12 0.2 0.2 2 2 6 6 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW WITH CROSS HATCHING COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 14 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 177

177 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW WITH CROSS HATCHING, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 2 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 1 2.0 2.0 2 2 4 4 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW WITH CROSS HATCHING, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 3 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 1 3.0 3.0 3 3 7 7 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW WITH CROSS HATCHING, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 8 5.0 5.0 40 40 93 93 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WIT H AN UNDERLYING AGR COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 86 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 12 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 2 12.0 12.0 28 28 65 65 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 8 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 66 8.0 8.0 528 52 8 1,234 1,234 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WITH AN UNDERLYING IND COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 41 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 1 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 59 1.0 1.0 59 59 138 138 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 2 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 127 2.0 2.0 255 255 596 596 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 3 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 189 3.0 3.0 567 567 1,327 1,327 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 143 5. 0 5.0 713 713 1,668 1,668

PAGE 178

178 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON P ROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WITH AN UNDERLYING RR 10 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 102 0.1 0.1 10 10 24 24 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL LOW, WITH AN UNDERLYING RR 2.5 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 53 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 8 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 28 8.0 8.0 224 224 524 524 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 2 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 19 2.0 2.0 37 37 87 87 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 COMMERCIA L/OF FICE 26 5.0 5.0 131 131 306 306 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING RR 10 COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 4 0.1 0.1 0 0 1 1 WELLINGTON Community Commercial COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 186 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WELLINGTON Neighborhood Commercial COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 16 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WELLINGTON Office Commercial COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 48 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WEST PALM BEACH COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 784 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WEST PALM BEACH COMMERCIAL INCENTIVE DISTRICT COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 14 32.3 32.3 439 439 992 992 WEST PALM BEACH SPECIAL IMPACT ZONE/COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 491 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WEST PALM BEACH URBAN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT COMMERCIAL/OF FICE 581 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 179

179 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH JUPITER CONSERVATION CONSERVATION 881 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEA CH COUNTY CONSERVATION CONSERVATION 356,0 94 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WELLINGTON Conservation CONSERVATION 151 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WEST PALM BEACH CONSERVATION CONSERVATION 16,48 3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WEST PALM BEACH SPECIAL IMPACT ZONE/CONSERVATION CONSERVATION 445 0. 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BOYNTON BEACH Industrial INDUSTRIAL 1,188 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 JUPITER GENERAL INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 447 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 12,99 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY INDUSTRIAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING AGR IN DUSTRIAL 82 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY INDUSTRIAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 INDUSTRIAL 506 5.0 5.0 2,530 2,530 5,920 5,920 WELLINGTON Industrial INDUSTRIAL 119 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WEST PALM BEACH INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 527 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WEST PAL M BEACH SPECIAL IMPACT ZONE/INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 345 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 180

180 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILD OUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH JUPITER PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL 462 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL 2,367 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY INSTITUTI ONAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 8 INSTITUTIONAL 93 8.0 8.0 747 747 1,749 1,749 PALM BEACH COUNTY INSTITUTIONAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING IND INSTITUTIONAL 37 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY INSTITUTIONAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 1 INSTITUTIONAL 20 1.0 1.0 20 20 47 47 PALM BEACH COUNTY INSTITUTIONAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 3 INSTITUTIONAL 18 3.0 3.0 53 53 125 125 PALM BEACH COUNTY INSTITUTIONAL, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 INSTITUTIONAL 57 5.0 5.0 287 287 673 673 WELLINGTON Institutional/Public Facilities/Utiliti es INSTITUTIONAL 559 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WELLINGTON Medical Commercial INSTITUTIONAL 59 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WEST PALM BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICE INSTITUTIONAL 2,399 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WEST PALM BEACH SPECIAL IMPACT ZONE/COMMUNITY SERVICE INSTITUTIONAL 1,286 0.0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY SPOIL MINING/EXTRACTI VE 43 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 JUPITER INLET VILLAGE FLEX MIXED USE 38 12.0 12.0 459 459 1,066 1,066

PAGE 181

181 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH JUPITER MIXED USE MIXED USE 2,040 8.0 8.0 16,322 16,322 37,868 37,868 JUPITER RIVERWA LK FLEX MIXED USE 9 12.0 12.0 110 110 255 255 PALM BEACH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER MIXED USE 339 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WITH UNDERLYING MR 5 MIXED USE 10 5.0 5.0 49 49 115 115 PALM BEACH COUNTY INDIANT OWN ROAD OVERLAY ZONE MIXED USE 5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY MULTIPLE LAND USE MIXED USE 149 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY URBAN CENTER MIXED USE 291 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY URBAN INFILL MIXED USE 522 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WELLINGTON Mixed Use MIXED USE 118 2.0 16.0 USES AND DENSITIES VARY BY DEVELOPMENT SIZE. 236 1,890 697 5,575 WELLINGTON Regional Commercial/LSMU MIXED USE 413 6.0 6.0 2,476 2,476 7,304 7,304 WEST PALM BEACH MIXED USE MIXED USE 113 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 JUPITER RECREA TION RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 518 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 182

182 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECREATION RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 9 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECREATION, WITH AN UNDERLYING HR 8 RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 53 8.0 8.0 425 425 996 996 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECREATION, WITH AN UNDERLYING IND RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 284 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECREATION, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 1 RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 115 1.0 1.0 115 115 270 270 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECREATION, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 2 RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 5 2.0 2.0 9 9 22 22 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECREATION, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 463 5.0 5.0 2,314 2,314 5,414 5,414 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECREATION, WITH AN UNDERLYING RR 10 RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 683 0.1 0.1 68 68 160 160 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECREATION, WITH AN UNDERLYING UT RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 297 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY PARK RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 5,801 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WELL INGTON Commercial Recreation RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 1,744 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WELLINGTON Park RECREATION/OPE N SPACE 210 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BOYNTON BEACH Special High Density Residential RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 125 20.0 20.0 2,505 2,505 5,661 5,661

PAGE 183

183 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJE CTIO NS HIGH PALM BEACH COUNTY HIGH RESIDENTIAL, 18 UNITS PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 1,874 18.0 18.0 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 33,736 33,736 78,942 78,942 WELLINGTON Residential G -MF Medium 12.01 18.0 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DE NSITY 48 18.0 18.0 873 873 2,575 2,575 WELLINGTON Residential H -MF High 18.01 22.0 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 19 22.0 22.0 408 408 1,205 1,205 WEST PALM BEACH MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 99 20.0 20.0 1,978 1,978 4,4 70 4,470 WEST PALM BEACH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 3,237 13.4 13.4 43,371 43,371 98,020 98,020 WEST PALM BEACH SPECIAL IMPACT ZONE/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 597 13.4 13.4 8,001 8,001 18,083 18,083 BOYNTON BEACH Low Density Residential RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 3,355 5.0 5.0 16,773 16,773 37,907 37,907 JUPITER LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 3,671 2.0 2.0 7,342 7,342 17,033 17,033 JUPITER MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 1,242 4.0 4.0 4 ,970 4,970 11,530 11,530 PALM BEACH COUNTY LOW RESIDENTIAL, 2 UNITS PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 13,91 9 2.0 2.0 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 27,839 27,839 65,142 65,142 PALM BEACH COUNTY LOW RESIDENTIAL, 3 UNITS PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 20,63 4 3.0 3.0 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 61,901 61,901 144,848 144,848 PALM BEACH COUNTY MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL, 5 UNITS PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 23,80 6 5.0 5.0 119,029 119,029 278,528 278,528

PAGE 184

184 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT N AME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH WELLINGTON R esidential C SF Large Lot 1.01 3.0 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 2,505 3.0 3.0 7,516 7,516 22,173 22,173 WELLINGTON Residential C SF Large Lot Limited to 2 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 1,890 2.0 2.0 3,779 3,779 11,149 11,149 WELLINGTON Resid ential D -SF Small Lot 3.01 5.0 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 1,269 5.0 5.0 6,344 6,344 18,714 18,714 WEST PALM BEACH SPECIAL IMPACT ZONE/SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 1,252 3.0 3.0 3,755 3,755 8,486 8,486 WEST PALM BEACH SPE CIAL IMPACT ZONE/SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 241 5.0 5.0 1,204 1,204 2,721 2,721 BOYNTON BEACH High Density Residential RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 831 11.0 11.0 9,140 9,140 20,656 20,656 BOYNTON BEACH Medium Density Residenti al RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 253 10.0 10.0 2,533 2,533 5,724 5,724 BOYNTON BEACH Moderate Density Residential RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 933 7.5 7.5 6,996 6,996 15,810 15,810 JUPITER HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 2,623 6.0 6.0 15,740 15,740 36,517 36,517 PALM BEACH COUNTY HIGH RESIDENTIAL, 12 UNITS PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 4,208 12.0 12.0 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 50,497 50,497 118,163 118,163 PALM BEACH COUNTY HIGH RESIDENTIAL, 8 UNITS PER ACRE RES IDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 21,41 9 8.0 8.0 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 171,356 171,356 400,972 400,972

PAGE 185

185 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FRO M GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH WELLINGTON Residential E Mixed Medium 5.01 8.0 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 603 8.0 8.0 4,820 4,820 14,219 14, 219 WELLINGTON Residential F -MF Low 8.01 12.0 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 269 12.0 12.0 3,230 3,230 9,530 9,530 WEST PALM BEACH PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 3,481 10.0 10.0 34,807 34,807 78,664 78,664 WEST PALM BEACH MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 924 32.3 32.3 29,830 29,830 67,416 67,416 WEST PALM BEACH SPECIAL IMPACT ZONE/MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY 53 32.3 32.3 1,696 1,696 3,832 3,832 PALM BEACH COUNTY LOW RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT PER ACRE RESID ENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 9,688 1.0 1.0 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 9,688 9,688 22,670 22,670 PALM BEACH COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT PER 10 ACRES RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 37,90 9 0.1 0.1 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 3,791 3, 791 8,871 8,871 PALM BEACH COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT PER 2.5 ACRES RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 24,84 9 0.4 0.4 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 9,940 9,940 23,259 23,259 PALM BEACH COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT PER 20 ACRES RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 2,283 0.1 0.1 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 114 114 267 267 PALM BEACH COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT PER 5 ACRES RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 8,550 0.2 0.2 DENSITY BONUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. 1,710 1,710 4,001 4,001

PAGE 186

186 T able J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI O N PROJECTIO NS HIGH WELLINGTON Residential A -Rural 0 .10 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 4,274 0.1 0.1 427 427 1,261 1,261 WELLINGTON Residential B -Ranchette .21 1.0 DU/AC RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 4,151 1.0 1.0 4,151 4,151 12,247 12 ,247 WELLINGTON Residential B -Ranchette No development order RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 741 1.0 1.0 741 741 2,186 2,186 PALM BEACH COUNTY UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION 7,361 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY UTILITIES AND TRANSPOR TATION, WITH AN UNDERLYING LR 3 TRANSPORTATION 4 3.0 3.0 11 11 25 25 PALM BEACH COUNTY UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, WITH AN UNDERLYING MR 5 TRANSPORTATION 5 5.0 5.0 26 26 60 60 WELLINGTON Major Roads TRANSPORTATION 816 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BOYNTON BEACH UNKNOWN 19 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 JUPITER NOT DESIGNATED UNKNOWN 2,257 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WELLINGTON Future Annex Areas UNKNOWN 4,297 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PALM BEACH COUNTY LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATER BODY 149,7 94 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 WELLINGTON Major Water Bodies W ATER BODY 1,877 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 187

187 Table J 1. Continued LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREA GE DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULA TI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH WEST PALM BEACH WATER WATER BODY 3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 BOYNTON BEACH UNKNOWN 2,001 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 188

188 APPENDIX K FUTURE LAND USE ATLA S FOR SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FL The following table represents the compi led FLU data for all reporting local governments in this county. It clearly records local government FLU density maximums, which were used to calculate full buildout population projections. The table also displays which SFWMD Generalized FLU Category was u sed to categorize each local government FLU designation.

PAGE 189

189 Table K 1 Atlas of FLUM data for Saint Lucie County. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWE LLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH SAINT LUCIE COUNTY AGRICULTURE 2.5 AGRICULTURAL 3,628 0.4 0.4 1,451 1,451 3,584 3,584 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY AGRICULTURE 5 AGRICULTURAL 186,796 0. 2 0.2 37,359 37,359 92,277 92,277 FORT PIERCE CBD COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 44 15.0 30.0 658 1,316 1,684 3,368 FORT PIERCE GENERAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 1,928 8.0 18.0 15,428 34,713 39,495 88,864 FORT PIERCE OFFICES PROFESSIONAL AND BU SINESS SERVICES COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 109 10.0 18.0 1,090 1,962 2,791 5,023 PORT SAINT LUCIE General Commercial COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 1,630 0.0 0.0 80% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE Highway Commercial COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 282 0.0 0.0 80% max. i mpervious surface 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE Limited Commercial COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 204 0.0 0.0 80% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE Service Commercial COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 882 0.0 0.0 80% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY COMM ERCIAL COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE 1,649 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT PIERCE CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION 600 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE Open Space Conservation CONSERVATION 2,228 0.0 0.0 20% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0

PAGE 190

190 Table K 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH PORT S AINT LUCIE Open Space Preservation CONSERVATION 2,959 0.0 0.0 20% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY CONSERVATION PUBLIC CONSERVATION 11,889 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT PIERCE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 363 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT PIERCE INDU STRIAL INDUSTRIAL 541 0.0 0.0 COULD ALSO BE INSTITUTIONAL 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE Heavy Industrial INDUSTRIAL 178 0.0 0.0 80% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE Light Industrial INDUSTRIAL 980 0.0 0.0 80% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0 S AINT LUCIE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL 2,658 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT PIERCE INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL 551 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE Institutional INSTITUTIONAL 1,227 0.0 0.0 80% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE Utility INSTITU TIONAL 2,292 0.0 0.0 80% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY HISTORIC INSTITUTIONAL 8 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES INSTITUTIONAL 1,382 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT PIERCE MARINE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE 62 15.0 18.0 933 1,120 2,388 2,866 FORT PIERCE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MIXED USE 32 8.0 12.0 258 387 661 991

PAGE 191

191 Table K 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILD OUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH PORT SAINT LUCIE New Community District MIXED USE 14,658 20.0 20.0 80%/90% max. impervious surface. Applies to DRIs only. 293,169 293,169 762,238 762,238 PORT SAINT LUCIE Residential, Office, and Institutional MIXED USE 2,624 11.0 11.0 80% max. impervious surface 28,860 28,860 75,037 75,037 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE 5,131 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY SPECI AL DISTRICT MIXED USE 8,030 0.2 15.0 1,606 120,453 3,967 297,518 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY TOWNS, VILLAGES, & COUNTRYSIDE MIXED USE 13,661 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT PIERCE GENERAL OPEN SPACE RECREATION/O PEN SPACE 580 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 FORT PIERCE RECREATIONAL OP EN SPACE RECREATION/O PEN SPACE 328 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE Open Space Recreation RECREATION/O PEN SPACE 2,626 0.0 0.0 80% max. impervious surface 0 0 0 0 FORT PIERCE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 120 17.9 17.9 2,156 2,156 5,520 5,520 PORT SAINT LUCIE High density residential RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 978 15.0 15.0 14,663 14,663 38,124 38,124 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL HIGH RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 524 15.0 15.0 7,865 7,865 19,425 19,425 PORT SAINT LUCIE Low Den sity Residential RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 37,113 5.0 5.0 185,566 185,566 482,472 482,472 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 6,373 2.0 2.0 12,746 12,746 31,483 31,483

PAGE 192

192 Table K 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU D ESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACREAG E DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH SAINT LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL UR BAN RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 14,066 5.0 5.0 70,329 70,329 173,713 173,713 FORT PIERCE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 2,561 6.5 6.5 16,647 16,647 42,616 42,616 FORT PIERCE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 2,6 02 12.0 12.0 31,225 31,225 79,935 79,935 FORT PIERCE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 255 8.0 8.0 2,038 2,038 5,216 5,216 FORT PIERCE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HUTCHINSON ISLAND/COMMER CIAL GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 169 11.0 11.0 1,860 1,860 4,760 4,760 PORT SAINT LUCIE Medium density residential RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 1,757 11.0 11.0 19,331 19,331 50,261 50,261 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 1,788 9.0 9.0 16,088 16,088 39,737 39,737 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL ESTATE RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 2,776 1.0 1.0 2,776 2,776 6,856 6,856 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL/CON SERVATION RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY 2,585 0.2 0.2 517 517 1,277 1,277 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY TRANSPORTATI ON 6,911 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION /UTILITIES TRANSPORTATI ON 2,928 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 193

193 Table K 1. Continued. LOCAL GOVT NAME LOCAL GOVT FLU DESIGNATION SFWMD GENERALIZED FLU CATEGORY TOTAL ACR EAG E DENSI TY DENSI TY HIGH COMMENT FROM GOVT FLUM BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS BUILDOUT DWELLING UNITS HIGH BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS BUILDOUT POPULATI ON PROJECTIO NS HIGH PORT SAINT LUCIE TBD UNKNOWN 150 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 PORT SAINT LUCIE UNINCOPORATED U NKNOWN 272 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY SPOIL ISLANDS UNKNOWN 11 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SAINT LUCIE COUNTY SUBMERGED LANDS WATER BODY 21 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 194

194 LIST OF REFERENCES Anthony, J., 2004. Do State Growth Management Policies Reduce Sp rawl? Urban Affairs Review, 39(3): 376 397. Bardach, E. 1979. On Designing Implementable Programs. In : G. Majone and E. Quade (Editors), Pitfalls of Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY : 138 1 58. Bengston, D.N., Fletcher, J.O., and Nelson, K.C., 2004. Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69: 271 286. Brody, S., C arrasco, V., and Highfield, W., 2006 Measuring the Adoption of Local Sprawl R eduction Planning Policies in Florida. Journal of Plannin g Education and Research, 25 : 294 310. Burby, R.J., and Dalton, L.C. 1994. Plans Can Matter! The Role of Land Use Plans and State Planning Mandates in Limiting the Development of Hazardous Areas Pl anning Administration Review 54( 3 ) : 229 38. Burchell, R. W., Shad, N.A., Listokin, D., Phillips, H., Downs, A., Seskin, S., Davis, J.S., Moore, T., Helton, D., and Gall, M., 1998. The Costs of Sprawl Revisited. Report 39. Transit Cooperative Research P rogram, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D C. Carreiro, M. M. 2008. Introduction: The Growth of Cities and Urban Forestry In M.M Carreiro, Y. Song, and J. Wu (Editors), Ecology, Planning, and M anagement of Urban Forests Springer New York, NY: 3 9. Chapin, T., Connerly, C.E., and Higgins H.T., 2007 Introduction. In T. Chapin, C.E. Connerly, and H.T. Higgins (Ed itor s), Growth Management in Florida Planning for Paradise Ashgate Publishing Co. B urlington, VT: 1 6. Clawson, M., 1962. Urban Sprawl and Speculation in Suburban Land. Land Economics, 38(2): 99 111. Deyle, R.E., and Smith, R.A., 1998. Local Government Compliance with State Planning Mandates The Ejects of State Implementation in Florida. Journal of the Amer ican Planning Association, 64(4): 457 470. Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1): 107 126. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management, Bur eau of Local Resource Planning, 1986 Population Estimation and Projection Techniques, A guide to methodologies for forecasting population : 1 31.

PAGE 195

195 Fulton, W., Pendal, R. Nguyen, M., and Harrison, A., 2001. Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the US Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Survey Series. The Brookings Institution, Wa shington, D C (available online at http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publica tions/fulton.pdf ). Garreau, J. 199 2 Edge city: Life on the new frontier. Anchor Books, New York Gillham, O., 2002. The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate. Island Press, Washington, D C. (available online at http://books.google.com/books ?id=LCCvnLt2AbcC&lpg=PR11&ots=Z_TOB0FOu0 &dq=gillham%2C%20limitless%20city&lr&pg=PR9#v=twopage&q&f=false ) J ohnson, E.A. and Klemens, M.W., 2005 The Impacts of Sprawl on Biodiversity. In E.A. Johnson, and M.W. Klemens (Ed itor s) Nature in Fragments. Columbi a University Press, New York : 18 56 Kelly, E.D., 1993. Managing Community Growth: Policies, Techniques, and Impacts. Praeger, Westport, CT (available online at http://law.gsu.edu/jjuergensmeyer/spring02/reading6_law7242.pdf ) Lawrence, B.L., 2005. The Cont ext and Causes of Sprawl. In E.A. Johnson and M.W. Klemens (Ed itors ), Nature in Fragments Columbia University Press, New York : 3 17 Lopez, R., and Hynes H.P ., 2003. Sprawl in the 1990s: Measur ement, distribution and trends Urban Affairs Review 38 : 325 55. Lorentz, A., and Shaw, K ., 2000. Ar e you ready to bet on smart growth? Planning 66 (1) : 4 9. May, P J., and Burby R. J. 1996. Coercive Versus Cooperative Policies: Comparing Intergovernmental Mandate Performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage ment 15 ( 2 ) : 171 201 (accessed online at DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520 6688(199621)15:2<171::AID PAM2>3.0.CO;2 G) Myers, P., 1999. Livab ility at the ballot box: state and local referenda on parks, conservation, and smarter growth, election day 1998. Discussion P aper, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, the Brookings Institution, Washington, D C. Nelson, A. 1999. Comparing states with and without growt h management: Analysis based on indicators with policy implications. Land Use Policy 16:121 27. Nelson, A. 2011 Director, Metropolitan Research Center, Presidential Professor of City and Metropolitan Planning and Adjunct Professor of Finance, University of Utah. Presentation a t New Partners for Smart Growth Conference 10 th Annual, Feb 3 5, 2011, Charlotte, N C.

PAGE 196

196 Nelson, A., and Moore, T. 1996. Assessing growth management policy implementation: Policy 13 (4) : 241 259. th Ed. McGraw Hill Companies, I nc., New York, NY. Pelham, T. G. 2007. A Historical Perspective for Eval Management Process. In T. Chapin, C.E. Connerly, and H.T. Higgins (Ed itor s), Growth Management in Florida Planning for Paradise Ashgate Publishing Co Burlington, VT: 7 19 Pelham, T.G., Hyde, W.L, and Banks, R.P., 1985 an Integrated State, Regional, and Local Comprehensive Planning Process. In Florida State University Law Review, Fall 1985. 13 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 515. Pendall, R., 1999. Do land use controls cause sprawl? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26: 555 571. Washington, D C. Porter, D.R., 2000 The Practice of Sustainabl e Development. Urban Land Institute, Washington D.C Sanchez, T.W. and Mandel, R.H., 2007 Growth and Change Florida Style: 1970 to 2000. In T. Chapin, C.E. Connerly, and H.T. Higgins (Ed itor s), Growth Management in Florida Planning for Paradise Ashgate P ublishing Co. Burlington, VT: 85 99 Scoules, M. C., 2002. Constitutional Limitations of State Growth Management Programs. Land Use and Environmental Law, Fall 2002. 18 J. Land Use & Envtl. Law 145. South Florida Water Management District, Intergovernmental Policy and Planning Division, Summer 2010. Director : R Braun and Supervisor : J Jackson South Florida Water Management District Generalized Future Land Use Categories Methodology. Squires, G.D., 2002. Urban s prawl and u neven d evelopment of m etropolitan America. In G.D. Squires (Ed itor ), Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Responses. Urban Institute Press Washington, D.C.: 1 22 Stroud, N.E. and Wright, T.G., 1996 What will it ova Law Review, Winter 1996. 20 Nova L. Rev. 683.

PAGE 197

197 United States Census Bureau, 2000. National Population Projections. I. Summary Files, highest series and Quick Facts (available online at http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np t1.t xt and at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html ). United States General Accounting Office, 2000. Community Development: Local Growth Issues Federal Opportunities and Challenges. Report GAO/RCED 00 178 U.S. General Accounting Office, Washing ton, D.C. Weitz, J., 1999. From quiet revolution to smart growth: state growth management programs, 1960 to 1999. Journal of Planning Literature 14(2): 266 337. Weitz, J., and Seltzer, E., 1998. Regional planning and regional governance in the United State s 1979 1996. Journal of Planning Lit erature 12(3): 361 392. Wu, J. 2008. Toward a Landscape Ecology of Cities: Beyond Building s, Trees, and Urban Forests. I n M.M. Carreiro, Y. Song, and J. Wu (Editors), Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests. S pringer New York, NY : 10 28

PAGE 198

198 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author was born in Gainesville, FL He grew up on a pecan farm in rural Alachua County, and spent most of his formative years engaged in nature and nature based recreation. He attended college initia lly at Santa Fe and Tallahassee Community Colleges, and then at Florida State University in Tallahassee, FL, where he received a degree in biological science. That led five years of working as a field tech in the desert southwest and one summer hiking on the Appalachian Trail He received his degree in biology at the University of Louisville, KY. While there he focused his studies on urban ecology: how ecological systems are affected by the built/human environment. The ultimate goal was to apply this knowledge to change the way cities are designed, integrating ecological systems with the human urban experience. The world has a way of spinning, and he moved back to Gainesville to continue his education First enrolling in landscape a rchit ecture at the University of Florida, and then changing to u rban and r egional p lanning. This combination of expertise in science (urban ecology) and policy (urban planning) and design (landscape arc hitecture) will help provide a new paradigm to facilitate t he ecological revolution that is being realized around the world. This thesis represents one of the many milestones in the completion of this second m aster s degree, and it will hopefully propel the author toward a future in greenways and green infrastruct ure planning and design integrating people and the built environment once again with the natural fabric in which they are interwoven