The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application filed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for abandonment of a segment of Mission Road, from the Ocala Drive intersection to a point east of Yonview Drive, should be granted; and, if so, what conditions should be placed on the abandonment.
Findings Of Fact Proposed Abandonment and Vicinity The eastern terminus of Mission Road is at Ocala Road. At one time, Mission Road intersected Ocala Road and extended farther east along the alignment of Tennessee Street. However, when Tennessee Street was extended farther west, the intersection of Tennessee Street and Ocala Road was moved slightly south of the juncture of Ocala Road and Mission Road. Now at the junction of those roads, Mission Road is designed to have only a right turn in from Ocala Road southbound, and a right turn out from Mission Road onto Ocala Road, headed south. Mission San Luis (Mission) is bisected by Mission Road near its eastern terminus at Ocala Road. While the Mission is accessible from Mission Road, its main entrance is on Tennessee Street just west of Ocala Road. The Mission has administrative offices and an archeological laboratory on the south side of Mission Road, while the re-created Mission and Apalachee Village, along with most of the archeological remains, and visitor parking, are on the north side of Mission Road. Yonview Drive joins Mission Road from the south. The juncture of those two roads marks the western terminus of the part of Mission Road that is the subject of the application for abandonment; Ocala Road marks the eastern terminus of the proposed abandonment. All of the land on either side of this part of Mission Road is owned by the State and is part of the Mission. Proceeding west from Yonview, the Mission is on the northeast side of Mission Road, which provides access to the current parking lot for the Mission and the current visitor center, which is an adaptive use of a house built in 1938. Along that stretch of Mission Road, The Timbers condominium development is on the southwest side of Mission Road. Just west of the Mission property, San Luis Road intersects Mission Road. To the north of Mission Road, San Luis is a public road that proceeds north, past Leon County's San Luis Park (which is on the east side of the road), and residential neighborhoods to the west side, to where San Luis Road intersects Tharpe Street. To the south of Mission Road, aligned with San Luis Road, is an entrance to The Timbers. Sometimes referred to as an extension of San Luis Road, the roadway within The Timbers actually is private and serves as access to The Timbers condominium units; it continues through The Timbers and continues between other properties to the development's other entrance on White Drive. As Mission Road proceeds west from San Luis Road, the rest of The Timbers is on its south side; on its north side, Solana Drive joins it from the residential neighborhood to the north. Solana Drive is a short street between San Luis Road and Mission Road. The northern terminus of Solana Drive is near the southern end of the County Park. Petitioners and Their Interests Petitioners are The Timbers Homeowners’ Association, Inc. ("HOA"), and Brian Moran and Christy Baldwin, individually. The individual Petitioners each own one or more units within The Timbers. Ms. Baldwin has resided there for nearly ten years. The HOA is charged with representing the interests of the owners and residents of The Timbers. It owns and has responsibility for the repair, maintenance, and improvement of the common areas within the development. Mr. Moran and Ms. Baldwin are officers of the HOA. The Timbers is a 223-unit condominium community that fronts, along its entire length, the south side of Mission Road between White Drive and Yonview Drive. A portion of this frontage is located directly across Mission Road from what is now Mission San Luis. The private road within The Timbers between Mission Road and White Drive is how The Timbers connects to the public road system. As it fronts Mission Road, The Timbers is a pleasant, wooded community of multiple condominium structures, each of which fronts on a side street connected to its private "San Luis Road." The Timbers is conveniently located for easy access to Florida State University, Florida A&M University, and other points to the south or east of The Timbers (including downtown Tallahassee). A significant number of residents of The Timbers use Mission Road by turning right onto Mission Road, which takes them to a right turn onto Ocala Road, with no stop sign, stop light, or significant intersection in between. From there, they can go straight south on Ocala Road or turn east or west on Tennessee Street. If the abandonment application is granted, that route would be eliminated, and there would be two remaining ways to leave The Timbers--via the White Drive exit, or by making two left turns, one onto Mission Road and the second, after a stop sign, onto White Drive. Meanwhile, drivers traveling east (toward town) on Mission Road from virtually all points west of The Timbers (and thus west of White Drive) on Mission Road, would take a right curve onto White Drive from Mission Road but they would do so with the right-of-way or, if signalized, a traffic light timed to give them a “longer green” preference. Those Timbers residents, owners, and visitors exiting at White Drive would have to negotiate their left turn without the right-of-way and against whatever increased traffic might be introduced onto White Drive if Mission Road were closed. From there, depending on the ultimate destination, traffic could either go straight on White Drive towards Pensacola Street or turn left onto Tennessee Street to reach the Tennessee Street/Ocala Road intersection. The intersection at White Drive and Tennessee Street is signalized but is not consistent with current design standards in that it has an offset center line. According to the planned unit development documents for The Timbers, the White Drive entrance was supposed to be the main entrance to the development. However, the Mission Road entrance has come to function more like the actual “main” and is more attractive aesthetically. Petitioners have spent significant effort and money in beautifying and otherwise maintaining its private extension of San Luis Road through curbing, landscaping, signage, etc. The part of the road that joins The Timbers to White Drive is not as well constructed and is not bounded by The Timbers but rather by other properties. It also is where the garbage dumpsters for the development are located. (On the other hand, the mailboxes for the development also are located off that part of the private road.) The closure of Mission Road probably will shift some internal Timbers traffic from the Mission Road entrance to the White Drive entrance. It also is possible that some external traffic coming south on San Luis Road might use the private extension of the road within The Timbers as a "short-cut" to White Drive. However, the road through the Timbers may not prove to be a desirable "short-cut" because it is a lower-quality road, has potholes, and is not designed for through-traffic but rather as a feeder road for the parking areas of the development. There are three stop signs; the turns are tight; and cars sometimes are parked along the side of the road. As a result, "friction" would slow through-traffic and discourage use of the road as a cut- through. The design of San Luis Road also makes it less likely that The Timbers would be used as a short-cut to White Drive. There is a hard right turn in the road signed for 15 miles per hour that people tend to avoid by turning onto right onto Solana Drive. Many residents walk within The Timbers, including to the mailboxes, to the tennis courts, and to the dumpsters, or to walk their dogs (perhaps in the green space created by an abandoned railroad right-of-way in the vicinity) on the western side of The Timbers. If traffic increases on that side of the private extension of San Luis Road, both the safety and the subjective experience of those pedestrians would be adversely affected to some extent. However, those effects are speculative. A resident-controlled gate system for the Mission Road entrance to prevent cut-through traffic likely would cost The Timbers HOA in the neighborhood of $15,000. Associated costs for telephone connections to each of the units, electrical service, and maintenance would likely range from $75 to $80 per residential unit per year. But such a gate is not desired by Petitioners as it would constitute a significant inconvenience for Petitioners and others who reside in or visit The Timbers. Should the Timbers elect to install sidewalks along its San Luis Road to accommodate increased or shifted traffic within The Timbers, the costs associated with that could reasonably exceed $110,000, including engineering, permitting, utilities, and remediation. The owners of units within The Timbers would ultimately bear the costs of any needed improvements or additional maintenance that would result from a closure of Mission Road. However, it is speculative whether such measures will be needed or actually undertaken. It is possible that the owners of units in The Timbers might suffer some diminution in property value as a result of the proposed abandonment. According to a property appraiser, Richard Boutin, there will be diminution in value of approximately one percent of the value of units, which ranges between $120,000 and $150,000, that would materialize over time, taking two-to-five years to occur. Whether such a diminution in value actually will occur is uncertain. As described above, due to the location of The Timbers, the proposed abandonment will adversely affect Petitioners more than it will adversely affect most of the rest of the general public. Most of the greater adverse effects on Petitioners will be similar in kind to the adverse effects on most of the general public. At least one of the greater effects on Petitioners also is different in kind -- namely, some drivers probably will use Petitioners' private road as a cut-through. See Findings 9-10, supra. Standards for Abandonment Applications A guiding principle for all City Commission action is to act in the public interest. The City Commission must act in the public interest, whether stated in a regulation or not, including when acting on an application for abandonment of right- of-way. City Commission Policy 410 has been used as a guide for reviewing abandonment applications. Policy 410 provides: The City of Tallahassee will not consider any application for right-of-way abandonment, if the subject right-of-way is currently being used by the City, or if the City has any plans to use the right-of-way at some point in the future. Abandonment of a right-of-way must be demonstrated to be in the best interest of the general public. Neither abandonment of a right-of-way solely for the purpose of placing it on the tax rolls in its current state, nor abandonment of a right-of-way solely to benefit an abutting property owner, is considered to be sufficient to meet the test of "in the public’s best interest". Abandonment of right-of-way automatically reverts only to abutting property owners with one-half of the right-of-way going to each owner by operation of law upon adoption of a City ordinance. Provide applicant with a Quit [sic] Deed for recording, if the right-of-way is abandoned. Unlike ordinances, policies can be waived. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of the Policy, the evidence was clear that the City abandons right-of-way that is in use, either explicitly or implicitly waiving paragraph 1. Over 90 percent of the abandonment applications processed by the City have been for rights-of-way that are currently being used, including some that were being used heavily. The actual standards for determining whether to abandon a road have been found in the other parts of Policy 410, especially in paragraph 2. Although Policy 410 had a sunset date of March 25, 1997, it has not been replaced, and the Planning Department continued to use it as a guide for review of abandonment applications. On February 23, 2005, the City Commission reviewed proposals from the Planning Department for modifications to the City’s abandonment policies, procedures, and fee requirements. The proposed modifications included revised procedures, added definitions, and added the following specific review criteria: The approval of the application shall not create any safety or public health hazard, including any environmental health hazard; The approval of the application shall not result in the preclusion of right-of-way or fee simple access to any existing parcel/lot of record; The approval of the application shall not result in the preclusion of access to any publicly-maintained facility or infrastructure; The approval of the application shall not create any condition inconsistent with the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan, including the Long Range Transportation Plan included therein; The approval of the application would not eliminate or preclude a street or bicycle/pedestrian interconnection that the City Commission intends to retain; The approval should not adversely affect service access required for any official public safety, utility service, waste collection service provider; the United States Postal Service; Leon County Schools (school buses); or TalTran. On February 23, 2005, the City Commission approved the modifications and approved the Planning Department's recommendation to repeal Policy 410 since the modification would be more definitive. The City Commission approved the Planning Department’s recommendations, and directed staff to draft an ordinance incorporating the proposed modifications to the abandonment policies, procedures, and fee requirements and to bring the ordinance back before the Commission for adoption. As of this date, due to staffing constraints, the Planning Department has not taken an ordinance back to the City Commission for review and action. Conditions of Abandonment The City's Planning Department has placed several conditions on the proposed abandonment to address issues raised by the reviewing departments during the processing of abandonment applications. Placing conditions on abandonment of right-of-way is authorized and common. A standard condition for abandonment is that easements be retained by the City for any utilities. It also is standard to require the maintenance of adequate emergency access for the fire and police departments. Also standard, a vehicular turn- around will have to be constructed at the new eastern terminus of Mission Road. To connect with other bicycle-pedestrian trails in the area and enhance these modes of transportation and the City's Bicycle-Pedestrian Master Plan, the Planning Department recommends that a bicycle/pedestrian easement around the perimeter of the Mission be dedicated to the public as a condition of the abandonment. Finally, the Planning Department recommends that the proposed abandonment be conditioned on payment by the State for signalization at the Mission Road and White Drive intersection if, within 12 months of the abandonment, traffic increases to a point where signalization there is warranted. In testimony, the Executive Director of the Mission, Dr. Bonnie McEwan, supported the idea of a bicycle/pedestrian easement for the City, and DEP did not oppose either the standard or recommended conditions of abandonment. Effects of New Mission Visitor Center on Pedestrian Safety The building that currently functions as a Visitor Center for the Mission is an adaptive use of a 1938 house. Limited restrooms are in a separate building next to the house. Currently, due to the lack of accommodations, frequent requests to hold major events, weddings, receptions, and special functions must be denied. Currently, Mission staff must cross Mission Road between their offices and the public northern section. Staff crossings are a cause for concern because of the limited sight- line distance around the curve in Mission Road to the west. They are warned regularly to use caution, but no other measures to protect staff have been implemented or requested to date. Currently, visitors to the Mission drive to the public parking area on the northern portion of the site. Visitors then remain on the north side of Mission Road until they return to their vehicles to leave. In 2006, the Florida legislature appropriated funds to build a new Visitor Center at the Mission. This Center will be in excess of 20,000 square feet and will include public classrooms, a place to show orientation films, exhibits, 20 public toilets, and a meeting room accommodating 250 people. The new Visitor Center will be a vast improvement over the current facility. The evidence was that the best location for the new Visitor Center is on the western portion of the Mission property south of Mission Road. The site was selected because it is relatively flat and because the relatively few archaeological remains there have been mitigated. The plans are to have people enter the Mission using the driveway entrance on Tennessee Street, park around the new Visitor Center, proceed through the Visitor Center for their orientation, and then walk to the main area of the park, where the re-created Fort, Mission, Apalachee Village, and rich archeological sites are located. If Mission Road is not abandoned, the visitors would be crossing just east and quite close to a sharp curve in the relatively narrow, canopy-like road, which has deep-cut banks. Petitioners suggest that the new Visitor Center could be put on the northern part of the site. Indeed, before the State acquired the land on the south side of Mission Road where it now intends to build the new Visitor Center, the State was planning to build it on the north side of the road. However, the evidence was that the recently acquired site on the south side of the road is better suited and would be a much greater benefit to the general public. In any event, the evidence was that the State is going forward with its plans for the new Visitor Center and already has proceeded with obtaining environmental and building permits for construction on the preferred site. A conservative count of on-site visitation at the Mission last year was 30,239. There are activities year-round, including costume interpretation, a living history program, special events, and camps, including every teacher planning day and break. Most of the Mission programming is geared towards children, and approximately ninety percent of the visitors are children. The State hopes and expects that visitors to the Mission will increase dramatically with construction of the new Visitor Center. The State continues to expect that a high percentage of these visitors will be children. The application for abandonment is based on the reasonable prospect of increased future use of the facility. The application for abandonment seeks to protect the expected increased number of visitors, including many groups of children, and staff from the danger of having to cross back and forth across Mission Road. Pedestrian safety in connection with the use of the planned Mission facilities is a clear benefit to the general public. The abandonment application also would enable the State to optimize the functioning of the Mission, which also benefits the general public. Negative Effects of Abandonment At the same time, granting the application for abandonment would cost the general public in other ways, which the Petitioners point out. The segment of Mission Road proposed to be abandoned has a "canopy-road-like feel" (although it is not officially designated as a canopy road). The public no longer would be able to experience driving on it. A traffic study done by Wilson Miller on behalf of the State confirmed that traffic on the segment of Mission Road in question is relatively light. Traffic count data from 2008 showed that the annual average daily traffic ("AADT") was 1,500 vehicles a day, including both directions. Approximately 57 percent of the 1,500 cars move in an easterly direction. By comparison, the AADT for other area roads in the vicinity is significantly higher: 9,000 vehicles for White Drive; 34,000 for Ocala Road; and 42,500 for Tennessee Street. Mission Road is classified as a minor collector road. The capacity of a minor collector is between 13,000 and 14,000 AADT. The AADT established by the Wilson Miller study is only about 10% of the road's capacity, which is very light for a minor collector road. If the application for abandonment is granted, traffic will shift to other roads. However, the Wilson Miller study was not an origin and destination study and was not sufficient to determine with any precision how the traffic would shift. For that reason, Petitioners' attempt to use the traffic study to identify and quantify the costs associated with such travel shifts was not convincing. Some increase in traffic on other area roads will occur, but it is speculative based on this record where the increases might occur, how large they will be, and whether they will result in the need for taxpayer-funded road and traffic construction. Petitioners contend that the proposed abandonment will shift some eastbound traffic on Mission Road to White Drive. If it does, White Drive is a major collector with recent improvements and excess capacity. Any additional traffic on White Drive would not be significant from a traffic planning standpoint. It might make the road network more efficient overall (even though certain trips may become less efficient). It is possible that the re-routing of traffic from the Mission Road and Ocala Road intersection may be significant enough to warrant a traffic signal at White Drive and Mission Road. For this reason, the City staff recommends, as a condition for abandonment, that the State pay for signalization at that intersection if the need arises within a 12-month period after the abandonment. Based on the evidence, it should not be anticipated that other road and traffic improvements will be necessary as a result of the abandonment, except perhaps reversal of the stop condition at Mission Road and San Luis Road and possibly a turn lane on Solana Drive at its Mission Road junction. Petitioners also contend that the value of the 1.34 acres of road right-of-way to be abandoned is a cost to the general public that should be considered. The appraised value of the 1.34 acres was $240,000, using an "across the fence" appraisal methodology and assuming high-density residential property "across the fence" even though the property on either side of the proposed abandonment would be park land, and the transfer of use from road to park would be from one public purpose to another public purpose. In any event, the City cannot legally "charge" for abandoning right-of-way, and the value of abandoned right-of-way is never a consideration in the City's review of an abandonment application. See Conclusion 77, infra. Petitioners also contend that the proposed abandonment will have the negative effect of hampering emergency response in the area. Any road closure could result in a longer emergency response time by a matter of minutes in a particular circumstance and, depending on the emergency, it is possible that a delay of mere minutes could be significant and even mean the difference between life and death. But the evidence was clear that, from any reasonable planning perspective, the proposed abandonment would not present significant difficulties to fire, hazardous material, or police responders, assuming that maintaining adequate emergency access into the Mission itself is made a condition of the abandonment. Geographic areas are assigned to Fire Department stations for primary response. The response routes of drivers are not assigned, but are instead discretionary on the part of the driver based on the time of day, traffic patterns, nature of the road, and possible school zones. The primary station is called as the First Due, with the secondary being Second Due, and so forth. Station 4, located at the corner of Pensacola Street and Appleyard Drive, is the First Due Station, or engine company, for the area of the proposed abandonment, including The Timbers. The typical route for Station 4 would be to travel from its location at Appleyard Drive and proceed to Tennessee Street, turn right and proceed east to White Drive, then turn left and proceed north to Mission Road. This route would not be affected by the proposed abandonment. The Second Due Station for this area is the Main Fire Station located at 327 North Adams Street. The probable emergency response route for a fire truck coming from this Station would be to travel west on Tennessee Street, go through the Ocala Road intersection with Tennessee Street, turn right and proceed north on White Drive, and turn right and proceed east on Mission Road. The alterative route of proceeding north on Ocala Road at the Tennessee Street intersection and turning left onto Mission Road would be extremely difficult to navigate for a large fire truck, particularly in light of traffic, and typically would not be the preferred route. The typical route from the Second Due station is not affected by the proposed abandonment. The Third Due station for this area is Station 8, which is located on Hartsfield Road. This Station is situated to the west of the Timbers and the Mission. A typical route from this Station to the Timbers would be to drive east on Hartsfield Drive and take one of several southerly connections to Mission Road, and then drive east on Mission Road to access The Timbers or the Mission. Another consideration for Fire Department emergency access is the specialized functions of certain stations in two areas--Urban Search and Rescue, and the Hazardous Material Response. The Urban Search and Rescue team provides specialized services including searching through collapsed buildings and piles of debris. The primary station response for Urban Search and Rescue is Station 4, and its access is unaffected by the abandonment. The primary Hazardous Material Response team is Station 2, located on Sharer Road. There is a secondary specialized station for hazardous materials response, Station 3, which is located on South Monroe Street at Paul Russell Road. In addition, all of the stations have some ability to provide hazardous materials response. Currently, a possible route from Station 2 to the Timbers eventually would take Ocala Road to Mission Road. However, this route is only available for single engine fire trucks. Due to the nature of the equipment it uses, the hazardous materials team may instead proceed along Interstate 10 to Capital Circle and head back east to the area. During a response to an incident, this specialized team would be driving en route, meaning with traffic and not in emergency mode, and the First Due station would already have sent a truck to the site along a route unaffected by the proposed abandonment. As for the Police Department, the main type of call from The Timbers has been for public disturbances, which are frequently related to parties and generally not emergencies. In the three years of calls, only one call received could be considered an emergency response, which was for a young lady who had erratic breathing after passing out from drinking too much alcohol. In contrast to the Fire Department, police patrol cars have no fixed locations but rather are constantly on patrol. Dispatch for police prioritizes current needs and locations of vehicles. The Police Department has a number of methods it can use to access an area in case of an emergency. In addition to the standard method of reaching an area by car, potential options to reach an area include by foot, bike, and helicopter. Even deployment of an armored car/tank type vehicle would be possible if the situation warranted it. If the abandonment occurs, there will be three main routes to access the area, including San Luis Road, White Drive, and Mission Road from the west. With the two entrances to The Timbers, these routes provide at least five different ways to access The Timbers. Some locations in the City, such as cul-de- sacs, have only one access route. The various approaches to the area in question provide more than sufficient access. The proposed abandonment would result in the elimination of a less-than-ideal intersection at Mission Road and Ocala Road. Resulting from the extension of Tennessee Street to the west of Ocala Road, the intersection at Mission Road and Ocala Road does not meet current design standards because it is too close to Tennessee Street. It is not unusual for cars turning right from Mission Road onto Ocala Road to cross two or three lanes within a very short distance in order to turn left onto Tennessee Street. This maneuver is dangerous and illegal. Of six accidents at the intersection over four years, five involved oncoming traffic striking a vehicle turning onto Ocala Road from Mission Road. In a three-month period in 2006 alone, there were three such collisions. One reason there are not more similar accidents appears to be that the danger is so obvious that most drivers--both those attempting the maneuver and those driving south on Ocala Road--use caution. In addition, many of the local residents have become quite skilled at negotiating the intersection. Another illegal maneuver at this less-than-ideal intersection is sometimes used by cars heading north on Ocala Road and crossing Tennessee Street. Since it is not possible to make a legal turn left onto Mission Road, some turn left into a business parking lot on the northwest corner of Tennessee Street and Ocala Road, drive through the business parking lot, and then turn left onto Mission Road. Petitioners contend that the proposed abandonment will shift traffic from the Mission Road/Ocala Road intersection to the White Drive/Tennessee Street intersection, which also is inconsistent with design standards due the centerline offset, making the left turn onto Tennessee Street from White Drive potentially dangerous. However, whether and how much traffic would be shifted to that intersection was not proven. In addition, most of the traffic experts who testified were more concerned about the dangers inherent in the Mission Road/Ocala Road intersection and thought elimination of the Mission Road/Ocala Road intersection would make the Ocala Road/Tennessee Street intersection more efficient. Comprehensive Plan The evidence was that, with the conditions recommended by the City's Planning Department, the proposed abandonment does not create any condition that is inconsistent with the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan, including the Long- Range Transportation Plan. Goal 2 of the Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is to “[e]nsure that all municipal and county actions encourage and promote the preservation of this community’s historic resources.” Closing the proposed portion of Mission Road will serve Goal 2 by supporting and satisfying Policy 2.1.3 (mitigate the impact of development on historic resources), Policy 2.1.5 (property listed in the Florida Master Site File), and Objective 2.4 (develop a land conservation program to protect historic resources). The proposed abandonment also is consistent with other parts of Goal 2, namely: Objective 2.5 (establish a program to protect significant archaeological resources); Policy 2.5.1 (mitigation of adverse impacts to significant sites); Policy 2.5.2 (archaeological sites to be filed with Florida Master Site File and Archaeological Sensitivity Zone Maps of Leon County); Objective 3.2 (provide for the interpretation of local government-owned historic resources in parks and other public lands); Policy 3.2.1 (support and encourage local projects involving walking, bicycling and driving tours through historic areas); and Policy 3.2.2 (include the existence of historic resources as a criterion in the acquisition of public parks). The recommended bicycle/pedestrian path easement condition is consistent with Goal 6 of the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages the City/County to "implement a county-wide greenways network . . . to provide for . . . educational and historical interpretive opportunities and increased opportunities for alternative modes of transportation." Goal 6 of the Conservation Element of the Plan and supporting Policies 6.1.1 through 6.1.4 were the origin of the Tallahassee-Leon County Greenways Master Plan. The intent was to link historic and natural resources throughout the community, linking them to residential, work, and business areas. The bicycle/pedestrian easement link San Luis City Park trails with an existing trail at the intersection of Tennessee and Ocala. The proposed abandonment is consistent with the Parks and Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan in that state facilities may be included to meet state-required levels of service. Parks are essential to a sustainable community. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan has the general goal of protecting natural and aesthetic environments and residential areas. One way to protect residential areas is not to route collector roadways through them. Everything adjoining the western boundary of the Mission is classified as Residential Preservation. Closing Mission Road will force traffic away from this area and protect 18 homes on San Luis Road from cut-through traffic. The Planning Department would downgrade area street classifications to "local streets" to reflect their true use and provide better neighborhood protection. Studies performed by the Planning Department resulted in a multi-modal transportation district and a greenways master plan. The City operates under the Tallahassee/Leon County Multimodal Transportation District Plan. That Plan focuses on bike paths, mass transit, and sidewalks to facilitate greater mobility with fewer roads. Service levels for bicycle paths in the San Luis area are close to critical. The bicycle/pedestrian easement will provide greater connectivity, thereby improving service levels. Many students reside in the vicinity of the proposed road closure and provision of a bike path connecting the areas north of Mission Road with the Ocala Trail south of Tennessee Street would attract more bicycle traffic in the hopes of changing the mode of transportation for college students. The City has a Tallahassee-Leon County Greenways Master Plan (Greenways Plan). The abandonment application provides an opportunity under the Greenways Plan. The bicycle/pedestrian easement will connect an existing trail at the intersection of Tennessee Street and Ocala Road to San Luis City Park. This is consistent with the Greenways Plan. The City has adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Bike/ped Plan). The purpose of the Bike/ped Plan is to facilitate greater awareness of bike and pedestrian facilities and to promote construction of new facilities. The bicycle/pedestrian easement would provide greater accessibility to existing amenities and infrastructure and meet the intent of the Bike/ped Plan. Petitioners argued that there already exists a better connection between the existing trail at the intersection of Tennessee Street and Ocala Road to San Luis City Park via Ocala Road and Continental Avenue. However, the evidence did not prove that the existing route would be safer or better than the connection that would become available as a result of the bicycle/pedestrian easement condition on the proposed abandonment. Even if it would be, an additional route and connection still would serve a public benefit. Petitioners also pointed out that State could dedicate an easement through its property for purposes of a bicycle/pedestrian connection without applying for abandonment of right-of-way and that the City never asked for such a dedication before the State applied for application of the right-of-way. But it is typical to consider such matters in the context of an application for abandonment. Alternatives to Abandonment Petitioners concede that pedestrian safety at the Mission San Luis "would be rendered perfect if the road were abandoned, closed, and eliminated." However, they contend that other steps could be taken to protect the pedestrians as well or better without abandoning the road. First, Petitioners suggest the alternative of a pedestrian crossing with a pedestrian-controlled stop light and advance warning flashers. This suggestion was supported by the testimony of Petitioners' traffic expert, Wayne Coloney. But he assumed there would be 360 feet between the pedestrian crossing and the curve in Mission Road. Actually, the pedestrian crossing would be only approximately 210 feet from the curve, which is less than the 330 feet that Mr. Coloney considered to be safe. The other traffic experts also believed that it would be unsafe to design a pedestrian-crossing that close to the curve, even with advance warning flashers--a design that works best on straight roads with long sight-line distances, such as Meridian Road. Next, Petitioners suggest the construction of an overpass. This would be a more expensive proposition. It would require the construction of ramps, stairs, and elevators to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, to be effective in protecting pedestrians, fencing would have to be installed for a considerable distance on both sides of the road to discourage pedestrians from crossing the road instead of using the overpass. According to Mr. Coloney, all of this would cost between $300,000 and $390,000 to install and between $20,000 and $30,000 to maintain. Both the overpass and the fencing would be at odds with the environment the State would be trying to re- create and maintain on the Mission property. Petitioners also suggest digging a tunnel under the road, which would be less obvious than an overpass. However, this also would require fencing to be effective and would be the most expensive of the suggested alternatives--costing between $450,000 and $690,000 to install. In addition, it would require digging a tunnel through artifact-rich earth, which would be contrary to the a primary purpose of Mission San Luis. Application of Findings to Standards Paragraph 2 of Policy 410 requires a demonstration that an abandonment of right-of-way is "in the best interests of the general public." It is clear that the proposed abandonment is not in any private interest since the abandonment is to the State for incorporation in its Mission San Luis, a public facility. The abandonment is not for the sole purpose of placing property on the tax rolls, or for the benefit an abutting private property owner. It is to benefit the public. It also is primarily to protect the safety of pedestrians working at and visiting the facility, including many school children. For these reasons, the abandonment clearly is in the public interest, as opposed to any private interest. Whether it is in the best interest of the general public is a more difficult judgment to make. But, on balance, the abandonment application, with the standard and recommended conditions, probably is in the best interest of the general public. The proposed abandonment also meets the new policy criteria for abandonment of right-of-way. It does not create any safety or public heath hazard, including environmental health hazard. It does not preclude access to any existing parcel or lot of record. It does not preclude access to any publicly- maintained facility or infrastructure. It does not create any condition inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Long-Range Transportation Plan. It does not eliminate or preclude a street or bicycle/pedestrian interconnection that the City Commission intends to retain. It does not adversely affect any required service access for any official service provider.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Commission that DEP's application for abandonment of right- of-way be granted, with the standard and recommended conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Deepika Andavarapu Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department 300 South Adams Street, Fourth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1721 William H. Davis, Esquire Dobson, Davis & Smith 610 North Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jonathan P. Sanford, Esquire Office of the City Attorney 300 South Adams, Box A-5 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lisa M. Raleigh, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Arborwood Community Development District (Petition), dated November 17, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation ("Respondent"), has demonstrated that Petitioner, Frank C. Kunnen, Jr., d/b/a U.S. 19 Commerce Center's ("Petitioner"), right-out driveway to U.S. Highway 19 will present a safety and operational problem following Respondent's reconstruction of Highway 19. Whether Petitioner's access to the state highway system will be reasonable if Petitioner's existing right-out driveway is closed. Whether Respondent is legally entitled to administratively close Petitioner's driveway, pursuant to Rule 14-96.011, Florida Administrative Code, and applicable Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of real property located within the city limits of Clearwater, in Pinellas County, Florida, which property abuts U.S. Highway 19 (State Road 55). It has a right-in and right-out driveway connection to U.S. Highway 19. Petitioner's current right-in, right-out driveway does not create a safety or operational problem with the existing configuration of U.S. Highway 19. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to Chapter 20, Florida Statutes. Respondent regulates access to the state highway system. Respondent initially cited Rule 14-96.011, Florida Administrative Code, in the Notice as authority for the intended agency action. This Rule pertains to closure or modification of permitted driveways. At hearing on March 20, it was discovered that Respondent had intended to cite Rule 14-96.012, Florida Administrative Code, which pertains to closure or modification of unpermitted driveways that had been in existence since before July 1, 1988, the effective date of the State Highway System Access Management Act. The Rule refers to these driveways as "grandfathered." As of March 20, Respondent was not aware that Petitioner's driveway might have been permitted. In order to provide Petitioner all due process to which he was entitled, Respondent requested that the hearing be continued. After reviewing its files, Respondent indicated to Petitioner on June 28, 2001, that Respondent would be requesting an additional continuance to conduct an engineering study pursuant to Rule 14- 96.011, Florida Administrative Code.¹ Petitioner agreed to both continuances. The study was dated August 20, 2001, and was delivered to Petitioner's counsel just after that date. This study was presented as Respondent's Exhibit 5 at the resumption of the hearing on September 20, 2001. The Study sets out the essential safety and operational bases for Respondent's agency action in this case and was signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. Prior to the reconvened hearing, Petitioner did not seek to depose the author of the engineering study nor did he request documents utilized in creating the study. Petitioner decided to wait until the hearing and make a series of objections to the study's admissibility. Prior to and after the study was admitted into evidence, Petitioner's counsel conducted extensive cross-examination of the engineer who signed and sealed the study, Vibert Griffith, P.E., and his assistant in the creation of the study, Julian Parsons. Petitioner did not present any evidence of prejudice resulting from the timing of the creation of the study. Any prejudice which may be presumed was cured by Respondent's requesting a continuance specifically to search its records for evidence of a permit; Respondent's requesting another continuance to create that study; Petitioner's agreeing to both continuances; and Respondent's producing the study approximately one month prior to hearing. This gave Petitioner time to conduct discovery regarding the study, not to mention sufficient time to prepare for the hearing itself. The Notice did not state whether mediation was available in this case. However, the lack of mention of mediation in the Notice was of no prejudice to Petitioner in light of the fact that that Petitioner proposed several alternative driveway designs to Respondent, and that these alternatives had been closely studied and considered. Petitioner did not present any evidence that he had asked whether mediation was available or was denied an opportunity to mediate this case. Accordingly, any error in the lack of information regarding mediation in the Notice was harmless, and any prejudice was cured. Petitioner elicited testimony with respect to a third procedural point in this case. Rule 14-96.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, states that if Respondent seeks to close a driveway, Respondent will offer to meet with the property owner or his representative on-site. As Petitioner's counsel stated during his opening remarks, however, there is a long history of litigation between Petitioner and Respondent, including two pervious mediations. Again, the unrebutted testimony at hearing was that over the last several years Respondent evaluated three alternative designs submitted by Petitioner for access to U.S. Highway 19. Petitioner did not present any evidence of prejudice in not being able to meet on-site with Respondent in this case. Any error in relation to this issue was harmless. U.S. Highway 19 runs north-south through Pinellas County, Florida and is a part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System. In the vicinity of Petitioner's property, U.S. Highway 19 has three lanes of traffic each for northbound and southbound traffic (total of six lanes). As part of the reconstruction of U.S. Highway 19, Respondent has plans to create "grade separated intersections" or "urban interchanges" at the cross street to the south and north of Petitioner's property. The cross street to the south is Drew Street, and the cross street to the north is Coachman Road. Also, just to the north of Petitioner's property, U.S. Highway 19 is elevated over railroad tracks, and will continue to be so elevated after reconstruction. In its reconstructed state, vehicles will reach mainline U.S. Highway 19 by a series of frontage roads and on and off ramps. Vehicles that stay on mainline U.S. Highway 19 will not have to stop for signals at intersections with cross streets because the mainline will travel over the cross streets. The effect of U.S. Highway reconstruction will be to create a more efficient transportation facility by improving safety and capacity. The overall improvements to U.S. Highway 19 are necessary. Although Respondent is closing Petitioner's right-out driveway to mainline U.S. Highway 19, Respondent is not acquiring any property from Petitioner. Accordingly, Respondent provided Petitioner with notice of the intended agency action and right to an administrative hearing (the "Notice"). Respondent's Proposal Respondent proposes, as part of its planned improvements to U.S. Highway 19, to provide Petitioner a right- in only entrance from a frontage road running adjacent to and parallel to U.S. Highway 19. Respondent also proposes to build a new two-way road, referred to as Access Road A, which runs north-south, parallel to U.S. Highway 19, intersects Drew Street, and from that point provides vehicles the option of traveling either north or south on mainline U.S. Highway 19, or east or west on Drew Street. Petitioner's northerly neighbor, a maintenance yard owned by Pinellas County, would also send all of its traffic, including large trucks and emergency vehicles, out Access Road A to Drew Street. Other properties, including several car dealerships, to the south of Petitioner's property would also have access to Access Road A. No other property owner, including Pinellas County, objected to Respondent's proposed access system. It is undisputed that Respondent has all of the right-of-way necessary to construct Access Road A to Petitioner's property line. During construction, the City of Clearwater will install a temporary traffic signal at the intersection of Access Road A and Drew Street. Based on a traffic study conducted by the Pinellas County MPO and endorsed by the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County, the traffic light will become permanent when construction is completed. Even if the temporary light is removed after construction, Access Road A will function properly for right turns onto Drew Street which will provide access to the northbound and southbound mainline lanes of U.S. Highway 19. This is true, even assuming that all of Petitioner's neighbors send all of their traffic out Access Road A. In addition, Petitioner's neighbors to the south have several alternate means of access to travel west on Drew Street and either north or south on U.S. Highway 19. Respondent is closing Petitioner's right-out driveway to U.S. Highway 19 because, post-construction, the driveway would be located on an on-ramp. The frontage road and on-ramp, as currently designed by Respondent, would prevent placement of a right-out driveway in such a location. It is Petitioner's position that Respondent could have designed the frontage road and on-ramp in front of Petitioner's property in such a way as to allow the safe operation of a right-out driveway in the approximate location of Petitioner's current right-out driveway. Petitioner's Proposal In support of his contention that Respondent could have designed a right-out driveway, Petitioner offered an aerial map and overlay (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), which purported to show that Respondent could have designed an on-ramp from Drew Street and an off-ramp to Coachman Road to the north in such a way as to allow Petitioner a right-out driveway. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was a concept based upon what was referred to as the "Lochner Study" at hearing. The "Lochner Study" was a study performed by the engineering firm H. W. Lochner, and showed a right-in, right-out driveway from Petitioner's property onto a frontage road/on-ramp in approximately the same location as Petitioner's current driveway. In the past Petitioner had proposed other alternatives for access to U.S. Highway 19. Petitioner withdrew from consideration at this hearing all other alternative designs for a right-out driveway for Petitioner. The Lochner Study was undertaken with the specific purpose of determining whether needed improvements to U.S. Highway 19 could be safely constructed within right-of-way already owned by Respondent. The Lochner Study concluded that placing a driveway for Petitioner in the location shown in the study would provide "substandard operation and is very undesirable from a safety stand point." The primary reason for this conclusion was that the physical separation of northbound mainline U.S. Highway 19 and the frontage road ended south of the driveway's location. This lack of physical separation would allow vehicles on northbound mainline U.S. Highway 19 to cross over the frontage road and enter Petitioner's property, creating unsafe traffic movements. Petitioner's witnesses agreed that this lack of separation would be a safety problem. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, prepared and testified about by Reginald Mesimer, attempted to alleviate this admittedly unsafe aspect of the Lochner plan by extending the physical separator between northbound mainline U.S. Highway 19 and the frontage road/on-ramp to a point just beyond the location of where Petitioner's driveway would be. The area of physical separation is the "gore" area. In effect, this extension also would shift the beginning of the on-ramp to the point of Petitioner's driveway. Thus, the issue raised was whether the location of the on-ramp could be safely designed to co-exist with the location of the off-ramp for the next interchange at Coachman Road. The standards for determining whether this design is safe are set by the American Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO"), who publish these standards in the "Green Book," known as the "Bible" of transportation engineers. In examining Petitioner's Exhibit 3, as well as the requirements of AASHTO submitted in this case, it is clear that the requirements for an on-ramp followed by an off-ramp are: (1) an acceleration area for the on-ramp; (2) a weaving area for vehicles going from the on-ramp to mainline, and for vehicles going from mainline to the off-ramp; (3) a deceleration area for the off-ramp, and (4) a queue area for vehicles at the terminus of the off-ramp. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows the start of the acceleration area for the on-ramp at the location of Petitioner's right-out driveway, which indicates that the on- ramp for vehicles leaving Petitioner's property would begin at his driveway. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows a 2,000-foot weave area, also beginning at the location of Petitioner's right-out driveway. Placing the start of the acceleration area and the weave area at the same point on an on-ramp is contrary to AASHTO design standards. The beginning of the weave area should be near the end of the acceleration area, which, on Petitioner's Exhibit 3, is supposed to be where vehicles on the on-ramp are traveling at the design speed of the highway they are attempting to enter. AASHTO places the beginning of the weaving area where the outside lane of the mainline and the inside lane of the on- ramp are separated by two feet. The weave area extends to a point where there is a twelve-foot separation of the mainline and off-ramp lanes at the next interchange. The design speed of U.S. Highway 19 is 55 miles per hour. It is uncontested that vehicles leaving Petitioner's property will be in a stopped condition prior to entering the on-ramp. Thus, looking at Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the beginning of the weave area should be placed approximately 965 feet to the north of the current location shown on Petitioner's Exhibit 3. In turn, this forces the deceleration area for the off-ramp to Coachman Road shown on Petitioner's Exhibit 3 to be shifted 965 feet to the north. Petitioner's expert testified that the off- ramp deceleration area at Coachman Road could be shifted between 300 and 400 feet to the north. Assuming this to be correct, this places the start of the off-ramp deceleration area approximately 965 feet to the north of its current location, which is 565 to 665 feet beyond the farthest point Petitioner's expert testified it could be moved. Respondent's experts also examined Petitioner's Exhibit 3 under the dictates of AASHTO. Unlike Petitioner, Respondent assumed a design speed of 50 miles per hour, and assumed that shorter distances for acceleration, weaving, and deceleration could be applied in this situation under AASHTO. Respondent's findings demonstrate that under the "Petitioner's best case scenario" the off-ramp at Coachman Road would still have to be moved approximately 600 feet to the north, which is at least 200 feet past the farthest possible shift testified to by Petitioner's expert. Moving the off-ramp would obviously require redesign and delay of the Coachman Road project to the north, already designed and funded for construction. Further, Petitioner's Exhibit 3 also did not take into account any need for increased acceleration distance on the on- ramp due to the grade of the road. For certain portions of the acceleration area of the on-ramp in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 the grade is steeper that 3 percent, and averages over 2 percent. AASHTO does not require an increase in acceleration distance where the grade is "less that two percent." AASHTO requires an increase when the grade is more than 3 percent. This is, according to Petitioner's witness, a "gray area" in AASHTO. In this situation, while AASHTO may not require a multiplier be applied to the entire acceleration distance, it would be safer for the traveling public to apply the multiplier at least to the portions above 3 percent and perhaps to the entire acceleration distance, and to acknowledge that the grade of the road militates against application of strict minimum AASHTO standard distances. Adjusting at all for grade would result in a longer on-ramp and require pushing the off-ramp at Coachman even further north, which makes Petitioner's Exhibit 3 alternative even less viable. Another factor that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 did not take into account was that a significant amount of traffic leaving the proposed right-out driveway would be fully-loaded heavy trucks both from Petitioner's property and the Pinellas County maintenance yard. The AASHTO acceleration distance of 965 feet shown in that Exhibit is for automobiles. Knowing that heavy, fully loaded trucks would be utilizing this driveway on a regular basis, the acceleration distance for such trucks reaching 55 or even 50 miles per hour would be longer than for a normal passenger vehicle. Petitioner's alternative proposal was fatally flawed in its misplacement of the weave area, and was defective in other respects such as not considering the slower heavy truck traffic or the grade of the road. Thus, it is apparent that under any interpretation of the AASHTO standards, Respondent could not safely design an on-ramp from the Drew Street area and an off-ramp to the Coachman Road interchange and provide Petitioner a right-out driveway in the approximate location of his existing right-out driveway. Based upon all the evidence presented at hearing, Respondent demonstrated that AASHTO standards preclude moving the on-ramp to the location proposed by Petitioner. Therefore, closing Petitioner's right-out driveway to reconstructed U.S. Highway 19 is mandated for safety and operational reasons. Access-Reasonableness Issues Following the reconstruction of U.S. Highway 19, the access proposed by Respondent for Petitioner's property is reasonable. An objective comparison of the alternative proposed by Petitioner and Respondent's proposal reveals that Respondent's design results in safer and more efficient access to the state highway system for Petitioner and direct access to east and west travel on Drew Street. One measurable point of comparison is the relative distance a vehicle would have to travel to reach the state highway system under Respondent's proposal versus Petitioner's. Prior to Petitioner's withdrawing from consideration all alternatives other than what was represented in Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Respondent presented testimony regarding two of Petitioner's earlier alternative concepts. These previous alternatives were referred to as Proposal One and Proposal Two. Proposal One was basically a right-out driveway in the form of an on-ramp that would have tied in to mainline U.S. Highway 19 prior to the railroad tracks. Proposal Two was a right-out driveway/on-ramp that tied into the off-ramp for Coachman Road. As far as comparing relative travel distances, both Proposals One and Two are similar to the alternative in Petitioner's Exhibit 3. For vehicles to travel north from Petitioner's property on U.S. Highway 19 in Respondent's design, vehicles travel south on Access Road A, west on Drew Street, and then south on the frontage road/on-ramp. This is a distance of .44 miles. To reach the same point using the access provided in Proposal One, Proposal Two, or Petitioner's Exhibit 3, a vehicle must travel north to the Coachman interchange, and double back south, a distance of approximately 1.45 miles. Thus, when added together, the distances for vehicles to travel north and south on U.S. Highway 19 in Respondent's design total 1.12 miles, or .33 miles less than the 1.45 miles to reach the same points using any of Petitioner's alternative driveway proposals. In addition, for vehicles that wish to travel east or west on Drew Street from Petitioner's property, Respondent's alternative is much shorter. It is .32 miles to reach Drew Street along Access Road A, and 1.6 miles to reach Drew Street from Proposal One, Proposal Two, or Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Another measurable point of comparison are conflict points, places such as intersections and merge areas where vehicles can be expected to change lanes. In Respondent's design, there are four or five conflict points to travel north on U.S. Highway 19, three or four to travel south on U.S. Highway 19, and one to travel east or west on Drew Street. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows two conflict points to travel north (right-out turn to on-ramp and merge to mainline), six or seven to travel south on U.S. Highway 19, and seven or eight to travel east or west on Drew Street (same as south on U.S. Highway 19 plus turn from off-ramp). For vehicles traveling north and south on U.S. Highway 19 from Petitioner's property, the number of conflict points in either Respondent's design or Petitioner's alternative are essentially even, but when travel on Drew Street is included in the comparison Respondent's design is clearly safer. A third point of comparison is that Petitioner's alternative provides one way in and one way out. Respondent's design provides two ways in and one way out. Respondent's design provides reasonable access to Petitioner's property. In comparison to Petitioner's alternative, Respondent's design provides for shorter combined travel distances. In regard to conflict points, Respondent's design is as safe as Petitioner's alternative, and safer if travel on Drew Street is included in the comparison. Finally, Respondent's design provides an additional point of ingress. Both witnesses called by Petitioner opined that the access proposed by Respondent was not reasonable, primarily because the access is not "direct." The basis of that opinion was limited to their belief that a "better" access plan, the alternative shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 3, was viable. Neither of Petitioner's witnesses knew the relative travel distances, nor did either witness testify about actual conflict points or any other possible objective points of comparison. Petitioner's witnesses' view are flawed because the alternative shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is not viable. Assuming, arguendo, that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 reflected a safe design, and assuming that this access is reasonable, it would be contrary to logic to conclude that Respondent's design results in unreasonable access. The only "advantage" in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 versus Respondent's proposal is a right-out "direct" connection to U.S. Highway 19 via the on-ramp. However, comparing travel distances, conflict points, and points of ingress, Respondent's design is comparable if not superior, and thus, reasonable. Petitioner stressed that all other property owners along the U.S. Highway 19 corridor have right-in and right-out driveways on frontage roads, and that Petitioner is the only property owner required to use a facility like Access Road A for egress. Even if true, this circumstance does not in and of itself change Respondent's designed access for Petitioner's property into unreasonable access. Based upon objective criteria, Respondent's design is comparable or superior to Petitioner's alternative, and Respondent's design is comparable or superior to the access enjoyed by all other property owners in this vicinity. Engineering Study Pursuant to Rule 14-96.011, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent conducted an engineering study to examine the closure of Petitioner's right-out driveway. Normally, an engineering study is prepared prior to Respondent serving its Notice of Intent to close or alter a permitted driveway connection. The engineering study documents that there is a safety or operational problem with a particular driveway connection, and ensures that Respondent has an engineering basis to seek closure or alteration of the driveway. However, at the time this case came to hearing on March 20, 2001, Respondent was not aware that Petitioner's driveway may have been permitted. That is the reason the study was conducted during a continuance of this case and delivered to Petitioner on or around August 17, 2001. Petitioner agreed to the continuance for Respondent to conduct the study, and Petitioner had adequate time to conduct any further discovery in this case after receipt of the study. Thus, any procedural error in the timing of the study was waived by Petitioner and/or cured by Respondent. The Study does provide safety and operational bases for Respondent's agency action in this case. The study summarizes the history of the U.S. Highway 19 improvement project, discusses the current conditions, explains the proposed improvements, and reviews the safety and operational issues specific to Petitioner's right-out driveway in the post construction condition. The study also explains why two alternative right-out driveway configurations were not acceptable to Respondent. The study contains exhibits showing traffic patterns in the existing and possible future post construction conditions. The study was signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. The study did not discuss the Petitioner's alternative advocated at hearing. The reason the study did not address this concept was that at the time of its creation, Respondent did not have Petitioner's Exhibit 3. One other item not addressed was traffic accident data. Since the improvements of U.S. Highway 19 have not been constructed, there is no accident data for the right-out driveway in the post construction condition. Respondent stipulated that Petitioner's existing right-out driveway is safe, so any accident data relating to current conditions is not relevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the closure of Petitioner's right- out driveway as part of the future constructed improvements to Highway 19 and the construction of Access Road A. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2001.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether amendments CPA-09-13 and CPA-09-14 (“Plan Amendments”) to the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, which were adopted by Ordinance 2009-A24, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Florida Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plan amendments and determining they are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Citrus County has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Robert Schweickert, Jr., is a resident of the City of Inverness in Citrus County. Petitioner made oral comments about the Plan Amendments to Citrus County Commissioner John Thrumston in one or more telephone conversations during the period of time between the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendments. In Petitioner’s telephone conversations with Commissioner Thrumston, the Commissioner was on his personal cellular telephone or home telephone. No evidence was presented as to whether Commissioner Thrumston conveyed Petitioner’s comments to the Board of County Commissioners or to the County’s planning staff. CMT is a Florida corporation and owns the property that is the subject of Plan Amendment CPA-09-14, which would re- designate the property as the Hollinswood Harbor Port Subarea. CMT submitted oral comments to the Citrus Board of County Commissioners at the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendments. The Site The subject property is a 525-acre site situated on the Cross Florida Barge Canal. There is a channel “cut” from the barge canal into the property. CMT owns the submerged lands beneath the channel cut, and owns the submerged lands along the southern boundary of its property to the middle of the barge canal. Currently the site has future land use designations of “Industrial,” “Conservation” (for the CMT-owned water bottom), “Extractive,” and “Transportation, Communications, and Utilities.” A portion of the site is planted in pine trees, which CMT plans to harvest. The small area of the site designated Extractive is used to store mined materials. A power line and natural gas pipeline bisect the site. The waterfront portion of the site was used in the past for a cruise ship operation. A docking facility, parking lot, and office used in conjunction with the cruise ship operation still exist on the site. To the west of the site is other land owned by CMT, which is leased to a mining company and is used for mining limestone. To the east is land owned by the State of Florida, on which it proposes to build public boat ramps. The Plan Amendments Amendment CPA-09-13 amends the FLUE to create a new land use designation, “Port District.” CPA-09-14 amends the FLUE to create the Hollinswood Harbor Port (“HHP”) Subarea Plan, and amends the Future Land Use Map to designate the 525-acre site owned by CMT as the HHP Subarea. The HHP Subarea Plan divides the 525-acre site into four land use districts: “Port- Industrial,” “Port-Water Dependent,” “Port-Commercial,” and “Transportation Communication & Utility.” The HHP Subarea Plan proposes a mix of industrial, commercial, institutional, water dependent, and residential uses, and establishes minimum and maximum standards for those uses. The HHP Subarea Plan includes a requirement to comply with the FDEP 2007 Clean Marina Action Plan Guidebook. Residential uses within the HHP Subarea cannot exceed a density of six units per acre, or a maximum of 600 units. Residential units must be clustered on no more than 20 percent of the site’s total 525 acres. The residential density may be increased by one unit per acre if workforce housing is provided. Petitioner’s Issues Petitioner’s issues were limited to whether the amendments were consistent with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, with respect to manatee protection, workforce housing, the provision of public water and sewer services, and urban sprawl. Manatee Protection The barge canal is a manmade waterway with a depth of 12 to 14 feet. The canal is too deep to allow sunlight to penetrate to the bottom and, therefore, there are no grass beds in the area of the site. Water grasses are the primary food of the manatee. Although manatees are known to travel in the barge canal, the canal is not essential habitat for the manatee. The proposed Plan Amendments would not prevent achievement of the criteria established in the Manatee Protection Element of the comprehensive plan. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Plan Amendments would cause an unreasonable risk of harm to manatees or are otherwise inconsistent with any provision of the comprehensive plan. Workforce Housing Petitioner alleges that the County has more than sufficient affordable housing and that the Plan Amendments would add to the surplus of affordable housing by allowing for a residential density bonus if workforce housing is provided. “Workforce housing” is generally defined in Section 420.5095(3)(a), Florida Statutes, as “housing affordable to natural persons or families whose total annual household income does not exceed 140 percent of the area median income.” The Housing Element of the comprehensive plan encourages affordable housing. Citrus County has not established in its comprehensive plan a “cap” on affordable housing units. There is also no cap on affordable housing units established in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5. Petitioner did not adequately explain how an amendment that encourages the provision of affordable housing for some of the persons who work on a site or in the local area could be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, Chapter 163, or Rule 9J-5. Public Water and Sewer Services At the final hearing, Petitioner claimed that the Plan Amendments for the HHP Subarea require that the district be served by central water and sewer services, but do not specify what entity is required to provide the services. Stated in this form, Petitioner’s issue is without merit because Petitioner did not identify a provision of the comprehensive plan, Chapter 163, or Rule 9J-5 that requires an identification of the entity that will provide water and sewer services in the future. Petitioner stated at the final hearing that “What I’m attempting to do is to narrow [the issues] down to the urban sprawl issue because to me that is the strength and the meat of the argument.” Therefore, Petitioner’s issue regarding the provision of public water and sewer services is treated as an aspect of his allegation that the Plan Amendments would encourage urban sprawl, and is addressed below. Urban Sprawl Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendments encourage urban sprawl because they would result in the prematurely and poorly planned conversion of rural lands, would “leapfrog” over undeveloped lands, and would add new residential units there are not needed. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), entitled “Review of Plans and Plan Amendments for Discouraging the Proliferation of Urban Sprawl,” includes 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Discussed below are the indicators implicated by the evidence presented by the parties. The first indicator of urban sprawl refers to “low- intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need.” The Plan Amendments call for a mix of land uses which are relatively high in intensity and density. Therefore, this indicator is not presented by the proposed Plan Amendments. The second indicator of urban sprawl is promoting significant amounts of urban development in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban area while leapfrogging over undeveloped lands available and suitable for development. Respondents and Intervenor claim that this would not be leapfrog development because the land was used in the past for industrial and commercial purposes and because the port uses are water- dependent. A County planner testified that there is a deficit of residential units in the planning district in which the HHP site is located. However, the addition of 600 residential units (even more, if workforce housing units are included) a substantial distance from urbanized areas is an indicator of urban sprawl. The fourth indicator is failing to protect and preserve natural resources as a result of the premature or poorly planned conversion of rural lands. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that the Plan Amendments would fail to protect or preserve natural resources. Therefore, this indicator of urban sprawl is not present. Indicators 6 through 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and utilities. Generally, urban sprawl is indicated when public facilities must be created or expanded to serve a proposed land use due to its density or intensity, and its distance from existing facilities. Public water and sewer lines are not currently available to the site, and the County has no plans to extend public water and sewer services to the site. The Plan Amendments require all development within the HHP to be served by central water and sewer. If on-site, central wastewater facilities are used, they must provide advanced wastewater treatment and reuse capability. Respondents and Intervenor assert that the Plan Amendments would reduce the development intensity that is allowed under the current land use designations and development approvals for the site. They presented evidence that there would be a reduction of the water and sewer usage that potentially could have been required to serve the land uses on the site. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9-5.006(5)(k) states that the Department “shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators.” However, there was insufficient evidence presented on past, present, and future public water and sewer utility capacity. The evidence was insufficient to determine whether there are pre-existing indicators of urban sprawl, or whether the current situation indicates urban sprawl based on a need to expand the capacity of public utilities to serve the site. Petitioner has the burden of proof. The record evidence is insufficient to support his claim that the Plan Amendments show a failure of Citrus County to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order finding that amendments CPA-09-13 and CPA-09-14 to the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan are “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the City of Hallandale's comprehensive plan adopted in Ordinance No. 1999-12 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Mickey Biss, is an individual who resides in Miami, Dade County, Florida. Respondent, City of Hallandale (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation located within Broward County, Florida. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Respondents, Ocean Marine Yacht Club, Inc. and Security Management Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Ocean Marine"), are corporations organized under the laws of Florida and Maryland, respectively. Intervenor, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Standing. Mr. Biss owns a condominium, unit No. 2109, located at 2030 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida. Mr. Biss' parents reside in the condominium unit. Mr. Biss made oral and written comments to the City during the adoption of the amendment at issue in this case. Ocean Marine and Security Management own parcels of property located at 1935 and 1945 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is the subject of the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. All of the parties proved that they are "affected persons" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. All of the Parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. The City and Its Comprehensive Plan. General The City is located in Broward County, Florida. Broward County is a charter county with county-wide powers over land use planning. The City has adopted the City of Hallandale Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan"). The City's Plan has been determined to be "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act. The City's Plan includes a Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE") and Future Land Use Maps (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), a Coastal Management Element, a Capital Improvements Element, and other elements required by the Act. Among the land use categories allowed pursuant to the FLUE are residential "High Density" and residential "High Density-2." Residential property designated High Density is subject to a "maximum density of twenty-five (25) dwelling units per net acre." The residential High Density-2 land use category was created by an amendment to the City's Plan adopted by the City on February 5, 1998, through Ordinance No. 1998-3. Residential property designated High Density-2 is subject to a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. This new land use category was also added to the FLUM. The amendment to the City's Plan to add High Density-2 as a land use category was found to be "in compliance" by the Department. It was also found to be consistent with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The High Density-2 land use category is subject to the following limitation: Dwelling units and accessory structures subject to a maximum density of fifty (50) dwelling units per net acre, provided however that any density over 25 dwelling units per net ace may only be permitted by the City Commission on site specific properties by assignment of Flexibility Units in accordance with the Flexibility Rules of the Administrative Rules Document, Broward County Land Use Plan. The High Density-2 land use category of the City's Plan is consistent with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, which contains a "High (50) Residential" land use category allowing up to 50 dwelling units per acre. The City's Urban Infill Area and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas The FLUE of the City's Plan establishes an Urban Infill Area in the City. The Urban Infill Area is delineated on the FLUM. The following Objective and Policies concerning the Urban Infill Area are included in the City's Plan: OBJECTIVE 1.17: Establish criteria which encourage development of urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s) to promote economic development, increase housing opportunities, and maximize the use of existing public facilities and services. POLICY 1.17.1: Increase economic development and employment opportunities within urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s). POLICY 1.17.2: Adequate housing opportunities necessary to accommodate all segments of present and future residents shall be provided within urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s). The City's Plan also designates Urban Infill Areas as Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas. FLUE Policy 1.17.4 of the City's Plan provides the following: Designated urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s) shall be excepted from transportation facilities concurrency requirements consistent with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; however, application will be subject to providing a traffic analysis consistent with the Traffic Circulation Element and potential improvements to minimize impacts. Coastal High Hazard Area The City's Plan includes a Coastal Management Element addressing, among other things, hurricane evacuation from the City's coastal high-hazard area and participation in the development of evacuation plans by Broward County. The FLUE of the City's Plan also includes Policies providing for protection of the City's coastal high-hazard area. The City's Plan, prior to the adoption of the Challenged Amendment, allowed the designation of property located anywhere in the City, including the coastal high-hazard area, as High Density-2. This fact must be considered in interpreting the provisions of the Coastal Management Element and the FLUE of the City's Plan dealing with development within the coastal high hazard area. Flexibility Units. The Broward County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "County's Plan") includes an Administrative Rules Document. The Administrative Rules Document was adopted to assist local governments, among others, in interpreting the County's Plan. The FLUE of the City's Plan adopts by reference the Administrative Rules Document as they relate to flexibility units. The Future Land Use Maps of the County's Plan divide Broward County into 125 geographic areas designated as "flexibility zones." The number of flexibility units available within each zone is determined by subtracting the number of dwelling units permitted within a flexibility zone by a local government's plan from the number of dwelling units permitted within the same flexibility zone by the County's Plan. Local governments are allowed to, within certain specified limits, rearrange land uses, including residential densities, within flexibility zones located within the local government's jurisdiction. The City is divided into two flexibility zones: Flex Zones Nos. 93 and 94. The FLUE of the City's Plan contains a table on pages 2-28 and 2-32 which sets out the number of flexibility units available in Flex Zone Nos. 93 and 94. The City's Plan allows the use of flexibility units anywhere within either Flex Zone of the City, including areas within the coastal high hazard area. A "Summary" included with the table provides, in pertinent part, that flexibility units may be "assigned to any particular site within the Flexibility Zone to allow for increased residential densities above the amount permitted under the Hallandale Land Use Plan map. . . ." The flexibility units are available for transfer without the need to amend the City's Plan. At the time that the Challenged Amendment was adopted, there were a total of 2,429 flexibility units available within Flex Zone No. 93. The Subject Property. The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.75 acres of land. The parcel of the Subject Property located at 1935 Ocean Drive is vacant. The parcel of the Subject Property located at 1945 Ocean Drive is developed. The developed parcel has an 80-unit motel on it. The motel located on the Subject Property was constructed in 1956. The buildings on the Subject Property are in substantial decay. The Subject Property is surrounded on three sides by property used for high density multi-family residences. The property to the north, Chelsea Hall, has been developed at a density of 54 units per acre. The properties to the east, Malage Towers, Biltmore Mansions, Taromina Apartments, and Hemispheres Ocean, have been developed at densities of 75, 19, 45, and 117 units per acre, respectively. The property to the south, Hemispheres, has been developed at a density of 85 units per acre. Densities in the area surrounding the Subject Property averaged approximately 86 units per acre. The Subject Property lies totally within the City's Urban Infill Area. The Subject Property is, therefore, also considered to be located totally within a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. The Subject Property also lies within the coastal high-hazard area. The Subject Property is located within the City's Flex Zone No. 93. The Subject Amendment. On June 1, 1999, the City passed Ordinance No. 1999-12, amending the City's Plan by changing the FLUM land use designation for the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Amendment"). The Challenged Amendment changed the land use designation of the Subject property from residential High Density to residential High Density-2. The Challenged Amendment was adopted pursuant to the procedures allowed for "small scale" development amendments set forth in Section 163.3187 of the Act. Pursuant to this provision, the City decided that it would elect to have the Department review the Challenged Amendment. The change in land use designation on the Subject Property increased the allowable development of the Subject Property from a maximum of 25 units per acre to a maximum of 50 units per acre through the use of "flexibility units." The Challenged Amendment assigns 143 flexibility units out of the 2,429 available within Flex Zone No. 93 to the Subject Property and specifically provides " . . . the applicant agrees the assignment of 143 Flexibility Units to the parcel is a maximum and agrees the use of density above 25 units per acre will be determined by the City Commission upon review of a future major development plan." Mr. Biss' Challenge. Mr. Biss filed a Petition for Hearing to Challenge Compliance of a Small Scale Development Amendment with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Biss alleged generally that the Challenged Amendment is not "in compliance" for the following reasons: The Challenged Amendment is not a small scale amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c) of the Act because the density of the Subject Property is more than ten units per acre and the Subject Property is not vacant; The Challenged Amendment is contrary to the State Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1997). In particular, Mr. Biss alleged that the Challenged Amendment is contrary to Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997), which requires the following: 22. Require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of coastal residents. The Challenged Amendment, by increasing densities in the coastal high-hazard area, increases the dangers from hurricanes contrary to Coastal Element Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, and FLUE Policies 1.9.5 and 2.7.2 of the City's Plan; The Challenged Amendment degrades the level of service standard of Hallandale Beach Boulevard contrary to FLUE Element Policy 1.12.4 and Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan; There is insufficient data and analysis to demonstrate that the possible additional 143 residential units in the coastal high-hazard zone will not negatively impact the City's ability to evacuate the coastal high-hazard area; and The Challenged Amendment fails to consider the impacts on public schools contrary to the County's Plan. Qualification as a Small Scale Amendment. The Subject Property is located within the Urban Infill Area and a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. Therefore, the Challenged Amendment may involve a residential use with a density of more than ten units per acre and still qualify as a small scale amendment. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is not a small scale amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c) of the Act. I. The State Comprehensive Plan. The City has prepared plans for evacuation of coastal residents as required by Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Biss failed to prove that the requirements of Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997), concerning the preparation of evacuation plans, apply to the Challenged Amendment. Density Increase in the High-Hazard Area; Coastal Management Element Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, and FLUE Policies 1.9.5 and 2.7.2 of the City's Plan. The Coastal Element of the City's Plan includes Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 pertaining to the City's high hazard area: GOAL 2: The City of Hallandale Shall Protect Human Health and Safety in the Coastal Area. . . . . OBJECTIVE 2.2: The City shall direct populations away from High-Hazard Areas in concert with the established hazard mitigation strategies developed by Broward County . . . . GOAL 3: The City Shall Discourage or Limit Development in Areas Subject to Destruction by Natural Disasters. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with these Goals or the Objective of the Coastal Management Element of the City's Plan. These Goals and the Objective were intended to provide broad planning guidelines and were not intended to apply specifically to a small scale amendment such as the Challenged Amendment. The Goals and the Objective of the Coastal Management Element relied upon by Mr. Biss must be evaluated with other provisions of the City's Plan. In particular, those provisions which allow the transfer of residential dwelling unit densities through flexibility units anywhere within the City, including the coastal high-hazard area. Because of these existing provisions the Challenged Amendment does not increase densities within the coastal high-hazard area or increase the danger from hurricanes anymore than already allowed by the City's Plan. Although not required by Coastal Management Element Goals 2 or 3, or Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, even a consideration of the impact of the Challenged Amendment on actual hurricane evacuation times does not support Ms. Biss' challenge. The City's projected hurricane evacuation time for roads which would be impacted by increased density on the Subject Property are less than seven hours. The addition of up to 143 dwelling units will not significantly impact that evacuation time. Ongoing road improvements will even mitigate any such impacts. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Coastal Management Element of the City's Plan. FLUE Policy 1.9.5 of the City's Plan provides: POLICY 1.9.5: The City shall direct populations away from High-Hazard Areas, to the extent legally feasible, through the establishment of redevelopment regulations for High-Hazard Areas by 1998. The City has complied with this Policy by adopting redevelopment regulations. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with this Policy. FLUE Policy 1.9.3 of the City's Plan provides the following: POLICY 1.9.3: Encourage development and redevelopment in the coastal high hazard area to include hazard mitigation measures for beach and beachfront property protection to minimize loss of life and property against beach erosion. This Policy has no relevance to the Challenged Amendment. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Policy. The City's Plan does not include a Policy 2.7.2. The FLUE of the City's Plan includes a "Section 2.7.2" which describes the following "Natural Conditions Affecting Development" as part of the description of the dangers from flooding in the City: The danger from hurricanes can be somewhat controlled by limiting future allowable densities in high hazard areas. This subject is more fully addressed in the Coastal Management and Conservation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Section 2.7.2 of the City's Plan. Impacts on Traffic. FLUE Element 1.12.4 of the City's Plan establishes a level of service standard "D" for City roads. Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan recognizes existing traffic circulation problems within the City, including roads impacted by the Challenged Amendment. This Section is not, however, a goal, objective, or policy of the City's Plan. Mr. Biss has argued that the Challenged Amendment degrades the level of service standard for the City on roads which may be impacted by the Challenged Amendment and further exacerbates the traffic circulation problems recognized by Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan. The evidence failed to support this argument. While the addition of 143 dwelling units will naturally increase traffic in the area surrounding the Subject Property, Mr. Biss failed to prove the extent of that impact. More importantly, Mr. Biss failed to prove that the impact will be so great as to be considered inconsistent with the City's Plan. Data and Analysis. Mr. Biss has argued that the City did not have sufficient data and analysis to demonstrate that an additional 143 residential units will not negatively impact the City's ability to evacuate the coastal high hazard area. Mr. Biss failed to prove this allegation. Hurricane evacuation times for roads which may be impacted by the Challenged Amendment are well below acceptable hurricane evacuation time standards. An additional 143 dwelling units will not significantly impact those evacuation times. Data relied upon by the City indicated that, after ongoing road improvements, hurricane evacuation times, even with the Challenged Amendment, will decrease. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the City did not have adequate data and analysis to support the Challenged Amendment. Impacts on Public Schools. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment did not consider the impacts on public schools contrary to the County's Plan. The Challenged Amendment is not required to be consistent with County's Plan until it is reviewed for "recertification" by the Broward County Planning Council. At the time of recertification, the Challenged Amendment will likely be considered exempt from school concurrency pursuant to Policy 13.01.10 of the County's Plan. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the City's Plan dealing with public schools. Mr. Biss also failed to prove that the impact on public schools by the Challenged Amendment will be more than the addition of nine students. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Coastal Management Element Policy 3.1.1 of the City's Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the Challenged Amendment to be a small scale amendment and that it is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kent Harrison Robbins, Esquire 1224 Washington Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Clifford R. Steele, Esquire John C. Hanson, II, Esquire Steele & Hanson, P.A. Museum Tower, Penthouse 150 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Barbara Hall, Esquire Greenberg, Taurig, et al 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Richard Kane, City Attorney City of Hallandale 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Karen A. Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Arnold Lanner, Mayor City of Hallandale City Hall 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Amend the Boundary of the Gateway Services Community Development District (Petition), dated June 2, 2004. The local public hearing was for purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by the FLWAC.
Findings Of Fact Richard Berry, an applicant for licensure as a landscape architect, was administered the Landscape Architecture License Examination in June, 1987. This exam is a standardized national test which is prepared by the Council Of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards and administered through the Florida Department of Professional Regulation. Part of the examination requires the implementation of design knowledge through practical application. Mr. Berry's score on the design implementation portion of the exam was not sufficient to constitute a passing score. A weighted score of 75 on each portion is required to pass the examination. Mr. Berry passed all other portions of the examination. Upon initially receiving the failing score, Mr. Berry requested an informal review of the grading, which resulted in an upward adjustment of his score. However the score was still insufficient to raise the score to a passing level. The remaining disagreement centered on five items in the practical examination. The items were related to architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner as required by question four of the design implementation portion of the exam. The items were as follows: 4b(2) drawing of wood deck attachment detail to wall 4b(4) drawing of concrete sidewalk grade wall detail 4b(5) drawing of metal fence detail 4b(6) qualities/quantities of materials listed 4c(2,3) drawing of deck detail At the hearing, Mr. Berry discussed the relevant exam questions and clearly articulated why he believed his responses were entitled to credit in addition to what had originally been given by the examination graders. The Department's expert witness, Mr. Buchannan, indicated that he had rescored Mr. Berry's exam responses in accordance with the "Examination Evaluation Guide" issued by the Council of Landscape Architectural Examination Boards. Mr. Buchannan testified that one point of additional credit should have been given for Mr. Berry's response on the item 4b(2) and one point of additional credit should be given for the response on item 4b(6) of the design implementation portion of the exam. No additional points were to be credited to the responses on the three remaining items. Juan Trujillo, examination development specialist for the Department of Professional Regulation testified as to the effect of the additional points. According to his testimony, the additional credit would provide Mr. Berry with, a raw score of 71.5, which equates to a weighted score of 74.5. The weighted score is rounded up by the Department to a grade of 75.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architecture, granting to Petitioner, if otherwise qualified, licensure as a landscape architect. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1376 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are accepted as modified in the Recommended Older. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Berry, pro se 6588 Southeast 78th Avenue Keystone Heights, Florida 32656 William Leffler, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Ard, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Landscape Architects 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner David Russ has standing to bring these proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Russ did not submit oral comments to the local governments between the time of the transmittal hearing for the plan amendment at issue in this case and the adoption of the plan amendment. Petitioner Russ testified that he faxed letters to Tallahassee City Commissioner Ron Weaver and Leon County Commissioner Gary Yordan during the required time period, but this assertion is not corroborated by any other testimony or exhibits. Although Petitioner Russ testified that he used paper- printed original documents to effectuate the fax of the written comments or letters, he did not present any documentary evidence in corroboration. He presented no documents or other evidence of attempts to follow-up or confirm receipt of his faxed comments by the local governments. A reasonable, diligent and thorough search by those personnel charged with responsibility for maintaining correspondence files of City Commissioner Ron Weaver and Leon County Commissioner Gary Yordan, as well as the joint city/county planning department, was conducted in order to locate the written comments purportedly faxed to the local governments by Petitioner Russ. No documents, relating to those written comments and allegedly sent during the comment period for the plan amendment, have been found. Petitioner Russ admitted at the hearing that he possesses copies of all correspondence and pleadings generated by himself in this challenge to the amended plan with exception of those initial written comments. In the course of his testimony, Petitioner Russ speculated with regard to his inability to corroborate his assertion that he did fax written comments. That speculation included his supposition that computerized copies of the documents in his computer may have been lost through possible destruction of the files during a computer repair or renovation, or that he might have saved the documents on a floppy disk which has subsequently been misplaced. The overwhelming evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the documents are not, and have never been, in the possession of the local governments in this case. Such evidence results in the finding that contrary testimony, absent some extrinsic corroboration that the documents were submitted, cannot be credited.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered in this case, Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 97-2750GM, finding that Petitioner Russ is without standing to maintain these proceedings and dismissing his Petition Challenging Plan Amendments And Findings of Compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James V. Cook, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James W. Linn, Esquire Cari L. Roth, Esquire Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Deborah Minnis, Esquire C. Graham Carothers, Esquire Ausley and McMullen Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Julie E. Lovelace, Esquire James R. English, Esquire City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David J. Russ, Esquire 6823 Donetail Trail Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs Suite 325-A 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether the application of Westinghouse Gateway Communities, Inc. for approval of the Area Master Plan 2 in the Gateway Development of Regional Impact in Lee County, Florida should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Petitioner, Westinghouse Gateway Communities, Inc. (WGC), is a real estate developer that owns and operates a project known as the Gateway new community (Gateway) in Lee County, Florida. Gateway lies in central unincorporated Lee County, adjacent to I-75. It is located southwest of Lehigh Acres, immediately north of the Southwest Florida Regional Airport, and just east of the City of Fort Myers. The community is planned and approved for not more than 19,932 residential dwelling units, 816 acres of business, commercial and office uses and required support facilities on approximately 5,464 acres of land. To date, WGC has expended more than $38.9 million on the project, and more than 180 homes and 49,000 square feet of non-residential uses and a golf course country club are under construction or have been constructed. Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the development of regional impact (DRI) programs pursuant to that chapter. Petitioner, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC), is the regional planning agency for the region in which Gateway is located. It is charged with various DRI-related responsibilities under chapter 380. Respondent, Lee County Board of County Commissioners (County), is the local government unit authorized by chapter 380 to issue local development orders for DRIs and to adopt land use and zoning policies under other legal authority. This proceeding involves three separate and timely appeals under Section 380.07, Florida Statutes (1989) from a development order rendered by the County on January 4, 1990. The development order pertains to the Gateway DRI. Many of the issues raised by the parties are factually and legally complex with little, if any, agency and judicial precedent to use as a guide. The issues are dealt with in separate portions of this Recommended Order. Finally, all parties presented fact and expert testimony on the various issues raised by the pleadings. As might be expected, the testimony is sharply conflicting in many respects. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and that testimony is embodied in the findings below. Background WGC purchased its Gateway acreage in 1982. At that time, it obtained an appraisal of the land showing a value of approximately $5,000 per acre, based on the highest and best use of the then agriculturally-zoned property for residential development. According to WGC, it purchased the land because of its single ownership, location in the path of growth, surrounding transportation network, and the adjacent Southwest Florida Regional Airport which was then under construction. At present, WGC owns approximately one-half of the Gateway land and holds the balance under options with a takedown rate of approximately 350 acres per year. (Schmoyer, Tr. 131-32; Respondent's Exhibit 3; Paragraph 2, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement; Koste, Tr. 607-08, 615-16). Prior to 1984, the Gateway property was zoned agricultural. In 1984, the County adopted the 1984 Lee County Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Under the plan, public expenditures for roads and other infrastructure were targeted to an Urban Services Area, which the County's local planning agency recommended stop at Interstate 75. Gateway was located east of the Urban Services Area and beyond I-75 and designated rural under the local planning agency's plan. Although WGC desired to have Gateway included in the Urban Services Area, the local planning agency did not change its recommendation to the County. WGC accordingly proposed a "New Community" land use category in the comprehensive plan. (Spikowski, Tr. 1781; Bigelow, Tr. 1709-1712). In 1984 WGC developed the "New Community" land use concept, drafted the language, and submitted the proposal to the County. Among other things, WGC represented to the County that: Such lands are capable of being planned and developed as a cohesive unit in order to be free-standing economic units which do not impose negative fiscal impacts on the County. We've requested a non-urban services district designation. Thus, we have not affected the efficiency of the urban services area. We are not going to cost the County anything. This will not add to the cost of the plan. (Paragraphs 9 and 10, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement; Respondent's Exhibits 16 and 517). In proposing the new community designation, WGC sought to establish a category that would work with the location and the proposed plan of development of the Gateway DRI, while also fulfilling the 1984 comprehensive plan requirements. On December 21, 1984, the County adopted the new community designation proposed by WGC with only minor changes in the 1984 comprehensive plan. The Gateway property is designated as a new community in accordance with Section III, Land Use Plan Element of the 1984 comprehensive plan. When the new community designation was adopted by the County, the County included such statements as follows: New Community areas will be developed as free-standing economic units and will not impose negative fiscal impacts on the County. The land shall be developed as a free- standing community offering a complete range of land uses, e.g., a full mix of housing types for a range of household incomes... Off-site impacts shall be mitigated. (Paragraphs 11-14, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement; Respondent's Exhibits 10 and 28). The new community designation was specifically created for Gateway and agreed to because WGC indicated to the County that it would provide its own infrastructure, not cost the County anything, and be a freestanding economic unit. In light of the County's inability at that time to finance the infrastructure outside urban areas, it agreed to allow urban densities in non- urban areas only if the developer privately provided infrastructure. The new community designation has benefited WGC by increasing the valuation of the property. While the 1982 appraisal valued the property at $5,000 per acre, seven years later WGC requested an appraised value of $75,000 per acre for a land donation. Finally, it is noted that the Gateway lands are the only lands designated as new community within the entire county. (Spikowski, Tr. 1781-83; 1785-88; Respondent's Exhibits 3, 239, and 517; Nicholas, Tr. 3372-78; Paragraphs 15, 16, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement). The 1985 DRI Order The WGC development known as Gateway is a development of regional impact (DRI) pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. A DRI is a development which, because of "its character, magnitude, or location," substantially affects the health, safety and welfare of citizens of more than one county. Gateway's ultimate buildout development of 19,932 residential units and 816 acres of commercial/office uses is the equivalent of 20 DRIs, based on commercial acreage alone. Indeed, Gateway is the second largest DRI in Lee County history. (Paragraph 26, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement; Starnes, Tr. 2414; Gibbs, Tr. 2117-18). An application for development approval for the Gateway DRI was determined to be sufficient under the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984) by SWFRPC on August 17, 1984. SWFRPC's report and recommendations were issued on October 18, 1984, recommending that the Gateway DRI be approved subject to certain enumerated conditions. (Paragraphs 28 and 29, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement; Respondent's Exhibit 22). In the DRI process, the regional planning council takes a lead coordination role in the review of a DRI. According to SWFRPC's executive director, SWFRPC staff recommended only conceptual approval of the Gateway DRI at the outset in 1984 under a process in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, known as the Application for Master Development Approval (AMDA) process because the proposed 40-year buildout of Gateway exceeded local planning horizons and the proposed Gateway DRI was very large. Moreover, it is impossible to accurately plan a development over twenty years or more. SWFRPC staff worked with WGC to find a way to allow the development to move forward with certain planning and analysis delayed. The staff concerns were eventually resolved when WGC proposed phased or incremental review to provide for more specific analysis of Gateway as portions were proposed for development and to provide for a continued review role by the regional planning council. (Daltry, Tr. 2626, 2628; Burr, Tr. 2691- 92, 2701). In 1984 and early 1985 County planning staff also advocated the master application review approval and found the application information inadequate to analyze the project's impacts 40 years into the future. Staff indicated that the Gateway DRI application raised concerns about whether infrastructure needs would be mitigated in later phases. (Gibbs, Tr. 2119-22; Respondent's Exhibits 23, 37, 45 and 46). On May 31, 1985, the County approved, with conditions, restrictions and limitations, WGC's illustrative concept plan in the Gateway DRI Development Order #1-8384-36 (1985 DO). The illustrative concept was a delineation of the land use program specified in the area master plan (AMP) development program in the 1985 DO. The County granted approval for WGC to develop not more than 19,932 residential dwelling units, 816 acres of business/commercial/office uses, and required support facilities in accordance with the AMP development program set forth in Exhibit C to the 1985 DO and subject to certain conditions, limitations, and restrictions. Gateway included a total of approximately 5,319 acres and was proposed to be developed in nine areas over a 40-year buildout. (Paragraphs 33 and 35, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement; Respondent's Exhibits 45, 46, 63, and 809). On May 31, 1990, the County also adopted Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance No. 85-15 to implement the Gateway DRI in terms of local procedures. (Respondent's Exhibit 62; Gibbs, Tr. 2118). The 1985 DO created an area master plan (AMP) process to determine the "precise location of land uses within each area," or the "precise location and character of land uses within the DRI," "in order to logically and rationally coordinate the phasing of development with available facilities." However, the 1985 DO did not assess the particular impacts of development of any area within Gateway or the mitigation WGC would be required to pay for them. (Respondent's Exhibits 63 and 809). Under the 1985 DO, no development within Gateway could occur without submission to the County of an AMP for the area sought to be developed. This prohibition was in accordance with a provision of the DO which provided that "Prior to carrying out any development of the parcel proposed for development, WGC shall prepare and submit to Lee County an Area Master Plan." The PUD ordinance adopted for WGC on May 31, 1985, and which is referred to in finding of fact 16, provided a process for further refinements of each AMP and also precluded commencement of "any development or construction within GATEWAY" without submission of an AMP to the County for review and approval. (Respondent's Exhibits 62, 63, 809 and 810). Under the 1985 DO, information in each AMP application must address drainage, conservation, transportation impact, wetlands, potable water, sewer, parks and recreation, schools, threatened and endangered species and fire protection, among other issues. The County must also determine whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the AMP according to the following standards for determination as to the extent to which the proposed AMP is: Consistent with the land uses authorized by this Development Order and the general distribution of uses set forth in paragraph 1 of this Order; Consistent with the PUD Ordinance #85-15 and the Lee County Comprehensive Plan; Consistent with sound land planning principles; Served, or will be served, by adequate public facilities, including: Water, Sewer, Roads, Surface Water Management, Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, Schools, Parks and Recreation. Consistent with the specific conditions set forth in this Development Order.. Finally, as part of its determination, the County must make a determination of whether the AMP is a "substantial deviation" pursuant to then Subsection 380.06(17), Florida Statutes, now Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. After approval, the AMP is the "controlling instrument" concerning the "location, character and magnitude of specific uses" within that area of the Gateway DRI. (Respondent's Exhibits 63 and 809). The 1985 DO further highlights the importance of the AMP process and the fact that issues would be subject to later adopted regulations for mitigation of impacts identified in that process in the following specific subject areas: Drainage. WGC must comply with every applicable rule, regulation, or requirement of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) prior to any development of "any portion of the Gateway DRI". Energy. WGC must provide a bicycle/pedestrian system consistent with Lee County requirements. Transportation. WGC must submit a traffic impact statement (TIS) with each AMP application and approval or approval with conditions of Gateway phases is dependent on the results of the TIS and review and recommendations of various agencies, including SWFRPC. WGC must agree to pay for its "proportionate share" of needed road improvements as a "condition for area master plan approval." Water Supply and Sewer Service. During each AMP review, WGC must document adequate water supply and sewer service and comply with all SFWMD and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) regulations prior to development. Wetlands. WGC must delineate jurisdictional wetlands and submit plans for mitigation of impacted wetlands during the AMP process and comply with all applicable SFWMD and DER regulations. Education. School sites will be located during the AMP process. Protective Services. Sites for fire protection, emergency medical services and law enforcement will be dedicated during the AMP process. Each AMP application must demonstrate availability of fire protection services. Fiscal Impact. WGC must demonstrate with each AMP submittal that Gateway will not have a negative fiscal impact on the County. Parks. Parks will be located during the AMP process. Housing. WGC must cause the provision of a "range of housing types to be addressed" during AMP review. (Respondent's Exhibits 63 and 809). The 1985 DO also provides that the approval is further limited because it does not "obviate the duty of the applicant to comply with all other applicable local or state permitting procedures." (Respondent's Exhibits 63 and 809). The SWFRPC planning director agreed that (a) the 1985 DO did not confer blanket approval to develop the Gateway DRI, (b) information in the 1984 DRI application by Gateway did not satisfy regulatory requirements for DRI review of area 2, and (c) the original 1985 DO does not permit WGC to develop area 2 of the DRI due to missing details. In particular, the original application was not sufficient to fully address transportation concerns for every phase. (Burr, Tr. 2695-96, 2705-05). County planning staff viewed the 1985 DO as atypical, because it did not confer any authority to begin construction without further review under the AMP process. In essence, the County deferred impact mitigation to the AMP process because there was no 40-year impact assessment. The 1985 DO did not establish the specific development conditions for each area within Gateway. (Gibbs, Tr. 2118-20, 2173; Spikowski, Tr. 1789). Doctor Earl M. Starnes, the County's outside planning expert and the first state planning director, found that the 1985 DO did not address specific impacts in detail or by time frame, deferring those issues. Instead, it established a broad scheme for the location of future land uses and their intensities, subject to detailed AMP review for assessment and mitigation of impacts. The 1985 DO gave WGC no right to build future areas before availability and adequacy of public facilities and services and required mitigation were determined, but instead established a mechanism to make such determinations. (Starnes, Tr. 2415, 2429-30, 2509-10). WGC's president and chief operating officer indicated that the original DRI application addressed all issues, but provided for traffic mitigation on a more current basis. In a letter written to the County in March 1985 before approval of the DO, he stated that the AMP process offered continual County review of impacts. Under the 1985 DO, he agreed that WGC needed AMP approval and development orders before construction can occur. By stating that the 1985 DO authorized a "fully approved" DRI for the entire community, he meant it authorized a conceptual plan, as opposed to final approval of all of Gateway. (Koste, Tr. 616-23, 631, 646; Respondent's Exhibit 52). AMP Review Process The AMP process is similar but not identical to the application for master development approval (AMDA) process established in Subsection 380.06(21), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-2.028, Florida Administrative Code, in that both identify information needed for further review of later development phases or increments, identify the issues subject to further review and issues that could result in denial, and provide for review by substantial deviation procedures. The ADMA process was designed to deal with large projects with long buildouts and complex issues. The important parts of the AMDA process were addressed for the Gateway DRI by providing for the AMP process. According to the SWFRPC's executive director, who participated in the Gateway DRI review and approval process, the 1985 DO essentially gave WGC the right to submit more detailed applications and to continue to participate in the process. Future AMP applications and reviews were to address and resolve how the approved dwelling units could be supported by infrastructure, what mitigation was needed for impacts and the timing of that mitigation. This is consistent with SWFRPC's desire to limit the original approval to what was currently planned for roads and public services. (Daltry, Tr. 2660-61, 2627, 2641; Respondent's Exhibit 809). The DCA planner who reviewed the 1985 DO concurred that the AMDA and AMP processes were similar, stating: "This project is not a master incremental DRI, but it will be reviewed in that fashion." (Respondent's Exhibit 67). The County's expert witness Starnes also found the AMP process similar to the AMDA process, which was developed while he was state planning director. Under both processes, the developer was allowed to proceed subject to assurances that infrastructure would be addressed later. Both processes look first at future land uses and intensities and then refine them later to coordinate with infrastructure timing issues based on details that cannot be addressed over a 40-year period. An example would be in the transportation area where WGC submitted a DRI application in 1984 addressing that issue, but the County wanted to reassess the mitigation to relate to the development and proportionate share payment due in the AMP time frame proposed. (Starnes, Tr. 2431-37, 2464-65, 2467). According to the County's acting zoning director and the planner principally responsible for County review of the Gateway 2 application, the AMP process is similar to the AMDA or phased DRI process in that a long list of issues must be addressed in an AMP application. The acting zoning director also established that the AMP process is not a typical Lee County review or a strictly local review. This was further confirmed by witness Starnes, who concluded that the AMP review was not a local review process in general. (Gibbs, Tr. 2119-22; Starnes, Tr. 2437-38). The County's understanding and intent for the AMP approval process was expressed in an April 26, 1985, letter from an assistant county attorney and county director of development review to a member of the County Commission: Some concerns were raised about fire protection services and proper funding for water, sewer, police, EMS and other services. The L. P. A. was very concerned about Westinghouse Gateway Communities meeting their financial obligations. The comprehensive plan requires that the "New Community areas will be developed as free- standing economic units and will not impose negative fiscal impacts on the County." The L. P. A. required WGC to come back through the L. P. A. with each Area Master Plan to insure that when the specifics were known, the impacts of those specifics would be addressed in every respect, including financial. If there was any shortfall utilizing the funding mechanisms provided for, WGC would have to make up its financial shortages. (Respondent's Exhibit 57). WGC's intent and understanding of the AMP review process was expressed in the following: A letter dated March 22, 1985, to the County's director of the division of county development in which WGC acknowledged that: "The Board of County Commissioners are the ultimate decision-makers with respect to an Area Master Plan." A letter dated March 28, 1985, to the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners dated March 28, 1985, in which WGC represented that the DRI development order and PUD ordinance scheduled for adoption on April 19, 1985: "... will represent a beginning not an end, of an approval process which will involve many governmental agencies on an ongoing basis over the projected life of the [40- year] development period. The Area Master Plan approval process (phase) requires that each Area Master Plan be approved by the Lee County staff ... the Local Planning Agency, and the Board of County Commissioners. This process offers several advantages to both the developer and the County. The developer obtained a Development Order for the entire property and a set of rules to live by which will allow it to make the business decisions necessary to begin development. The County will be able, through the Area Master Plan process, to continually review impacts of the Gateway Community and react accordingly during the Area Master Plan approval reviews. We believe the County staff and WGC have developed a proper program for a larger scale development to gain approval while allowing the County a continuing opportunity to thoroughly review the land uses and impacts of the community. (Emphasis added) (Respondent's Exhibits 51, 52, 54; paragraph 38, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement). Area 1 Development Order The County amended the 1985 DO on May 21, 1986, and approved with conditions the Area 1 Master Plan. That amendment authorized development of two hundred and ten acres of office/commercial/industrial uses and 1,850 residential dwelling units. Under the transportation-related terms and conditions of the Area 1 DO: WGC is required to submit a new Traffic Impact Statement and to mitigate additional adverse traffic impacts where approval is requested for the next AMP. (Emphasis added) WGC is required to pay a proportionate share for traffic mitigation of $3.5 million (1985 dollars). To satisfy that requirement WGC must pay road impact fees (estimated at $2.8 million in 1985 dollars) in effect at the time building permits are issued for all residential and non-residential development in Area 1. In addition, WGC agreed to construct the four-lane extension of Daniels Road at no cost to Lee County. However, WGC is not eligible for credits against road impact fees for the construction and right- of-way dedication associated with the construction of the four-lane extension of Daniels Road during Area 1 and subsequent areas of Gateway. WGC may claim a credit against future road impact fees in the later phases of Area 1 or subsequent phases of Gateway if WGC's actual costs for the construction of the four-lane extension exceed $700,000. WGC is also required to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the Southwest Florida Regional Airport (SWFRA) and the extension of Daniels Road; and to pay 70% of the cost of an at-grade intersection at Daniels Road and SWFRA entrance, if the design study indicates such an improvement is necessary. WGC's payment of a proportionate share for at-grade improvements are to be in addition to payments of road impact fees and other obligations specified in the amendment. WGC's payment of a proportionate share of the cost of at-grade improvements at the Daniels Road extension and the SWFRA entrance intersection will not reduce WGC's obligation for proportionate share contribution for future improvements needed at this intersection, but the contribution of the $125,000 may be credited against WGC's obligation for future proportionate share contributions for further improvements at that intersection. However, WGC is not eligible for credits against road impact fees during Area 1 or subsequent areas of Gateway for any proportionate share payments for at- grade improvements at that intersection. WGC's president acknowledges that Area 1 is the only area in which WGC has approval to construct. After approval of AMP 1, WGC commenced development activities and has done so continuously since that time. (Respondent Exhibit 107; Koste, Tr. 651). The County stated in the Area 1 DO that its highest priority for expenditure of road impact fees collected from Gateway Area 1 and other developments along the Daniels Road corridor was for road improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts along Daniels Road. (Respondent's Exhibit 107). Area 2 Application On January 17, 1989, WGC submitted a notification of proposed change to a previously approved DRI, the state's standard substantial deviation determination request, which included related DO amendments. This request indicated specifically that "Approval of the Second Area Master Plan" was among "PROPOSED CHANGES-TO THE APPROVED DRI." The request stated that the complete AMP application was attached. (Respondent's Exhibit 229; Montgomery, Tr. 419; Gibbs, Tr. 2125-26). The Area 2 application was submitted February 1, 1989. In the same time frame, WGC's attorney indicated that the new community designation required assurance that adequate public facilities would exist at the time of demand and that the issues for Area 2 review included determination of the AMP 2 proposal's consistency with "the Lee County Comprehensive Plan" and sound land planning principles, as well as availability of adequate infrastructure. After a meeting with County staff, WGC waived the time frame for initial staff review. (Respondent's Exhibit 239; Montgomery, Tr. 419; Gibbs, Tr. 2127-28, 2224). While the 1985 DO anticipated that Gateway would consist of nine areas developed over a 40-year period, the Area 2 Master Plan submitted in 1989 actually included geographical Areas 2 through 5 of the original nine areas. As a result, the Area 2 application also included assessment of Area 1 in the transportation portion of the application in order to look at cumulative traffic impacts. In the Area 2 application, WGC requested approval of development of 2,481 total acres including 5,244 residential dwelling units and approximately 504 acres of non-residential office/commercial uses, with non-residential square footage initially limited to 1,670,000 square feet of office and 177,000 square feet of commercial use. The buildout period proposed by WGC for Area 2 was the year 2000. (Gibbs, Tr. 2130-31, 2220; WGC Exhibit 6; Respondent's Exhibit 237). A substantial deviation determination by the County was required for evaluation of the Area 2 application. The substantial deviation process reviews new, additional or previously unreviewed regional impacts. While the 1985 DO allowed review of more than one area at a time, submission of original Areas 2-5 as the Area 2 application resulted in half the total property coming in for review at one time and an area boundary modification in violation of the spirit and intent of the 1985 DO. This change also suggested a potential shifting of development density from the southern portions of Gateway near Daniels Road and other development toward the environmentally sensitive Six-Mile Cypress area. WGC also requested amendments to and changes in the 1985 DO, provided the County with public hearing notices treating the Area 2 proposal as a DO amendment and a substantial deviation request under Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, and proposed an Area 2 development order as part of amendments to the 1985 DO, despite protestations from WGC witnesses at final hearing that DO amendments were not needed. Under standard DRI practice, submission of a substantial deviation notice like the one WGC submitted in January 1989 calls for an amendment to the original DO. (Gibbs, Tr. 2132-42, 2255-56, 2181-83; Respondent's Exhibits 220 and 302; Montgomery, Tr. 505-06, 509; WGC Exhibit 155). Based on statutory criteria that consider new or additional or unreviewed regional impacts to be substantial deviations, the County's DRI reviewer concluded that the AMP 2 proposal would constitute a substantial deviation. However, the County ultimately approved a final Area 2 development order on December 20, 1989, that found the proposal would not be a substantial deviation "if subject to the conditions enumerated herein." The formal order itself was rendered on January 4, 1990. The DO approved the amount of development requested by WGC through the year 2000 subject to numerous detailed conditions. It is from those conditions that these appeals ensued. Finally, on September 5, 1990, the County receded from a number of conditions imposed in the January 4, 1990 order. This action is formalized in respondent's exhibit 742. (Gibbs, Tr. 2205-06; Respondent's Exhibits 606 and 742; WGC Exhibit 1). Applicability of Post-1985 Regulations to the Project A key disputed issue was whether various regulatory requirements adopted after the May 1985 DO were applicable to the Area 2 proposal or whether it was vested by virtue of the DO against their application. Such later-adopted regulations included the 1989 Lee County Comprehensive Plan adopted under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, general County ordinances, and state and local "concurrency" regulations requiring development to meet level of service standards for public infrastructure and services concurrently with actual development. According to the County's deputy director of the department of community development, its acting zoning director and the assistant county attorney in charge of the Gateway 2 review in 1989, only the Gateway Area 1 development may have vested rights against concurrency and other regulations adopted after that DO was approved in 1986. Further, from his expert planning perspective, Dr. Starnes concluded that the 1985 DRI DO did not protect Gateway from applicability of new regulations for issues subject to future assessment, such as transportation and housing. Doctor Starnes also concluded that to the extent the DO approved activities, such as the establishment of conceptual boundaries, those things are protected under DRI vesting provisions of chapter 163, but activities that were not approved or assessed and mitigated are open to further regulation. (Spikowski, Tr. 1870-71; Gibbs, Tr. 2200; Ciccarone, Tr. 2850, 2860-61; Starnes, Tr. 2444-46, 2474; Respondent's Exhibits 199 and 402). From a local regulation perspective, the County's acting zoning director indicated that the proposed development submitted for approval in the County, including a Gateway AMP proposal, is evaluated under the County comprehensive plan in effect at submission. This approach is appropriate for review of AMP 2 for several reasons. First, the 1985 DO contains no language indicating that other County ordinances would not apply. Secondly, WGC was only entitled to rely on express conditions of the 1985 DO. Third, under the Gateway PUD ordinance, County ordinances and regulations should apply unless pre-empted by the provisions of that ordinance. Fourth, the 1985 DO requires that future AMPs satisfy "sound land planning principles," which are included in the 1989 comprehensive plan. Finally, it is illogical to assume that the single 1984 Gateway DO would apply over 40 years of development, with the comprehensive plan changing throughout that period. It is noted that other Lee County DRIs that may be exempt from later adopted comprehensive plan amendments either contained specific mitigation requirements, which the 1985 Gateway did not, or contained specific DRI DO conditions allowing election of one or another plan. (Gibbs, Tr. 2123-24, 2161-64, 2166-2167, 2194-95, 2204, 2272-73) At hearing, one of WGC's current attorneys, who was assistant county attorney at the time the 1985 DO was approved, testified she advised WGC that the 1985 DO was vested and that only the 1984 comprehensive plan applied. However, because the County staff took the position that both the 1984 and 1989 comprehensive plans applied, WGC instructed her to cooperate with the County on that basis. The former assistant county attorney also took the position that except for the PUD ordinance, no other development ordinance would apply to Gateway. She further interpreted condition 58 of the 1985 DO, which states that the DO does not obviate WGC's duty "to comply with all other applicable local or state permitting procedures," to mean local building or state environmental permits. However, the same witness' testimony was contradicted by her own prior statements and other testimony given at hearing. For example, while employed as assistant county attorney, she authored documents indicating that Gateway would need to be consistent with other laws if areas of regulation were not covered in the DRI DO or PUD ordinance and that Gateway would be subject to continuing review. She also told County staff in April 1989 that Gateway should be under the 1984 comprehensive plan for one purpose, but under the 1989 plan for another purpose if it were to Gateway's advantage, such as for transportation conditions. The witness also confirmed that Gateway had sought to apply the 1989 plan to avoid disadvantage to Gateway. The witness further conceded that the 1985 DO standards for AMP approval include consistency with the "Lee County Comprehensive Plan," not the "Lee Plan" as the 1984 Plan was called, and consistency with sound land planning principles, on which she placed no temporal limitation. (Montgomery, Tr. 408, 482-84, 488, 490-91, 495-96, 539; Gibbs, Tr. 2146-47, 2203-04,). Transportation Issues Generally An Overview The 1985 DO on appeal determined that, based on its then current analysis, the transportation proportionate share for Gateway Areas 1 and 2 through the year 2000 was approximately $26 million, plus costs for additional needed road improvements not yet identified. It required WGC to pay $15 million of that amount within one year and required a reanalysis after five years of the appropriate additional proportionate share. (Respondent's Exhibit 606). The principal transportation issues in these appeals are how much WGC should pay for mitigation of its Areas 1 and 2 traffic impacts through the year 2000 and how that amount should be determined. Based upon the more credible and persuasive testimony, it is found that a transportation proportionate share contribution of $21,367,457, plus approximately $8.6 million anticipated in future costs, is the appropriate amount of mitigation. It is also found that identification of impacts through a widely used transportation computer model and calculation of proportionate share by publicly accepted mathematical formulas are a standard DRI methodology appropriate for use by the County. Alternate DRI mitigation methodologies proposed by WGC are rejected as contrary to accepted public policy, precedent and professional practice. It is further found that transportation mitigation consisting of a DRI proportionate share payment may be required in advance of development by Gateway under standard DRI policy. Advance payment would secure WGC certain development and transportation concurrency rights based upon the County's evidence at hearing. WGC's Expectations as to Traffic Mitigation When it purchased the Gateway property in 1982, WGC recognized that funding mechanisms for traffic improvements were evolving and that it would be required to participate in the funding of transportation improvements on the public road network surrounding the proposed project. However, WGC did not study the costs of such funding participation as part of its acquisition analysis because the answers would depend on when and where WGC commenced development on its property. Ultimately, development of Gateway commenced toward the southern end of the project nearest the new regional airport and Daniels Road, which WGC considered a "growth corridor". (Paragraph 5, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement; Koste, Tr. 2000-01). Internal WGC meeting notes dated December 3, 1982, reveal that WCG recognized even then that traffic impacts would be significant for Gateway. With respect to Daniels Road, they contained statements such as "capacity captured by airport" and "Need to capture capacity any way we can." With respect to Colonial Boulevard, the notes contained statements such as "do whatever it takes to get it built --even help pay for it" and "potentially serious capacity problems". With respect to traffic levels of service, they stated "Need educational process to get level of service D." With respect to development phasing, they stated "Colonial or Daniels 1st? Go to north if can capture capacity on Daniels." WGC's then director of planning and permitting, who wrote the notes, testified at hearing that the idea of "capturing capacity" was not an important objective or main idea to Gateway in the sense that "if ... you are there first ... there would be adequate capacity on the road to handle the levels of traffic." Rather, he testified that "Westinghouse was looking to make sure that the roads would not be congested because that is not a good marketing for a community." He conceded that, from a marketing standpoint, free-flowing roads in the vicinity are a "benefit to any development." (Respondent's Exhibit 4; Widmer, Tr. 1733). One WGC reviewer of a draft of WGC's original DRI application for development approval (ADA) noted in a June 13, 1983, memorandum to WGC's president: After the ADA is submitted, the probability of getting the County to participate or to build (Daniels Road) on their own will be negligible. To offer to make improvements to County roads is foolhardy. We will be negotiating from a very weak position. Why not let them tell us what they expect? (Respondent's Exhibit 9) In its evaluation of the transportation section of the original Gateway ADA filed in early 1984, SWFRPC estimated that the DRI would require: two additional lanes on Daniels Road from U.S. 82 to the airport entrance by 1988; two further lanes on Daniels Road from U.S. 41 to the airport entrance by 2010; interchange modifications at I-75 and the airport entrance from 1997 through 2015; two lanes on Daniels Road from the airport entrance to S.R. 82 by 1985; two further lanes on Daniels Road from the airport entrance to S.R. 82 by 2000; additional lanes and access controls on Daniels Road between the airport and Gateway entrances by 2010; four lanes on Colonial Boulevard from I-75 to S.R. 82 by 1988; two additional lanes on Colonial Boulevard from Metro Parkway to I-75 by 2010, with access control by 2020; two further lanes on Colonial Boulevard from I-75 to the Gateway entrance by 2020; and control devices and auxiliary lanes at the junction of S.R. 82 and Colonial Boulevard by 1988 and 2020, respectively. The SWFRPC evaluation of WGC's ADA rejected WGC's assertion that certain improvements would not be needed by Gateway and advised that "planned improvements on several regional roadways must be pushed forward to accommodate Gateway ..." In its 40-year application, WGC had committed to direct funding of internal roads, intersection improvements at entrances, right-of-way donations for roads along its boundaries, 50% participation in construction of Daniels Road from the airport to S.R. 82 and of a Colonial Boulevard extension to the DRI. (Respondent's Exhibit 22) On January 30, 1985, approximately four months before adoption of the original Gateway development order, the president of WGC's corporate parent wrote WGC's president with respect to the development order as it then was proposed: The one area that is rather ambiguous is in the area of the road construction (transportation).... We commit to build two lanes here, two lanes, there.... (Respondent's Exhibit 40) On April 15, 1985, or approximately six weeks before adoption of the 1985 DO, WGC's president wrote the corporate parent's president and identified, among other "liabilities", the following feature of the proposed DO and PUD: Regional transportation improvements "open- ended" -- to be imposed at each phase based on periodic studies of actual and projected impacts. At hearing, WGC's president testified that there were changes in the final documents "but the areas (of liability) as far as I know, were all still included, and I know none of them went away." In his deposition received in evidence, he testified that with respect to the AMP process, which was adopted: The mitigation costs are not determined up front, they are determined as you go through the process, and should we ever conclude what the costs will be for Area Master Plan 2, that will only be as good as Area Master Plan 2 and Area Master Plan 1 together. Area Master Plan 3 remains a question mark. By not appealing the original DO, WGC accepted the deferral of impact mitigation determinations until each area master plan review. (Respondent's Exhibit 54; Koste, Tr. 621, 634-35, 2002-03; Paragraph 38c, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement). Before filing an application for approval of AMP 1, WGC's vice president informed the WGC staff that potential transportation issues included "how proportionate share would be calculated, what would be the appropriate timing of the road improvements and receiving due credit ... with regard to impact fees for advanced payment if there was a question of timing of a road improvement." (Schmoyer, Tr. 135-36, Respondent's Exhibit 69). During the review of Gateway AMP 1, both DCA and the County took issue with WGC's assumption that the widening of Daniels Road to four and six lanes and the extension of Daniels Road to S.R. 82 would be available when needed because the improvements were "programmed." In response, WGC recognized that the improvements were not "committed" and stated that they were "necessary to support all area developments" and "a function not only of Gateway Area 1 development but also other area developments in the Daniels Road Corridor." (Respondent's Exhibits 77, 78, and 81) On April 3, 1986, while AMP 1 was still under review, WGC's traffic consultant for AMP 1 wrote WGC's director of planning and permitting as follows: As you requested, we have prepared an estimate of the likely roadway network in the Gateway Study Area at buildout of Westinghouse Gateway Communities. The future Study Area roadway network will be dependent not only on Gateway development but also other area development. Improvements of particular importance include the widening of Daniels Road to six lanes from west of US 41 to SR 82, the extension and widening of Colonial Boulevard to six lanes from west of US 41 to SR 82, a new east/west arterial (north of Daniels Road) from US 41 to SR 82, an interchange with I-75 at the new east/west arterial, and the Airport Flyover at Daniels Road. That portion of the new east/west arterial from Palomino Lane to the Six Mile Parkway, due to environmental permitting problems, may be very difficult to construct. In fact, the Development Order for Gateway (1-8384-36, Condition 17) states that access to Gateway Area 9 "... shall not be permitted through, over or under the slough." Nevertheless, as east/west access along Daniels Road becomes more difficult in the future due to area developments, the County in combination with area developers may consider alternative east/west access routes. Any alternative east/west in the area would require bridging the Six Mile Cypress. Without doing more detailed traffic studies, it is difficult to estimate with any degree of certainty the roadway requirements for Gateway Area 2. Those roadway requirements will be dependent on the level of development anticipated in Area 2 (and in particular the retail/office component), other area developments, and roadway improvements undertaken by the County, State and area developers. At this time, we would anticipate the following Study Area roadway improvements be considered during Area 2. Daniels Road widened to six lanes divided from the Airport Entrance to Gateway Boulevard, four lanes divided from Gateway Boulevard to SR 82 and six lanes divided from I-75 to US 41. Colonial Boulevard extended as four lanes divided from Gateway Boulevard to SR 82. East/West Arterial extended as four lanes divided from Gateway Boulevard to SR 82. East/West Arterial extended as four lanes divided from Gateway Boulevard to Treeline Road (and possibly to I-75 with an interchange at I-75). Treeline Road widened to four lanes divided from Daniels Road to the East/West Arterial. North/south connection from Gateway to Colonial Boulevard (four lane divided). Airport Entrance/Daniels Road flyover. It is very likely that Area 2 will be treated in the same manner as Area 1. That is Area 2 would be assessed a proportionate share of all roadway improvements with impact fees representing a portion of that proportionate share. At some time in the future, beyond Area 2, it would be anticipated that impact fee payments would represent the total proportionate share. (Emphasis added) (Respondent's Exhibit 97; Widmer, Tr. 1742-44). WGC's knowledge and understanding of the transportation conditions of the May 1986 Area 1 DO were reflected in an August 6, 1986, internal memorandum in which WGC's director of planning and permitting stated that: If a road improvement is needed at some future point which jeopardizes our continuance of development, there is always the option to make the road improvement ourselves (within reason) and receive credits against impact fees, which is provided for in our DO. (Paragraph 56b, Respondent's August 15, 1990 Draft Stipulated Facts, as stipulated in WGC's Prehearing Statement). A WGC staff member's notes of a November 16, 1988 internal strategy meeting concerning the pre-AMP 2 application reflects the following strategic considerations, among others: DRI proportionate share number should be brought in line with impact fee number; Consider pipelining impact fee money to County for construction of needed roads -- this will help AMP approval with County, RPC and DCA; Neale (Montgomery) will determine dollars to pipeline and where on Daniels Road (dollars needed for four-laning and east of I-75). At that time, the staff member recognized the impact fees and a calculated proportionate share could differ. (Anderson, Tr. 2018-31; Respondent's Exhibit 213). In a November 23, 1988 letter to Chris Knotts, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, concerning the Area 2 mitigation, a WGC staff member wrote: A development designated as `New Community' must be able to obtain a complete mixture of land uses, in order to be economically self-sufficient (as possible). This type of development is an appropriate response in order to refrain from contributing to negative fiscal impacts to Lee County, which is already suffering from inadequate infrastructure. This lack of infrastructure ranges from roads operating at acceptable levels of service to proper sewer and water distribution lines and treatment facilities. (Respondent's Exhibit 217) County's Road Financing Efforts Lee County is one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States. The County seeks to accommodate rather than limit growth by devising funding mechanisms to meet infrastructure needs. For transportation funding, the County has relied on user fees, gas taxes, impact fees, state road funds and assessments against benefited individuals or properties, including DRI exactions. The County has adopted every tax within its authority to fund roads, including all optional gas taxes, and was one of the first counties in the State to adopt road impact fees. (Nicholas, Tr. 3364-70, 3440-41; Spikowski, Tr. 1790- 91; Respondent's Exhibit 733) Unmet road needs in Lee County are overwhelming. According to SWFRPC's executive director, traffic problems in the four Southwest Florida coastal counties, including Lee, are going to be as bad as Dade and Broward Counties in southeast Florida. Therefore, the goal of the DRI planning process is to have DRIs charged for the full impact of their traffic. (Daltry, Tr. 2640). According to a former member of the Board of County Commissioners from 1986-1990, the County's philosophy concerning new development was that infrastructure needs should be met by the public and private sectors collectively. The County directed its administrator to move the County to "get about the business of putting infrastructure in the ground." (Bigelow, Tr. 1713- 15; Segal-George, Tr. 1182-84). The County is continuing its efforts to finance road needs. It is seeking approval of a one-cent optional sales tax for roads by public referendum in the spring of 1991 and lobbying for state approval of a 1% real estate transfer tax for road financing. In addition, the County has had prepared a major report identifying major options for future road funding in the County. (Segal-George, Tr. 1189-90; Spikowski, Tr. 1942-43; Respondent's Exhibit 733). Mitigation for Road Impacts of Areas 1 and 2 Requirements of 1985 DO The 1985 DO required submission of a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) by WGC for each area master plan. After submission of the TIS, the 1985 DO required the county engineer to determine off-site road and intersection improvements required due to that Gateway area to maintain a Level of Service D during the peak season and to determine Gateway's proportionate share of the cost of needed improvements, which could be 100%. As a condition for AMP approval, WGC was required to enter into an agreement with the County concerning how and when payments would be made. (Respondent's Exhibits 63 and 809). By mutual acquiescence of the County and WGC, key features of the DO requirements were not followed during the processing of WGC's application for AMP 2. The county engineer played essentially no role in the required determinations. The county administrator delegated determination of a proportionate share jointly to the County's department of community development and department of transportation and engineering, but final decision-making authority on that subject was left to the Board of County Commissioners. Generally, the department of community development assures that mitigation imposed is appropriate, adequate and consistent with other DRIs and coordinates its activities with the department of transportation and engineering. There was no agreement ever entered by WGC and the County regarding proportionate share, as required by the 1985 DO as a condition for AMP approval. (Brown, Tr. 2521; M. Swanson, Tr. 1657-58, 1683-84; Segal-George, Tr. 1192, 1196). Under the 1985 DO, the TIS was to be prepared "as per Attachment E" to the DO. There was disagreement among the transportation planners at final hearing as to what was required by Attachment E to the DO, and by the methodology discussed and agreed to in 1988 by County, SWFRPC and WGC planners and as to whether the TIS submitted by WGC followed Attachment E and the methodology the planners discussed. The more credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 1985 DO did not require the use of the difference between results of the "with DRI" and "without DRI" analyses to determine proportionate share, as advocated by WGC, that both County and SWFRPC staff objected to this method and that it is not standardly accepted DRI practice. (Respondent's Exhibits 63 and 809). Attachment E did not call for a "with and without" approach in which the difference between "with DRI" and "without DRI" analyses would equal project impacts, but rather called for identification of traffic generated specifically by the DRI or DRI trips. The generally accepted definition of a "DRI trip" is a trip that has one "end," or an origin or destination within the DRI. Indeed, WGC's expert planner agreed that Attachment E did require assignment of DRI trips to the road network and he did not do that in the TIS submitted to the County or ever send that information to the County. (Respondent's Exhibit 809; M. Swenson, Tr. 1590-91, 1593-94, 1597-99, 1654-55; Horner, Tr. 870-71, 2880-81, 2901-02, 2926, 2931; Hall, Tr. 3086, 3112-14, 3322-24; Jackson, Tr. 768). Concerning the TIS methodology agreed to by the County, SWFRPC and WGC planners in 1988 for AMP 2, the County and SWFRPC planners established a methodology in June 1988 calling for identification of DRI trips on the road network by means of a manual assignment of those trips from a transportation computer model projecting total traffic on the road network at the buildout of the Area 2 phase. The methodology agreed to did ask for a "without Gateway" model run to give a basic idea of what the roadway network would need to look like without Gateway, but that run was not used to identify DRI trips. The planners rejected WGC's suggestion that project impacts be modeled as the difference between the total traffic "with and without" the Gateway project. (Respondent's Exhibits 154 and 165; M. Swenson, Tr. 1593-96, 1652-54, 1597-99; Horner, Tr. 2874-77). The TIS submitted to the County in February 1989 used the "with and without" methodology, contrary to County and SWFRPC staff positions. This use of the "with and without" approach meant that County staff could not use the TIS to identify project traffic and future roadway needs to determine mitigation because project or DRI trips were not identified. Both County and SWFRPC staff objected to the TIS because it used only a "with and without" approach and failed to identify DRI trips as needed to determine whether a DRI's trips are "significant" on a particular road link and therefore require mitigation. (M. Swenson, Tr. 1657, 1660-61, 1663-64, 1697-98; Loveland, Tr. 2935, 2941-43; Respondent's Exhibits 169, 249, 265, 271 and 273). The TIS also failed to follow SWFRPC DRI policies and had other deficiencies. Under the SWFRPC Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, DRI traffic is deemed "significant" for purposes of determining which roads should be studied and which roads should be improved or impacts mitigated if DRI traffic is 5% of the Level of Service D peak hour capacity of a road. WGC's planner conceded that his use of a 10% significance factor in the TIS was inconsistent with the SWFRPC adopted plan, which he had been given a copy of prior to the preparation of the TIS. (Respondent's Exhibit 125; Daltry, Tr. 2630, 2681-82; Loveland, Tr. 2942; Horner, Tr. 2920; Jackson, Tr. 775-76; Montgomery, Tr. 498- 99). The TIS also included no calculation by WGC of a proportionate share to be paid by WGC and WGC did not submit an estimated total proportionate share to the County before late July 1989. Prior to-the adoption of the AMP 2 DO by the County on December 20, 1989, WGC's planner never submitted to the County a spread sheet containing his independent determination of a proportionate share. As contemplated by the original DO and as a result of WGC's actions, determination of the proportionate share required of WGC for the traffic impacts of Gateway Areas 1 and 2 fell to the County staff. (M. Swenson, Tr. 1666, 1700- 01; Jackson, Tr. 796). County Methodology As a result of these and other factors, County staff conducted an independent assessment of the road impacts of Gateway Areas 1 and 2 and determination of the proportionate share WGC was required to pay as a result. It is noted that the TIS and DO for Area 2 included Area 1 for purposes of traffic analysis due to the need to cumulate traffic impacts and as a result of prior DO conditions. (Gilbertson, Tr. 2725; Jackson, Tr. 776-78). The basic methodology used by the County staff to determine the WGC proportionate share relied on a transportation computer modeling program known as FSUTMS (Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure) to determine the road impacts of Gateway Areas 1 and 2 in the Area 2 buildout year of 2000 and on a variation of an adopted DCA proportionate share rule for DRIs used to calculate the proportionate share dollar amount owed. (M. Swenson, Tr. 1667-75). County staff agreed with WGC representatives to do various FSUTMS computer runs in August 1989. The staff used a FSUTMS run to identify total traffic on the road network. It also identified DRI trips with a FSUTMS module known as "module 4" or the "DRI trips" or "selected link" methodology. These computer runs were performed and the output was in the form of oversized drawings known as "plots," which identify the road network and traffic volumes projected in the year 2000 on those roadways. Information from the plots for the total traffic and DRI trips FSUTMS runs was then used with a separate Lotus 1-2-3 spread sheet computer program to determine a proportionate share contribution for roads. (M. Swenson, Tr. 1666-68, 1670-72; Faris, Tr. 859; Johnson, Tr. 1483-85; Jackson, Tr. 716; Hall, 3092-93; Respondent's Exhibits 443, 446 and 450). The County used its standard DRI policies at the time to determine proportionate share. Those standard policies follow a variation of the DCA DRI transportation policy rule (Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code) minimum proportionate share policy. Those County policies were that if a roadway was operating at an inadequate level of service (less than level of service D), or the adversity test, and the road was impacted by the DRI by more than 5% of the level of service D capacity of the road (the "significance" test), then a proportionate share for that particular roadway link is calculated. The formula assesses the DRI a proportionate share of needed improvements if future traffic projected at project or phase buildout exceeds capacity, not if the addition of DRI traffic alone causes a road to exceed capacity. However, the DRI is only assessed a share of those total improvement costs. The spread sheet program uses information, including the total trips and DRI trips volumes, determined by FSUTMS, and a number of mathematical calculations to determine whether a proportionate share contribution is required for each roadway link studied, the share for that road link and the total proportionate share due for all road links. (M. Swenson, Tr. 1619-22, 1659-60, 1678-83; Hall, Tr. 3073). According to SWFRPC's executive director, SWFRPC has its own list and map of regional road links to be studied for DRI impacts adopted as part of its Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. That plan and map show certain roads in the vicinity of Lehigh Acres, such as Alabama Road, as regional. Other roads may be reviewed in the DRI process for local impacts in agreement with the County's MPO. The SWFRPC encourages local governments not to overlook their local roads. It is noted that WGC's planner did not indicate any problem with the list of roads studied by the County for proportionate share purposes and he included them in his own spread sheets offered in evidence. (Daltry, Tr. 2663-65, 2683; Respondent's Exhibit 125; WGC Exhibit 95). The 5% test used by the County to determine if a proportionate share should be determined for a particular roadway link is the SWFRPC's 5% significance test. The basic mathematical formula used by the County to determine Gateway's percentage or proportionate share of a road improvement needed as a result of Gateway's traffic was received from SWFRPC staff. In addition to the 5% significance factor, the SWFRPC staff formula differed from the DCA proportionate share rule in that it allocated "reserve" or presently unused road capacity on road links studied first to non-DRI trips and then to the DRI in the year 2000. (M. Swenson, Tr. 1673-74; Hall, Tr. 3099-3101; Respondent's Exhibit 465). The County's use of FSUTMS and the SWFRPC proportionate share approach resulted in a final County staff spread sheet in November 1989 with a proportionate share for Gateway Areas 1 and 2 of $25,951,738 due to an error in one of the computer formulas for one road link. This total did not include additional improvements still needed by the year 2000 to Daniels Road and Colonial Boulevard. SWFRPC's executive director conducted an independent proportionate share estimate in November 1989 determining a $23.5 million cost. He found the County's $26 million share "within the range." (M. Swenson, Tr. 1677-78; Hall, Tr. 3075-78; Daltry, Tr. 2633, 2635-36; Respondent's Exhibits 525, 541 and 688; WGC Exhibit 187). The settlement of a County-DCA dispute over the 1989 comprehensive plan in the fall of 1989 had no bearing on the $26 million Area 2 proportionate share amount included in the Gateway Area 2 DO. (Bigelow, Tr. 1715-17; Segal- George, Tr. 1191) Using the same basic FSUTMS/SWFRPC staff proportionate share formula, in 1990 the County's expert planner recalculated the proportionate share based on an updated FSUTMS base year model for Lee County and on updated land use, road network and road cost information, all available after County staff acted in 1989. Based on this updated and more accurate information, in October 1990 he calculated a new proportionate share for Gateway Areas 1 and 2 as WGC sought to develop them through the year 2000 of $21,367,457, which reduces the amount imposed in the County's Area 2 DO on appeal by more than $4 million. In conjunction with an alternate five-year development program approving Area 1 and one-half the proposed Area 2 development through 1995 only, the planner in October 1990 also calculated a proportionate share of $11,386,657. (Hall, Tr. 3120-37; Respondent's Exhibits 896 and 897). None of those proportionate share calculations included the cost of additional improvements still needed beyond the six-laning of Daniels Road and Colonial Boulevard. Those improvements could consist of expressway-type improvements to Daniels Road. The County estimated, without challenge, that WGC's proportionate share of them was $8.6 million. (Hall, Tr. 3128-33; M. Swenson, Tr. 1681-82). FSUTMS Model Use Transportation computer modeling of future traffic projections began in the 1960s and has been evolving continuously. Such modeling is the representation of road network and land use date to project future travel demands and road improvement requirements. In the early 1980s, access to computer technology and modeling became more widely available as a result of the creation of microcomputers and minicomputers. Model systems have become extremely "bullet-proof" over many years of use, according to witness Fennessy, a national expert and pioneer in the field of transportation computer modeling. (Fennessy, Tr. 2977-85). The County's expert transportation planner, while working for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in the late 1970s, developed the concept of a standard computer traffic model for use in all urban areas in Florida and the research needed to implement the concept. The Florida standard model became known as FSUTMS. FDOT's goal was to create a standard model to be used by all public agencies in Florida and private consultants to evaluate future traffic conditions. (Hall, Tr. 3065-66; Faris, Tr. 838). The FSUTMS model, as developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s by FDOT, could only be used on large mainframe computers at first. When microcomputers became available, FDOT was aware that they would allow extended use of FSUTMS by public agencies such as local transportation planning groups known as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). MPOs play an important role in growth management and local comprehensive planning issues concerning roads, developing future road improvement design and construction plans for their areas. FDOT wanted all urban areas to continue to plan and analyze long- range transportation needs similarly and in 1985 selected Fennessy as the software author for the FSUTMS model for micro- and minicomputers. The software program became available for use in late 1987 and early 1988 after several years of FDOT testing and refinement. Indeed, Florida is the most advanced state in the United States in the field of transportation computer systems modeling. (Faris, Tr. 844-47). The FSUTMS model simulates human travel behavior. It has three basic operational steps. In simplified terms, based on in-home surveys, the model determines how many trips will be generated for what purpose from each traffic area or zone, distributes them based on the shortest path of travel by time, and assigns them to a particular road network. Old "manual" methods of using a hand calculator, standard industry trip generation rules and guesswork cannot simulate the complex sets of interactions among land uses determined by FSUTMS. Those methods are not as dynamic as FSUTMS is in assessment of DRI traffic impacts. (Faris, Tr. 849-58; Hall, Tr. 3083-88). The FSUTMS model is widely used and accepted. It is used by all Florida MPOs and many local governments and major private transportation planning firms. It is the most commonly used model in Florida today. (Faris, Tr. 863; C. Swenson, Tr. 1341). Over the years, the FSUTMS model has evolved to the point where it is appropriate for use to measure transportation impacts of a particular development using a "selected link" or DRI trips analysis developed by Fennessy which is as accurate as the model in general. Fennessy developed the selected link capability from another computer model in response to inquiries from private consultants and government staff who wanted to know which development had traffic using a particular road link. This technique can be used with a high degree of confidence to isolate trips generated by a particular development and their impact on a particular road. (Faris, Tr. 859; Fennessy, Tr. 2969-75, 2989). The FDOT recommends use of FSUTMS and the selected link methodology to evaluate the transportation impacts of larger DRIs and to determine DRI trips. This recommendation in favor of FSUTMS is contained in official FDOT guidelines for DRI review issued in April 1990. The selected link analysis is the method taught to analyze DRI road impacts in FDOT training courses for private and public planners. One of WGC's transportation planners agreed that FDOT intends in its guidelines that FSUTMS be used to identify the transportation impacts of DRIs and pointed out that Gateway Area 2 is of such a size that it would fit the recommended category for use of FSUTMS. The FDOT has implemented the guidelines in its district offices to require FSUTMS use if recommended by them. If a developer wants to use any other computer model or a manual method, he must go through a justification process as to why he is departing from use of the model studied, supported and recommended by FDOT. (Faris, Tr. 860-61, 888-89; Fennessy, Tr. 2972-73; Hall, Tr. 3078-79, 3081-82, 3143-44, 3212-13; Mierzejewski, Tr. 1152-53; Respondent's Exhibit 674). The DCA's chief of the bureau of state planning agreed that transportation computer modeling is a very common approach for large DRIs and that a computer is needed to help determine the distribution of DRI trips and significance of their impact on the roadway. FSUTMS is the model encouraged and accepted to identify DRI transportation impacts in the DCA's new application form for DRIs projected at time of hearing to be adopted in November 1990. Departure from use of computer modeling would require a demonstration that another method is appropriate. The new DRI application form promotes use of FSUTMS by name to determine traffic generation and assignment to the network and this is the first time a specific transportation model has ever been mentioned in an agency rule. Most of the DRI applicants in the SWFRPC area who use computer modeling are also using the selected link analysis to identify DRI trips as well. (Beck, Tr. 1978, 1987-88, 1993-95; Hall, Tr. 3215-17; Loveland, Tr. 2944; Respondent's Exhibit 734). In the private transportation planning field, it is now routine to use FSUTMS for large DRIs. The old "manual" techniques are only used under standard practice on small DRIs and those with short buildouts. FSUTMS is more accurate than manual techniques in reflecting traffic impacts on a systemwide basis. It provides an objective starting place using land use data in a model validated for accuracy without favoring or disfavoring any particular development. It replaces the subjective manual approach where planners and engineers used to estimate that 5% of a project's trips would head in one direction or 10% in another. The 1984 original Gateway DRI application used those outdated methods. (Hall, Tr. 3081-82; C. Swenson, Tr. 1434-35; Crawford, Tr. 2750, 2752; WGC Exhibit 3). The FDOT has high confidence in the accuracy of FSUTMS. Each model with a particular urban area's land uses projected to a future year goes through a formal accuracy determination called validation. Indeed, no model duplicates observed traffic behavior and no computer model is infallible. However, FDOT standards for accuracy call for traffic projected by FSUTMS to be within 10% of actual ground traffic counts for a prior year on roads with high traffic volumes and within 20% on lower volume roads. During the validation process, adjustments to the model are made to correlate model traffic projections to ground counts. The models are achieving that accuracy generally. The accuracy on individual links may vary by much greater percentages, but if a road link has an inaccuracy greater than 10% or 20%, that variance needs to be explained in order to validate a model. (Faris, Tr. 838, 857-58, 864-65, 881-83; Mierzejewski, Tr. 1145; Nicholas, Tr. 3448). WGC's consultant Mierzejewski questioned using the County FSUTMS model to assess the impacts of a particular development on individual road segments based on illustrations from a December 1989 validation study prepared by Kimley- Horn, a private transportation firm that is a Lee County consultant. In particular, he highlighted the post-validation range of correlation between actual counts and traffic projections for four road segments studied in the Kimley-Horn validation report, although he stated that the Kimley-Horn adjustments to the FSUTMS model during the validation process were generally within accepted modeling practice. However, the Kimley-Horn transportation planner and engineer in charge of the validation report established that plus or minus 20% is the general range for accuracy on individual road links although in some very rare cases there may be significantly higher errors on individual links. Moreover, overall the FSUTMS model as validated for the County is the best method to project traffic for any development within the County, including Gateway, and those model outputs can be used to calculate a proportionate share reliably. The County validated model is more likely to underpredict actual traffic than overpredict it. (Mierzejewski, Tr. 1115-17; 1143-44; C. Swenson, Tr. 1339, 1341, 1359, 1408, 1411, 1415-16, 1434). The model results for four road segments in the validation report Mierzejewski criticized were the four worst of eighty-three studied in the report. However, if the model traffic projections for those road links were adjusted to match actual ground traffic counts, the result would increase the WGC proportionate share for Gateway Areas 1 and 2 by about $1 million, due to the model's tendency to underproject. (Hall, Tr. 3055). Both WGC and County experts agreed that the computer models should be more accurate in the five to ten year timeframe, due to land use projection accuracy, than for longer periods. Thus, FSUTMS and the selected link technique can be used with confidence for analysis of DRI transportation impacts for the DRI-related level of detail in a five and ten year buildout, such as Gateway Area 2. (Mierzejewski, Tr. 1166; Faris, Tr. 881, 937-38) In his private consulting business, WGC's transportation planner routinely uses FSUTMS computer modeling on DRI projects and also uses the output of DRI trips or selected link technique as a guide to identify and assign DRI trips to the road network and as an input to calculation of a proportionate share. Both he and County experts agreed that transportation planning and engineering judgment should be applied to analysis and use of the traffic volumes projected using the FSUTMS and the DRI trips technique. If sound engineering judgment indicates that the model outputs are logical, both also agreed that no adjustments to the output of FSUTMS may be needed. The FDOT April 1990 DRI review guidelines also call for use of judgment in using modeling results. (Jackson, Tr. 710, 804-05, 816, 820-21, 971, 3568-69, Hall, 3057-58, 3092-93; Respondent's Exhibit 674). Concerning the total future traffic projections and DRI trip projections as a result of the County's FSUTMS runs in September 1989, WGC's expert witness Jackson did not have any major problems with using the data without adjustment from computer runs as input into the County's proportionate share spread sheet. The expert was present at County offices in mid-September 1989 when the County prepared its output "plots" from the FSUTMS DRI trips runs. The record reflects that the expert (and his staff) actually helped input the data from FSUTMS computer plots into the County's proportionate share spread sheet program, and concluded that the output was reasonable for use and that the DRI trips model run was valid. (Jackson, Tr. 802-03, 806-08, 1023-24; Johnson, Tr. 1490-94, 1499-1500). DCA Rule and County Variations The DCA established the basis from which the County derived its proportionate share methodology in a DRI transportation policy rule (Rule 9J- 2.0255, FAC) adopted in early 1987. According to the DCA's chief of bureau of state planning, there was extensive debate over the rule and input from many formal and informal advisory groups, but the rule was a consensus as far as one could be reached. The goal of the rule was to bring some consistency to DRI transportation impact assessment and evaluation. The rule has had the intended effect. (Beck, Tr. 1966-67, 1976-77). The DCA rule includes three mitigation options: "staging" of development with the timing of road improvements by government or others so they accommodate the development, "pipelining" proportionate share dollars for road impacts to one or more major improvements, and a creative third option which combines those two. In "pipelining," the most commonly used option, a mathematical formula is used to calculate a proportionate share and those dollars are paid up front before development occurs and expeditiously committed to actual road building. WGC transportation experts agree proportionate share dollars are usually paid up front and devoted to road building in advance of development. If these minimum criteria are met, then a DRI has, to DCA's satisfaction, met the requirements of Subsection 380.06(15)(e), Florida Statutes, that a DRI makes "adequate provision" to accommodate its road impacts. (Beck, Tr. 1964, 1967-68, 1972; Jackson, Tr. 962-63; Mierzejewski, Tr. 1164). The DCA rule options establish minimum criteria. Both the rule and DCA practice allow regional planning councils and local governments to impose more stringent criteria or mitigation requirements. For example, the SWFRPC, and other regions, use the 5% significance test, rather than the DCA's 10% test. Transportation monitoring of actual traffic conditions as the DRI develops and determination of whether a road should be considered "committed" for improvement or subject to a proportionate share charge are other areas where the local government could be more stringent, based upon local or regional conditions. (Beck, Tr. 1964, 1969-70, 1972, 1974; Bittaker, Tr. 1476-77) The proportionate share formula used by the County as obtained from SWFRPC staff had another more stringent feature than the DCA rule. The formula used by the County allows any "reserve" capacity on a road segment to be used first by non-DRI traffic before it is used by the DRI being analyzed. The DCA formula gives first call on use of the reserve capacity to the DRI being reviewed. Even prior to submitting the TIS, WGC was aware that this reserve capacity issue had a major effect involving millions of dollars on proportionate share amount and that reviewing agencies often ignored the reserve feature of the DCA rule. (Hall, Tr. 3099-3101; Horner, Tr. 2882-83; Jackson, Tr. 783; Anderson, Tr. 2026-27; Respondent's Exhibits 218 and 736). The specific SWFRPC staff formula supplied to County staff was used for the Omni DRI in Fort Myers and gave other development first call on reserve capacity before the DRI. SWFRPC staff did not feel that DRIs should have first call on existing capacity. The southwest Florida region has a large number of approved subdivisions with one million lots that have a vested right to develop and the County has 400,000 such lots. There is no available reserve capacity near those projects and they should get priority over a new expanding DRI. In other words, the latest DRI should not be first in line. Those projects include Lehigh Acres near Gateway and Cape Coral and will require use of existing reserve road capacity. (Horner, Tr. 2882-83; Loveland, Tr. 1207-08; Daltry, Tr. 2630-33, 2644). The SWFRPC has not formally adopted a formula to deal with the vested project issue due to diversity but the SWFRPC itself has continually indicated that vested projects were more entitled to use capacity than a new DRI. Its staff recently has been taking a position of equivalent use by DRIs and non-DRIs but vested growth constitutes a public policy reason for the approach taken in the formula used by the County. The County used the formula because it was more representative of conditions in the County concerning the use of excess or reserve capacity than the DCA rule in light of the large, vested Lehigh Acres and Cape Coral projects in the County. (Daltry, Tr. 2653-54, 2680-81; M. Swenson, Tr. 1674-75; Spikowski, Tr. 1817). It is not inequitable to give other developments use of reserve road capacity before Gateway because surplus capacity should belong to the general public or the County, which is paying for 80% of the road needs in the vicinity of Gateway. This use of reserve capacity is a legitimate public policy choice so long as the County treats other DRIs similarly. First come, first served is a normal approach to use of available road capacity. (Nicholas, Tr. 3432-34, 3461-62). Proportionate Share for Daniels Road Widening Daniels Road is a major east-west road that serves and will serve the Gateway DRI. Daniels Road to the south of Gateway, Colonial Boulevard to the north, Metro Parkway to the west and S.R. 82 to the east form the principal road network surrounding Gateway on all four sides. (Hall, Tr. 3096-97; Respondent's Exhibit 738). The inadequate condition of Daniels Road as a two-lane facility was of particular concern to the County in the late summer and early fall of 1989. It was the general consensus that Daniels Road should be widened to six lanes rather than four, and the County approved imposition of two additional cents of local gas taxes and bonded those revenues in order to accommodate the six- laning. The County bonded ten years worth of these gas taxes to get the Daniels Road and Colonial Boulevard Extension improvements, among others, built although its most important development areas lie elsewhere, in Cape Coral, Bonita Springs, and South Fort Myers. (Segal-George, Tr. 1185-87; Spikowski, Tr. 1820, 1931; WGC Exhibit 16). The Gateway DRI benefits from the Daniels Road widening. The County accelerated the Daniels and Colonial improvements ahead of other pressing needs elsewhere to serve development needs, including those of Gateway. Gateway is a major contributor to the need for the Daniels Road widening, although not the sole cause, and Daniels Road was substantially impacted under the 5% significance test by the proposed development of Gateway Areas 1 and 2. A conservative estimate of Gateway's proportionate share use of the Daniels Road to the year 2000 was 20%. (Jackson, Tr. 991; Spikowski, Tr. 1848-50; M. Swenson, Tr. 1687; Hall, Tr. 3130-31). The County advance-funded the Daniels Road widening based on knowledge since 1983 of the Gateway development. If a county such as Lee County advances road funding in order to get ahead of development, it should not bear the risk that it cannot recover those funds in part from benefited developers. If the County cannot require Gateway's participation, the County would not participate in future forward funding. The County also demonstrated responsibility by determining the amount of development expected east of I-75 and initiating improvements rather than waiting for severely congested conditions, given the long lead time needed to plan, design, and build roads. It is unsafe to wait until a road is over capacity to initiate improvements. (Hall, Tr. 3098, 3249-50; Nicholas, Tr. 3472-73, 3508-09, 3519-22). If the Daniels Road widening to six lanes were considered a road "committed" to improvement, under the County's proportionate share methodology WGC would pay nothing for the widening of Daniels Road from two to six lanes, despite Gateway's traffic impact on that road. In any event, however, WGC would need to participate in funding improvements beyond six-laning. (Hall, Tr. 3342) The County staff initially considered the Daniels Road widening committed and calculated no proportionate share for WGC on that facility. When the county administrator learned of this, she determined it made no sense to charge nothing of a development that would significantly impact Daniels Road and established a policy that developers' road impacts should be assessed and a proportionate share calculated, regardless of whether the road improvement was in the County's capital improvement budget. It is the County's present general practice and policy to follow this approach for all developments. The County staff followed this policy for Gateway Areas 1 and 2 for roads including Daniels Road, the Colonial Boulevard Extension, and Metro Parkway. It would not be a true picture of Gateway's traffic impact and resulting responsibility to assume that improvements to those roads, which are now underway, were in place without a proportionate share contribution required from WGC. (Segal-George, Tr. 1187- 89; M. Swenson, Tr. 1610-12; Hall, Tr. 3096-97, 3169-70). Other DRIs in the vicinity of Daniels Road have been assessed a proportionate share for that road widening and it is reasonable to expect WGC to pay along with other anticipated causes of growth for that project. (Crawford, Tr. 2840-41, 2844-47) Other DRI review agencies agree that the issue of whether a road improvement is considered "committed" or should be assessed a proportionate share may depend on local circumstances. The DCA transportation policy rule does not address what is a committed road. Rather, that is an area left to local government based on local and regional conditions. In addition, committed roads usually include those under construction, but the source of the funding commitment is important and those revenue sources commonly include anticipated developer proportionate share payments. (Beck, Tr. 1974; Daltry, Tr. 2659, 2678- 79; Hall, Tr. 3243-44). If the County were to follow DCA's staging option approach to mitigation, the Gateway Area 2 development, as proposed by WGC in a single 10- year phase, would be required to wait until Daniels Road improvements beyond six-laning were planned and in place. Segments of Colonial Boulevard, as well as Daniels Road, would also fail by 1995 and 2000 even after identified improvements have been made. (Hall, Tr. 3104-05, 3128, 3342-43, 3351-53, 3575). County Estimated Road Improvement Costs In determining a proportionate share, the DRI's percentage of the demand for a needed road improvement is multiplied times the estimated cost of the improvement. In the County proportionate share spread sheets prepared in 1989, costs were based on estimates from the County project manager in charge of road projects under design or improvement and on FDOT average costs. The DCA generally relies on FDOT and local government cost data for estimated road costs under its proportionate share rule. (M. Swenson, Tr. 1673, 1681, 1683; Beck, Tr. 1973). As part of his updated 1990 determination of a proportionate share contribution for Gateway Areas 1 and 2, the County's expert planner Hall made adjustments to the cost per mile data based on actual bid and other updated information prepared by the County staff. The updated costs came from County staff, FDOT and adjustments made by Hall. For County roads under construction or bid, Hall used costs determined by the county engineer in September 1990. Those costs for Cypress Lake, Daniels Road, Metro Parkway, Six-Mile Cypress and the Colonial Boulevard Extension were cost per centerline mile averages derived from actual or estimated right-of-way, engineering, construction, project management and miscellaneous costs. Those costs were the most accurate reasonable costs available to the County as of September 1990. WGC's transportation engineer and civil engineering consultant agreed that specific actual or bid costs for particular road projects were better to use than other types of estimates. (Hall, Tr. 3149-50, Brown, Tr. 2535-37; Hill, Tr. 1088; Jackson, Tr. 991; Respondent's Exhibit 739). The County's expert Hall found that the cost data he used for his $21.4 million proportionate share estimate in the year 2000 were considerably more refined than data often used to calculate proportionate shares for DRIs and that it was the best data available from FDOT and the County for specific construction projects. (Hall, Tr. 3343-44). Most of the WGC criticisms of the road costs used by the County were directed at estimated costs before they were updated for actual bid costs. The principal witness who leveled these criticisms, Hill, had never done a DRI proportionate share calculation and had no road design or road engineering experience in Lee County. Hill estimated costs calculated by the County were too high based on actual bids and on cost data in a March 1989 road impact fee study prepared by Kimley-Horn, an engineering consulting firm used by the County. Hill selected the Kimley-Horn data as the best estimate of cost in instances where there was no bid. However, the author of that study established that the cost numbers in the study should not be used to calculate a proportionate share except as a gross check against other estimates. (Hill, Tr. 1064-65, 1066-70, 1092-93; C. Swenson, Tr. 1348-49; WGC Exhibit 101). WGC witness Jackson also criticized the county engineer's costs used by County witness Hall because those costs were not further broken down for each road segment along Daniels Road per lane mile. However, the county engineer established that it was not appropriate to calculate a lane mile per cost by dividing the cost per centerline line mile by the number of lanes on a road segment because a cost per lane mile needed to be based on actual engineering analysis of the work being done. In addition, further understanding of design and engineering factors would be needed to refine further the costs used for Daniels Road. Witness Jackson acknowledged that he had done no significant study of design plans for the Daniels Road widening, although he proposed a reduction in the proportionate share for Daniels Road on a lane mile basis. Like witness Hall, WGC witness Hill used a uniform cost per mile for all Daniels Road segments and indicated that was a legitimate approach if the cost per mile were based on actual bids, as Hall's was. In a proportionate share estimate offered by witness Jackson during the final day of hearing, Jackson assumed a uniform cost per mile for Daniels Road, just as Hall did. (Brown, Tr. 2552-53; Hall, Tr. 3155; Jackson, Tr. 3562-63, 3573, 3578; WGC Exhibit 101). WGC witness Jackson also questioned whether costs used by Hall for S.R. 82 were "somewhat" too high because they assumed a uniform cost for segments in the heart of downtown Fort Myers and those near downtown. However, Jackson did not independently estimate what the cost should be, did not adjust 1986 or 1987 FDOT cost estimates for S.R. 82 for inflation and did not study property values along S.R. 82 concerning right-of-way. State road costs in general may exceed county costs due to more stringent bidding and engineering factors. (Jackson, Tr. 3564-65, 3580-81; Hall, Tr. 3285, 3587). Impact of Gateway by DRI trips v. "With and Without" Methodology WGC witness Jackson contended that the traffic impacts of a DRI should be assessed using a "with and without" approach rather than the DRI trips method used by the County. He based this contention in part because the "with and without" method is a better way of assessing "new" trips added to the roadway as a result of the DRI. However, Jackson himself in his work has used a DRI trips approach rather than the "with and without" method to calculate a DRI proportionate share. (Jackson, Tr. 3554-57, 3568-69). Jackson never submitted a proportionate share calculation using the "with and without" method to County staff and WGC introduced no evidence of the monetary effect of that method of analysis on the total proportionate share assessed by the County in 1989 or redetermined by County witness Hall in October 1990. Moreover, he agreed with the County and SWFRPC that the DCA proportionate share formula, on which the County formula is based, does not use the difference between "with and without" trip projections (variously called "impact trips" or "travel demand" by WGC witnesses and counsel) as the measure of a DRI's traffic impact. The DCA and County formula call for determination of DRI trips (trips with an origin or destination in the DRI) and use of that number in the proportionate share calculation. (M. Swenson, Tr. 1682; Jackson, Tr. 990, 3569- 70 Crawford, Tr. 2842-43; Hall, Tr. 3108-09; Loveland, Tr. 2961-62; Horner, Tr. 2878). The FDOT recommends the DRI trips approach to assess impact instead of the "with and without" method. One major problem is that the "with and without" method fails to identify trips leaving or entering the DRI on roads at its front door. (Faris, Tr. 860, 914-15, 934-35). The SWFRPC staff generally does not accept the use of the "with and without" methodology to assess DRI impacts because it identifies the effect of diversion of traffic due to a DRI rather than specific DRI volumes on each roadway. The "with and without" approach tends to understate the impact of the DRI on roads near the DRI. In the case of the Omni DRI, for example, the "with and without" approach showed a major DRI would result in fewer trips right at the DRI's front door. (Loveland, Tr. 2943; Horner, Tr. 2878-80, 2915, 2917, 2925-26). The "without project" trip volumes and "with project" volumes represent two entirely different traffic projections assuming different land uses. The difference does not equal DRI trips on any particular road link. The "with and without" method could operate so that multiple DRIs could set up a domino theory in which each DRI evades responsibility to mitigate a major portion of traffic coming to a DRI destination. (Hall, Tr. 3108-12; Respondent's Exhibit 737). Concepts related to "new" versus "old" trips, including trips diverted to the DRI, are not relevant when FSUTMS modeling is used. The model looks at sophisticated land use interactions and determines how many trips there will be on each road link in the future, eliminating the need to focus on trips existing today. The model also makes the concept of a diverted trip unnecessary to consider in looking at future impacts. WGC witness Jackson also assumed in an impact fee calculation he prepared, where a determination of percentage of "new" trips was required as an input factor, that 100% of trips generated by Gateway Areas 1 and 2 would be "new." He further agreed that FSUTMS takes diverted trips into account and that County witness Hall's final proportionate share determination of $21.4 million should not be adjusted to reflect the concept of new trips versus old trips. (Hall, Tr. 3338-40, 3048-49, 3088-90; C. Swenson, Tr. 1352-53, 1435-36; Faris, Tr. 861-62; Jackson, Tr. 819, 1001-02, 3582) Division of Proportionate Share by Two From the outset of the Gateway Area 2 application preparation process in April 1988, it was a WGC internal goal or desire of considerable importance to keep transportation mitigation using a DRI proportionate share approach below the amount of impact fees, which are charged all new County developments. WGC was preoccupied with this subject throughout 1988 and 1989. From November 1988 through 1989, WGC witness Jackson prepared numerous memoranda and analyses for WGC comparing proportionate share contribution estimates with anticipated road impact fees owed by Gateway for Areas 1 and 2. The proportionate share estimate by Jackson rose from $500,000 to $14 million during this time period. In some of these analyses, Jackson advised his client that current road impact fees should cover all WGC proportionate share contribution requirements In July 1989, Jackson's highest proportionate share estimates for Areas 1 and 2 were still slightly lower than anticipated impact fees, both of which were in the $13.5 - $14 million range. Jackson's proportionate share estimate was shared with the County for the first time in a July 25, 1989 letter to the county administrator from WGC's executive vice-president who maintained that traffic mitigation should not exceed impact fees. During the same November 1988 to July 1989 timeframe there was no discussion between WGC and Jackson about dividing the proportionate share in half. (Jackson, Tr. 757-58, 760-63, 779-99, 1024; Anderson, Tr. 2024-25, 2032-34; Respondent's Exhibits 156, 175, 209, 212, 218, 260, 264, 295, 296, 306, 317, 334, 360, 368-370 and 602) In mid-September 1989, Jackson visited the County's offices and his staff and subconsultant inputted FSUTMS data into proportionate share spread sheets. He was aware at that time that the DRI trips approach, not the "wish and without" method, was going to be used by the County to calculate proportionate share. During this same timeframe, the County had created spread sheets determining proportionate share dollar amounts owed by WGC. A County spread sheet available by September 21, 1989, showed that the County proportionate share had reached $17 million (if not divided by two) more than impact fees. On September 15, 1989, Jackson proposed for the first time to County staff that the proportionate share should be divided by two if the County wanted to use DRI trips. (Johnson, Tr. 1490-91, 1494; Jackson, Tr. 802-04, M. Swenson, Tr. 1675-76; Respondent's Exhibit 459). By memorandum dated September 19, 1989, Jackson argued the proportionate share should be divided by two because the DRI was responsible for only one end of a DRI trip. Although a County staff person agreed to division by two in a September 21, 1989 letter, the staff person did not discuss the content of that letter with anyone before he wrote it. The staff person based his decision on an inaccurate conclusion from questions he asked others about the model. Based on further discussions with experts and study of model workings, the staff member later concluded he was wrong. A full staff consensus was subsequently reached that the proportionate share should not be divided by two and the final decision was up to the Board of County Commissioners. Standard county policy is not to divide DRI proportionate share calculations in half. (Gilbertson, Tr. 272 6-28, 2730-31, 2745-47; M. Swenson, Tr. 1627-28; Jackson, Tr. 977-78; Segal-George, Tr. 1192; Gibbs, Tr. 2234-35; Respondent's Exhibits 454 and 459). The DCA, SWFRPC and County experts all reject the divide by two approach for a number of reasons. The DCA considered and rejected it during consideration of its DRI transportation policy rule because it is an impact fee methodology, not a DRI exaction methodology. The County agrees that division by two is an impact fee principle that is not properly applied to DRI proportionate share calculations. It is one of the simplifying assumptions used in impact fees that assumes there will be an impact-fee-paying development at each end of the trip. However, that is often not the case, so the impact fee tends to undercharge. The SWFRPC staff also rejects division by two because to do so would provide a double benefit since the proportionate share approach already only imposes a proportionate share charge for DRI trips if they are significant (greater than 5%) on a road segment that will operate at an "adverse" level of service. Transportation planners for SWFRPC since 1984 have never seen this type of division by two approved for a DRI. (Beck, Tr. 1981-82; Nicholas, Tr. 3399-3400, 3402; Daltry, Tr. 2636-37; Horner, Tr. 2884; Loveland, Tr. 1211, 2948). The County's expert Hall also found it completely inappropriate to divide by two and was not aware of any transportation consultant in Florida that had used that approach to assess DRI transportation impacts. A proportionate share charge is only imposed on adversely operating roads where DRI trips are significant and those limitations naturally reduce or eliminate proportionate share costs as DRI trips get farther away from the DRI. Based on Hall's October 1990 proportionate share calculation, this effect resulted in a proportionate share charge for only about half, or 53%, of all miles traveled by DRI trips. It is logical to divide by two for impact fees due to simplifying and averaging assumptions used, but not for site-specific DRI proportionate share assessments that focus on charging the DRI for DRI trips occurring near the DRI on roads that will fail. Other County experts concurred in this assessment. At hearing, WGC witness Jackson also corrected any implication in his written testimony that Gateway was charged a share for all DRI trips rather than only for those where the significance and adversity tests were met. (Hall, Tr. 3115-20, 3345-46; Crawford, Tr. 2759-60; C. Swenson, Tr. 1356-57; Jackson, Tr. 825, 946-49, 966- 67, 985-86). Division by two was also out of WGC witness Jackson's realm of experience until this case. Of the more than fifteen DRIs he has worked on, none involved division by two of a proportionate share calculated using the FSUTMS model. Finally, WGC expert witness Mierzejewski conceded there are no state or regional public agencies that espouse his view that if a proportionate share method is used, the proportionate share should be divided between both ends of the trip. (Jackson, Tr. 808; Mierzejewski, Tr. 1162-63). i. Gas Tax Credit Issue The County rejected witness Jackson's suggestion in 1989 that gas taxes attributable to development of Gateway Areas 1 and 2 should be deducted from the proportionate share. WGC expert Fishkind also argued that the present value of gas tax credit should be deducted from the proportionate share. However, there is no such deduction provided for in the DCA's DRI transportation policy rule. Indeed, during the rule adoption proceeding, DCA rejected the idea that the gas tax credit should be subtracted from the proportionate share because there was no way to assure that those funds would be allocated to address the site-specific impacts of a DRI. (Fishkind, Tr. 1238-41; Jackson, Tr. 737-38, 965, 3559-60, 3571; Beck, Tr. 1977-78). County expert Nicholas established that there should be no deduction from the proportionate share for gas taxes so long as WGC receives impact fee credit for the total proportionate share contribution. Impact fees include a credit for gas taxes. Giving both impact fee credit and separate gas tax credit for payment of proportionate share would give the same gas tax credit twice. The County was the first local government in the State to create a transferable impact fee credit program so the impact fee credits above those Gateway can use should be valuable and marketable to other developers. Finally, it is noted that gas taxes attributable to Gateway Areas 1 and 2 could "dribble" in over the next 25 years and thus not be available to provide road improvements by the time they are needed. Gateway did not appear willing to wait 25 years for road improvements to be phased in. (Nicholas, Tr. 3402-03, 3424-25, 3473-77, 3479, 3384-85, 3441, 3533-36, 3467-68, 3533-36; C. Swenson, Tr. 1340-41, 1401-02) 1989 Area 2 DO Issues DCA Concerns DCA witnesses identified two areas of concern in the 1989 DO on appeal: (a) a condition on page 19 of the DO requiring Gateway to pay to correct certain roads after 1995 without attribution of the road deficiency to Gateway; and (b) a condition on page 17 of the DO requiring Gateway to undergo further DRI review although it may have mitigated for road impacts. On September 5, 1990, the County modified its position in this proceeding by abandoning (deleting) the two provisions opposed by DCA. (Bittaker, Tr. 1446-48, 1460-61; Spikowski, Tr. 1825-27; Respondent's Exhibits 606 and 742). Impact Fee Credit The County should grant Gateway impact fee credits for the full proportionate share imposed if it exceeds impact fees and both exactions are imposed for the same need. The County's revised position, as reflected in its exhibit 742, gives full credit and thus resolves the issue. It is noted, however, that the County would continue not to give credit for approximately $1 million for obligations for which no credit was given under the Area 1 DO. (Nicholas, Tr. 3390, 3519, 3527-28; Spikowski, Tr. 1804-05, 1904-05; Respondent's Exhibit 742). Monitoring of Actual Traffic Conditions related to traffic monitoring involve an area where local governments may be more stringent than the DCA transportation rule or regional policies. Standard SWFRPC practice is to monitor all significantly impacted roads using the 5% significance test. The 1989 DO contained a list of intersections and roadways to be monitored. Monitoring is needed to see if WGC may be responsible for road improvements beyond those for which it has paid by means of a proportionate share. There are a number of roads for which no proportionate share would be imposed because traffic is not significant or the road would not operate adversely, but where conditions are being approached. It is possible that over the course of actual development of Gateway Areas 1 and 2 that those conditions will be reached, thus triggering a need for mitigation. If so, in order for WGC to continue development, improvements needed to restore an acceptable level of road service must be made by the public, WGC or other entities (the staging approach). However, any additional costs would be paid by WGC only if, despite best efforts today to identify future road impacts, additional roads fail and Gateway's impact on such roads is significant under the 5% significance test. As reflected in witness Hall's testimony, the County has receded from its original position and now proposes to monitor only those roads and intersections where the significance and adversity conditions are being approached and on roads immediately adjacent to Gateway. They include Daniels Road, Metro Parkway, S.R. 82 and Colonial Boulevard, all having proximity to where the proposed development will have the greatest impact. By monitoring only those roads, the County has insured that there is no overlap or double assessment of mitigation. (Beck, Tr. 1970; Loveland, Tr. 2950; Spikowski, Tr. 1805, 1911-17, 1934-35; Hall, Tr. 3135-37; Respondent's Exhibits 606 and 742) While recognizing that DRI development orders often contain requirements for traffic mitigation that are open-ended based on monitoring, WGC witness Fishkind criticized this element of the 1989 DO and suggested that it would cause WGC difficulty in obtaining bank financing for its development. However, he did not know if WGC relies on this type of financing for its development. Even so, the County's abandonment of its more stringent monitoring requirements substantially reduces its open-endedness. Moreover, witness Fishkind acknowledged that open-endedness is a general statewide consequence of modern "concurrency" requirements. Finally, the record establishes that developers and local governments have found ways to assure sufficient certainty so that front-end development financing can be obtained. (Fishkind, Tr. 1250-52, 1301, 1304-05; Nicholas, Tr. 3436-43). Five-Year Traffic Reanalysis The 1989 DO includes a reanalysis of the Gateway Areas 1 and 2 proportionate share in five years and a potentially greater proportionate share but no lesser one. There are sound transportation planning reasons for a five- year review based on new conditions and such re-reviews are not uncommon for DRIs. One particular reason for re-review in 1995 in this case is because both Daniels Road and Colonial Boulevard are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service by 1995 and by 2000 and it is reasonable to anticipate that further improvements may have been identified by 1995. However, rather than mandate a 1995 re-review for a ten-year approval as required in the 1989 Area 2 DO, County planners believed it fair to give WGC a choice of a five-year approval for one-half the proposed Area 2 development or a full ten-year approval without mandatory review. However, proportionate shares assessed for those periods would not be refunded. The proportionate share "pipelining" approach is designed to collect those funds up front and actually spend them expeditiously for road construction. The DCA proportionate share rule does not provide for any refund of "pipelined" dollars paid at the beginning of a phase. This concession by the County resolves an issue raised by WGC. (Hall, Tr. 3125, 3128; Nicholas, Tr. 3436-37; Spikowski, Tr. 1803-04; Beck, Tr. 1968, 1980; Respondent's Exhibits 742, 896 and 897). Concurrency Requirements Upon further consideration, the County staff determined that if WGC pays a proportionate share toward improvement of certain roads, WGC should be granted "concurrency" protection for its contribution to those improvements on those roads. The 1989 DO provided no such protection. On September 5, 1990, the County abandoned its original position and took the position that WGC has met concurrency provisions for the roads where a proportionate share is imposed in witness Hall's October 1990 spread sheet to the extent of the road capacity considered in assessing the proportionate share. Full transportation concurrency for roads, such as Daniels Road, where additional improvements are still needed to serve the proposed Area 2 development in the year 2000, cannot be determined until later. (Spikowski, Tr. 1798-99, 1805, 1907-08, 2139-40; Respondent's Exhibits 606 and 742). Colonial Boulevard Extension Credit After the 1989 DO was rendered, the County determined that credit should be given to WGC for amounts assessed or paid by WGC under an October 11, 1989, agreement between landowners, including WGC, and the County to fund the extension of Colonial Boulevard from I-75 to S.R. 82. By making such a concession, the County has resolved an issue raised by WGC. (Hall, Tr. 3131-32; Respondent's Exhibits 742 and 819). Restrictions on Additional Applications to Five-Year Periods On September 5, 1990, the County agreed to amend the 1985 DO and the 1989 Area 2 DO to provide that future Area Master Plan increments of development, either as new AMPs or additions to Areas 1 and 2, must have buildout dates of no less and no greater than five years. Additions to Areas 1 and 2 may be submitted every three years and, in all instances, the County may permit more frequent applications if unique circumstances warrant in the public interest. The 1989 DO included a five-year phasing concept, but the restrictive amendment would make it more precise. (Spikowski, Tr. 1799-1801; Gibbs, Tr. 2140). The 1985 DO contemplated development of nine areas within Gateway over a forty-year period, or an average increment of just under five years in length. The inclusion of original Areas 2-5 in a single Area 2 violated the spirit and intent of that arrangement. There are numerous general and specific reasons why a five-year phasing approach is appropriate. In the planning field, five-year planning periods have been used historically throughout the United States in conjunction with revenue cycles. Five years is the period of time most commonly used by the planning profession. Five year planning periods are used in the County for the County's capital improvement program, FDOT and MPO transportation improvement plans and DRI development orders. The five year period is particularly appropriate for estimating road impacts and needed mitigation because land use assumptions and cost data are more accurate in the five year horizon. In fact, FDOT recommended in 1984, after reviewing the original Gateway DRI application, that only "tentative conceptual approval" should be granted subject to and dependent on the results of incremental transportation impact analyses every five years. In addition, because it takes five to seven years to plan and build a major road, the five year period provides a realistic view of whether roads actually may be built during a five year development phase. More fundamentally, as the Gateway Area 2 case illustrates, determining mitigation beyond five years involves assumptions subject to debate and the mitigation required for a ten-year period may be too high for developer acceptance. These considerations indicate that the five-year period is an appropriate one to use in the AMP process and fulfills the 1985 DO's finding that the AMP process should "logically and rationally coordinate the phasing of development with available facilities." (Gibbs, Tr. 2132-34, 2255-56; Starnes, Tr. 2439-41; Spikowski, Tr. 1792-94, 1799-1801, 1877; Respondent's Exhibits 22, 63, 742 and 809). The proposed five-year phasing approach also gives WGC adequate flexibility to plan and structure its development program. WGC can elect a ten- year approval under the County's restrictive amendment and still apply for a new AMP development approval as early as 1995. It can apply for additions of residential units and non-residential square footage in Areas 1 and 2 in three years. If WGC has developed all approved uses in shorter periods, it can seek relief from the County under the proposed special circumstances provision giving the County great latitude to accept and approve an AMP application early. While initial start-up may be slow, in the five-year Area 1 phase from 1985-90 WGC had sold perhaps two hundred of the 1,850 dwelling units approved in Area 1, raising questions about WGC's need for further early approvals. This restrictive amendment resolves an issue raised by WGC. (Spikowski, Tr. 1800, 1879-81; Koste, Tr. 615; Schmoyer, Tr. 90). WGC has also recognized in its own planning the viability of five- year planning periods and the need to address changes as development proceeds. In the original ADA, WGC stated: Complete development of Gateway is anticipated to require 40 years, commencing in 1985. For purposes of discussion, the 40- year phasing of Gateway has been separated into eight 5 year periods for Residential, Business, and School classifications . Data shown are estimated for 5-year phasing periods for residential dwelling units, business acreage, and number of schools by type. In addition, WGC witness Schmoyer testified: The Community Plan consists of planning areas showing generalized land areas. Each area is to be developed in accordance with the Area Master Plan Program set forth in the 1985 development order for the Gateway DRI. Dividing the property into planning areas allows the flexibility needed to meet the constantly changing needs of an evolving community. As each area master plan is submitted to the County for review and approval, specific information is provided such as the precise location and character of residential units ... plus the locations and types of facilities required by a thriving community. (WGC Exhibit 3; Schmoyer, Tr. 82). Additional Improvements to Colonial Boulevard and Daniels Road As previously found, portions of Colonial Boulevard and Daniels Road are projected to fail even after six-laning. Therefore, it is appropriate to impose a requirement that WGC mitigate for its significant impacts on those roads when additional improvements are identified. On September 5, 1990, the County proposed to impose a proportionate share of the cost of those additional improvements on WGC, which is in relation to its use of the capacity of those roads. This restrictive amendment resolves an issue raised by WGC. (Spikowski, Tr. 1805-06; Respondent's Exhibit 742). Other Revisions The position taken by the County on September 5, 1990, contains other conforming changes to Areas 1 and 2 transportation conditions in the 1989 DO. It also updates provisions of the 1985 DO to lodge the county engineer's transportation review responsibilities in the Board of County Commissioners, to replace a required proportionate share agreement with DO conditions, and to require WGC to propose traffic mitigation in the TIS. All such changes are found to be reasonable and appropriate. (Spikowski, Tr. 1801-02; Gibbs, Tr. 2138; Respondent's Exhibit 742). Inflation Index If a revised Gateway Area .2 DO allows payment of a portion of the proportionate share by WGC after 1990, as the County now proposes if a year 2000 development program is used, then those future payment amounts should be adjusted for inflation at the time of payment. The year 2000 program allows payment over the first six years of the ten-year Area 2 development phase. The appropriate inflation index to use is the state highway construction cost index published in the Engineering News-Record (McGraw-Hill). (Crawford, Tr. 2768-69; Spikowski, Tr. 1804; Respondent's Exhibit 742). Substantial Deviation By its position taken on September 5, 1990, the County also proposed to find that, due to the fact that the Gateway Area 2 application addressed new, additional or previously unreviewed substantial impacts, such as road impacts, there is a substantial deviation to the 1985 original DO, but if the proposed conditions are met, the application may be approved. The SWFRPC planner who coordinated SWFRPC review of the original Gateway DRI application established that the application did not include the detailed information for Area 2 required for DRI review and that the Area 2 transportation impacts under 1989 road conditions could be different than those originally reviewed. Gateway Area 2 will require improvements beyond the six-laning of Daniels Road by 1995 or 2000, for example, while the SWFRPC's 1984 impact assessment projected that six lanes were all that would be needed by 2010. (Spikowski, Tr. 1607, 1892; Burr, Tr. 2692, 2695-96, 2710-11; Respondent's Exhibits 22 and 742). WGC Alternate Mitigation Proposals During the course of this proceeding, WGC witnesses discussed at least five different approaches to the determination of appropriate mitigation for the transportation impacts of Gateway Areas 1 and 2. They included: A so-called regional planning council method of division of a proportionate share by two; The DCA rule proportionate share method; A method correlating projected WGC trips to a percentage of projected County road costs in the year 2000; Road impact fees including an independent fee assessment for Gateway; and The proportionate share variation of the DCA rule used by Lee County, previously described. Only the last two methods were shown to be potentially applicable to this case. These proposed approaches are discussed below. (Kendig, Tr. 266-67; WGC Exhibit 46). Regional planning council division by two method WGC witness Kendig suggested that the SWFRPC had a mitigation method resulting in a $15.9 million proportionate share. However, this suggestion was disavowed by SWFRPC staff and other witnesses. One premise for the $15.9 million proportionate share is apparently a calculation by County staff in 1989 using a 1% rather than 5% significance test which determined that the WGC proportionate share for Areas 1 and 2 would be approximately $31 million. A second premise for the $15.9 million amount is apparently a statement in a November 2, 1989 memorandum by SWFRPC staff concerning proportionate share issues. The memorandum contains a statement at the bottom of the first page that "the act of `cutting in half' is only appropriate when 100% of all trips are counted for their full length." However, it was explained that the statement is meant to require assessment of all DRI trips (not just those that were significant at 5% or more) over their full length of travel, even on roads not operating at an adverse level of service, and that the memorandum was not an endorsement of the proposed method. (Spikowski, Tr. 1937-39; Jackson, Tr. 741- 42, 978-79; Loveland, Tr, 1206-07; Daltry, Tr. 2637-38, 2645). WGC's Calculations Under DCA Rule Under the DCA DRI transportation policy rule, the County was specifically authorized to impose greater monetary mitigation than the required proportionate share contribution minimum under the DCA rule. The "DCA rule" proportionate share of $14.6 million calculated by WGC witness Jackson on August 31, 1990, using assumptions taken from DCA witness Bittaker and of $12 million determinined by Jackson on the last day of hearing are questionable and inapplicable. (Jackson, Tr. 1006, 3560-61, 3571-72; WGC Exhibit 95). The August 31, 1990, calculation underestimates the proportionate share by failing to cumulate the impacts of Gateway trips from 1990 to 2000 as should have been done. That understatement on one road link alone was shown to be $850,000. This calculation also ignores significant environmental, permitting, and right-of-way cost and acquisition problems related to an assumed four-lane improvement on Penzance Road. The analysis inexplicably assumes also that all Gateway DRI trips will be removed from major portions of Daniels Road and put on Penzance Road. The only improvement to Penzance Road presently under consideration is an extension of a two-lane road. Even that improvement will be extremely controversial environmentally, due to a proposed crossing of the Six Mile Cypress Slough. Permitting for another road crossing of the Six Mile Cypress Slough took twelve years and permitting related to this route has not begun. Problems with the proportionate share calculation under the DCA rule proposed by Jackson also included a $1 million per mile understatement of the actual cost of improving Daniels Road as determined by witness Brown. (Jackson, Tr. 777, 1008-13, 1015-23, 3572-73; Segal-George, Tr. 1185, 1189; Brown, Tr. 2521, 2535-36; Hall, Tr. 3062-63; Respondent's Exhibit 739). Mitigation as Percentage of Year 2000 Road Costs Another mitigation method suggested by WGC was to assess WGC $12.4 million as a percentage of total costs for new roads needed in the County for growth between 1987 and 2000, because Areas 1 and 2 trips would constitute 5% of new trips in the County during that time period. However, the supporting testimony and mathematical assumptions used by WGC witnesses Kendig and Jackson for this calculation were confusing and questionable and County witnesses identified a number of infirmities in that approach. Moreover, it is noted that no regulatory agency in the State has ever used this methodology in analyzing proportionate share mitigation. Accordingly, the proposed mitigation method should not be used. (Kendig, Tr. 256-64; Jackson, Tr. 709, 744, 956-61; C. Swenson, Tr. 1357-58; Hall, Tr. 3048; WGC Exhibit 42). WGC's Independent Impact Fee Analysis At final hearing, WGC witness Jackson maintained that the best method of determining the transportation mitigation owed for Gateway Areas 1 and 2 was by independent impact fee calculation approach provided for under the 1989 and 1990 Lee County road impact fee ordinances and that the resulting dollar mitigation was $14.6 million. The 1989 impact fee ordinance established specific criteria and procedures to be followed when a developer proposes to use an independent impact fee calculation rather than standard impact fee rates. However, witness Jackson did not have the information needed to do an independent calculation in accordance with the ordinance and did not submit any such calculation in accordance with the ordinance before final County action on the Area 2 DO in December 1989. (Jackson, Tr. 751-52, 795-96, 799-800, 973; WGC Exhibits 85 and 94; Respondent's Exhibits 564 and 891). The calculation proposed by Jackson makes assertions that did not go through the required pre-review procedure established by the ordinance and lacks supporting documentation that should be subjected to review. Indeed, the ordinance established a rational administrative procedure for such calculations and does not allow for adjustment outside its terms. (Nicholas, Tr. 3420-21, 3458-61). DRI Proportionate Share v. Impact Fee Mitigation Both sides agree that the DRI proportionate share approach under the DCA rule and the County variation and the impact fee approach are two different methods unlikely to produce the same dollar amount mitigation requirements. WGC representatives were aware of this during review of AMP 2. Other County DRIs have had proportionate share mitigation imposed that was greater than County impact fees. One such example is the Airport Expansion DRI which had a proportionate share that was $5 million more than impact fees. (Jackson Tr. 811; C. Swenson, Tr. 1354-56, 1389-90; Hall, Tr. 3118-19, Nicholas, Tr. 3391-92; Anderson, Tr. 2031; Spikowski, Tr. 1810-13; Respondent's Exhibit 682). The proportionate share approach is preferable for DRI transportation mitigation because it is site-specific and precise, focused on DRI traffic near the DRI and the identification of specific roads that are significantly impacted by traffic reasonably attributable to the DRI. This approach also considers the fact that trips to and from the DRI will congregate around the DRI, cause the most congestion there, and therefore result in needed mitigation where those trips are traveling. The nature of the proportionate share approach moots WGC's argument that development of Gateway will not alter total County growth since a theoretical shift of new population to a DRI should also theoretically result in fewer road needs in less developed portions of the County. (Hall, Tr. 3119, 3328, 3346-47; Kendig, Tr. 253). The DCA firmly believes that a DRI proportionate share approach is preferable to local road impact fees to mitigate a DRI's road impacts. This is because impact fees and a DCA rule proportionate share calculation can differ, DRI exactions are site-specific, and different mathematical formulas are used. For example, while the impact fees charged a DRI in one location versus another could be the same, the proportionate share calculation for that same DRI could differ by several million dollars. (Beck, Tr. 1978-79, 1981). Impact fee methodology is based on simplified averaging assumptions that do not relate to the impact of a particular project on any particular roads and that do not consider the actual conditions of those roads. It is important to consider specific levels of service on specific roads to determine the total magnitude of the problem. The impact fee approach in the County only calculates the hypothetical lane miles that are projected to be used by a project. Moreover, the impact fee formula does not identify specific links that will have trips on them from a DRI or look at whether a road is operating beyond capacity. Further, the impact fee ordinance does not fund any particular roads or implement any County long-range road improvement plan. Finally, while a proportionate share approach tries to be project specifics an impact fee uses averages. (Hall, Tr. 3118-19, 3142, 3346-47; C. Swenson, Tr. 1364-65, 1431; Jackson, Tr. 972, 980-81; Mierzejewski, Tr. 1146-47, 1179-80; Fishkind, Tr. 1285) Impact fees are based on averages and several simplifying assumptions: all new developments are average; all types of development proceed evenly; roads can be built one foot at a time as fees are collected; site- specific or development-specific problems are handled at development or DRI approval stage because they are assumed away at the later building permit stage when impact fees are collected; and each new development sends its trips to a destination where another impact fee is paid. The impact fee approach allocates the fair share cost of road facilities on a road capacity basis for an average road, whereas a DRI proportionate share looks at specific improvements needed. (Nicholas, Tr. 3400-02, 3439-40, 3506-07). When the DCA developed its DRI transportation policy rule, and since that time, it has been lobbied by various interests to adopt an impact fee approach to DRI mitigation but that approach has always been rejected. The reasons for rejection include the fact that impact fees are calculated only to mitigate local impacts while a DRI must mitigate regional impacts. Proportionate share "pipelining" also causes road improvements to occur more expeditiously than impact fees which are paid at the building permit stage and which must be pooled until there is enough money to fund a road improvement. Also, impact fees can be spent anywhere in an impact fee benefit district, while proportionate share "pipelining" generally results in improvements of roads near the DRI. (Beck, Tr. 1963, 1979, 1980-81, 1997-98). It was established that the County did not adopt its impact fee ordinance as the sole method of transportation impact mitigation. The ordinance was intended to be in addition to other County regulatory activities, including DRI regulation. (Nicholas, Tr. 3413-16; WGC Exhibit 85). There are a number of general reasons, including the project-specific nature of a proportionate share, why the dollar amounts calculated under the DRI proportionate share approach and an impact fee differ. A proportionate share contribution for a DRI includes mitigation of regional impacts and logically requires mitigation above local impact fees for local roads. Even if there is no local impact fee a DRI must mitigate its regional transportation impacts through the DRI process. In practice, private developers also find that DRI exact ions commonly exceed impact fees because they may cover both regional and local impacts and impact fees are only charged for local road impacts. In fact, the transportation mitigation required for Gateway Area 1 was a DRI proportionate share exceeding impact fees. The Area 1 DO also made it clear that the proportionate share should be imposed, even if an independent impact fee calculation reducing standard fees was performed. (Crawford, Tr. 2841-42; Beck, Tr. 1964, 1973, 1978-79; Hopping, Tr. 2608; Jackson, Tr. 778; Respondent's Exhibit 107). There are additional reasons why impact fees and DRI proportionate share calculations may vary. The County impact fee ordinance was designed to keep fees as low as possible. The road construction and right-of-way costs assumed in the most recent County impact fee study are conservative due to exclusions of a number of items from the cost base, including road projects with high environmental mitigation costs, toll facilities, urban interchanges, and business damages to and damages for destruction of buildings on right-of-way property. Indeed, the impact fee average costs for construction and right-of- way may be 20 to 40 percent below median, based on those factors. On the other hand, a DRI proportionate share may be greater because it is designed to pay for the cost of major improvements up front in exchange for development approval in advance of actual road capacity. (Nicholas, Tr. 3383; C. Swenson, Tr. 1345-47, 1350-51, 1364-65, 1371, 1432). County witness Hall identified three site-specific reasons that account for the present value difference between impact fee and DRI proportionate share amounts for Gateway, all relating to the roads in the vicinity of Gateway. First, Interstate 75 to the west of Gateway functions like a "Great Wall of China" where it is easy to travel along the top but difficult to pass through. There are only three crossings of I-75 available in Gateway's vicinity. Second, there is no traditional grid pattern of streets in Gateway's vicinity. Those grids are essential to disperse traffic, but expensive to implement. Third, the roads that have surrounded Gateway and need to be improved as a result of its and other development are two-lane roads. These three factors call for very expensive solutions, which an independent impact fee method cannot address because it does not focus on specific roads and their locations and conditions. (Hall, Tr. 3044-48). When inflation is taken into account, the difference between the DRI proportionate share and impact fees for Gateway Areas 1 and 2 is relatively narrow. This finding comports with the testimony of County witnesses Nicholas, C. Swenson and Hopping. (C. Swenson, Tr. 1353-54; Nicholas, Tr. 3393-98; Hopping, Tr. 2618; Respondent's Exhibits 731, 891, 896 and 897). L. Affordable Housing The original DO granted to WGC the right to develop 19,932 dwelling units subject to the following housing condition found in paragraph 51: WGC shall cause to be provided a range of housing types to be addressed during the Area Master Plan review. The amendment to the original DO adopted on January 4, 1990, provided the following conditions relative to housing in paragraph J: WGC will provide a full range of housing types in Area 2, in conformance with the Lee Plan definition of New Community. WGC shall ensure that appropriate levels of low and moderate income housing will be provided within Gateway. When 1990 census results are available (approximately 1992), these results shall be analyzed to determine if a minimum of 10% of all new and existing housing units are attainable to low and moderate income families (utilizing the Census Bureau definition). If the County determines that this cannot be verified, then Gateway Areas 1 and 2 shall be required to provide the appropriate levels of such housing. WGC contends that the condition in paragraph 2. is unwarranted and that the County has no basis for imposing this condition on a previously approved DRI, particularly in light of the condition in paragraph 51 of the original DO. In its revised position adopted on September 5, 1990, the County proposed that approval of Area 2 be conditioned on amending paragraph 51 of the 1985 DO Condition to read as follows: WGC shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners the existence of, or cause to be provided a range of housing types (e.g., a full mix of housing types for a full range of household incomes, including low and moderate incomes) that will enable people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment within the Gateway community. The County would further condition approval of Area 2 on making the requirement applicable for all future development approvals. (Respondent's Exhibits 606 and 742). This compromise proposal is reasonable and is supported by the evidence because it: Removes the 10% countywide affordable housing criterion, which is no longer a requirement of the County's comprehensive plan; Ties together housing and employment, like the statutory criterion for DRI review (Subsection 380.06(12)(a)5., F.S.) which is currently the subject of emerging DCA policy; Is consistent with the linkage between housing and employment which is a basic rationale for Gateway's New Community classification under the County's comprehensive plan; and Recognizes the advantage of using current census data, among others, during each incremental review. (Cook, Tr. 2337, 2344, 2351; Keyes, Tr. 1519-20, 1563; Beck, Tr. 2006-09; Spikowski, Tr. 1802-03, 1806; Starnes, Tr. 2451, 2507, 2510-11; Kendig, Tr. 216, 218, 224-225; Schmoyer, Tr. 118-119). Airport-Related Restrictions The Southwest Florida Regional Airport (the airport) in Lee County officially opened in May 1983, before approval of the Gateway DRI. It is located on approximately 3,515 acres to the southeast of the Gateway DRI. The original 1977 master plan for the airport recommended establishment of airport noise/hazard zones near the airport and they were adopted as part of Lee County Ordinance No. 78-12. A portion of the property now owned by WGC was included in a zone category prohibiting residential development. Those zones were delineated by quarter-, half- and full section lines to reflect the fact that they were based on annual average, not peak season, noise conditions and to avoid splitting small parcels between zones. In 1985 and 1987, the airport conducted a Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, which also recommended adoption of airport noise zones to restrict development in areas around the airport based on noise contours. (Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2059- 60; WGC Exhibit 17; Respondent's Exhibits 682 and 697). The Lee County Port Authority (Port Authority) reviews developments in the vicinity of the airport for issues related to land use and noise compatibility and use of navigational airspace under various state and federal laws. In agreements for airport funding, the Port Authority has assured the federal government that it will restrict land uses near the airport for compatibility with airport operations. These regulations mandate that the Port Authority prevent airport hazards, which are structures or land uses that obstruct airspace needed for aircraft flights or that are otherwise hazardous to aircraft. (Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2049-50, 2053-54). The County has implemented the federal and state requirements by adopting the 1987 Airport Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, 1989 amendments to its local comprehensive plan under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and 1989 zoning code amendments in Ordinance No. 89-31. (Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2042, 2053- 54; Respondent's Exhibits 236, 410 and 697). The 1989 County local comprehensive plan adopted January 31, 1989, included a land use policy establishing airport noise zones as overlay designations on the future land use map. Zone 2 does not allow mobile homes. Zone 3 does not allow residential uses, churches, libraries, schools, hospitals, correctional institutions, or nursing homes. The policy also provides that prior to issuance of all building permits and development orders in Zones 2 and 3, noise and avigation easements must be dedicated to the County by the property owner. (Respondent's Exhibit 236). In developing the avigation easement concept, the County recognized that, although the location chosen for the airport was remote, it was important that the airport have room for expansion. In determining what kind of regulations to impose on land uses near the airport, the County decided that, rather than forbidding certain types of development, it would allow less noise sensitive development as an alternative. The County has regulations that may deny noise sensitive development incompatible with the airport to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Indeed, WGC concedes that the County also can prohibit construction of tall structures due to their adverse effects on flight safety, human safety and radar interference. (Spikowski, Tr. 1920; Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2071-72; Dolan, Tr. 658). The Part 150 study and 1989 comprehensive plan provisions were implemented through August 31, 1989 zoning code amendments in Ordinance No. 89- 31, which substantially revised Section 483 of the zoning code. The purposes of the regulations in Section 483 of the zoning code include promotion of the "maximum safety of aircraft" at county airports, the "maximum safety of residents and property" near the airports, establishment of building height standards for lands beneath aircraft flight paths and regulation of land uses in airport noise zones. The County declares that airport obstructions that may be hazardous to aircraft operations and persons and property in their vicinity are public nuisances and that it is necessary to the public health, safety and welfare that the creation of airport obstructions and incompatible land uses in the airport noise zones be prevented. (Barnes-Buchanon, Tr. 2053-54, 2080; Respondent's Exhibit 410; WGC Exhibit 112). A portion of the 1989 zoning code amendments creates airport noise zones in the vicinity of the airport, with Zones 2 and 3 implementing the land use restrictions contained in the 1989 comprehensive plan. The locations of Zones 2 and 3 are determined by legal descriptions contained in the zoning code, which followed the quarter-, half- and full-section approach in the 1978 county regulations for the same reasons. These legal descriptions are based on noise contours in the 1987 Part 150 study. The zoning amendments also require execution and recordation of a noise and avigation easement to the County before issuance of building permits or subdivision platting in Zones 2 or 3. (Barnes- Buchanan, Tr. 2060-61, 2069; Dolan, Tr. 586-87; Respondent's Exhibit 410; WGC Exhibit 112). Under the 1978 County noise zones, which remain in effect in addition to the 1989 zoning code designations, a portion of Gateway along its southern boundary has been and is located in Zone 3, prohibiting residential and other noise sensitive uses. The 1978 noise zones were expanded under the 1987 Part 150 study to include areas based on a different noise contour. A portion of Gateway along its eastern boundary also currently lies within Airport Noise Zone 2 under the 1989 comprehensive plan and zoning code. (Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2057, 2069, 2081-82; WGC Exhibit 115). The avigation easement required under the comprehensive plan and zoning code has several public purposes, including assurance of noise and other compatibility of neighboring land uses, regulation of tall structures and airport hazards, and provision of notice of airport operations to prospective buyers. A form that has been used as an "Avigation Easement and Release" provides for the grant by the landowner of a perpetual avigation easement and right of flight through navigable airspace above the owner's property and, separately, the release of claims by the landowner as a result of airport operations or aircraft activities and noise levels. The easement regulates land uses on the ground by precluding landowners from interfering with aircraft flights over the property. The release is intended to cover normal airport and aircraft operations. (Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2068A, 2072, 2085-86, 2091-92; WGC Exhibit 31; Respondent's Exhibit 721). The 1989 Area 2 DO on appeal included certain airport-related conditions. They implemented the 1989 comprehensive plan and zoning amendments by requiring that "[p]rior to the issuance of all building permits and development orders in Airport Noise Zones 2 and 3 (as defined in the 1989 Lee Plan) noise and avigation easements must be dedicated to Lee County." This language in the 1989 Area 2 DO was mutually agreed to by the Port Authority staff and WGC, and WGC anticipated such conditions. Indeed, WGC representatives had assumed as early as March 1988 that the airport would want to impose avigation easements as conditions of the next Gateway AMP. Language included in the final 1989 DO and a statement concerning inclusion of avigation easement language as required in the comprehensive plan were read over the telephone to WGC's manager of operations by Port Authority staff and WGC agreed the language was acceptable. (Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2048-49, 2053, 2062-64; Fisher, Tr. 2093- 98; Widmer, Tr. 1746-47; Anderson, Tr. 2034-35; Dolan, Tr. 582-83; Respondent's Exhibits 350, 356, 371, 381 and 895). At final hearing, WGC raised questions about the location of Airport Noise Zones 2 and 3 on the Gateway property. However, WGC failed to avail itself of any administrative remedies available to seek changes to the location of Noise Zones 2 and 3 on Gateway property. Although WGC brought the issue to the attention of Port Authority staff in November 1988, or prior to adoption of the 1989 comprehensive plan, it did not make a written request to adjust the noise zones then, did not file an administrative challenge to the comprehensive plan concerning location of the noise zones, did not seek a variance from the zoning amendments locating noise zones, and did not indicate problems with the location of the noise zones after adoption of the comprehensive plan on January 31, 1989. (Dolan, Tr. 561-63, 572-76, 588-89, 670-71; Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2069- 70, 2072-73) None of the maps presented by WGC at hearing showing noise contour lines relating to Noise Zones 2 and 3 was based on the Part 150 Study, although one WGC map (WGC Ex. 113) was so labelled. In fact, the WGC maps were based on unmonitored contour lines from the 1990 airport master plan update, which are conceptual lines that have not been adopted by the FAA as part of the Part 150 study. The last monitored noise contour lines are in the 1987 Park 150 study, which was used for the legal descriptions contained in the 1989 Zoning Code amendments. WGC conceded that the best existing monitored information is in the 1987 Part 150 Study, which contains a map of those noise contours. (Dolan, Tr. 584-88, 593-97, 654; Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2070-71, 2078-79; Respondent's Exhibit 697; WGC Exhibits 17, 113-115). The current designation of certain Gateway lands as Noise Zone 3, as carried forward from the 1978 zoning regulations, is based on inclusion of a northern general utility runway in the airport layout. The Noise Zone 3 designation on Gateway can be removed once the FAA approves the Port Authority's recommendation to remove that runway. Until then, it is prudent for planning purposes to ensure the Zone 3 protection. WGC concedes that the Noise Zone 3 issue is moot once the FAA acts to implement the Port Authority's recommendation and that WGC has not actively asked for deletion of the Noise Zone 3 overlay. (Barnes-Buchanan, Tr. 2069-70, 2081-82; Dolan, Tr. 589-90, 670). The land uses proposed in the AMP 2 application for Gateway lands included in Noise Zone 3 under the comprehensive plan are business and commercial uses, as allowed in that zone. The proposed land uses included in Noise Zone 2 are a utilities site, a park site, multi-family residential, commercial and school uses, all of which are allowed. If there is any error in mapping of Noise Zones 2 or 3 in Gateway, WGC knows of no logic for changing the proposed land uses in either zone and no proposals to do so were made. WGC presented no quantification of damages to WGC's property interest as a result of the avigation easement in favor of the County. (Dolan, Tr. 659-61). To clarify its intent concerning avigation easements, the County has proposed to incorporate a change providing that only the effects of normal airport operation, aircraft activities and noise levels would be covered by the easement. (Spikowski, Tr. 1807; Respondent's Exhibit 742). Other 1989 Development Order Conditions Fiscal Conditions Doctor Nicholas, the County's outside fiscal expert who provided fiscal analysis to the County in the development of the 1984 comprehensive plan testified: It became clear very early in the planning process that Lee County had more areas designated for development than were required to accommodate the anticipated growth and that it would be economically infeasible for Lee County to attempt to provide publicly financed infrastructure to a sprawled form of development. This policy decision ultimately led to the comprehensive planning classification of Gateway as a "New Community" requiring private, not public, provision of infrastructure. (Nicholas, Tr. 3372-75). In reviewing WGC's original ADA, County staff determined that neither it nor subsequent submittals had demonstrated that Gateway would be developed as a freestanding economic unit and would not impose negative fiscal impacts on the County, as required by the New Community provision of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, paragraph 46 of the 1985 Gateway DO provided that: WGC shall demonstrate with each Area Master Plan submittal that Gateway will not impose a negative fiscal impact upon the County. The first Area Master Plan will be based upon projections; subsequent Area Master Plan[s] shall include appropriate data from previously approved Area Master Plan[s] to support compliance with this condition. (Respondent's Exhibits 63 and 809). The DO Amendment for Area 1 added Condition H, "[c]onsistent with Gateway Development Order Condition No. 46:" WGC shall be required to monitor fiscal impact and present evidence of fiscal neutrality as part of its next Area Master Plan submittal, but in no case later than 5 years from the effective date of approval of Area Master Plan 1. Should Gateway not be determined to be fiscally neutral or fiscally positive, WGC will be required to remedy the deficiency prior to approval of the next Area Master Plan. The assumptions to be monitored include, but are not limited to: The number of dwelling units built and other constructed improvements and their sales prices; Percentage of units receiving homestead exemption and other applicable exemptions; The number of undeveloped acres and their value as assessed by the Lee County Property Appraiser; Factors relating to property taxes (assessment ratio, cost of sale factor, millage rate); Factors relating to expenditures (per capital expenditures for capital and operating); Factors relating to revenues; Cost factors relating to parks (acquisition and development cost per acre and acreage standards for parks); Rate of commercial development as compared to the initial projections; and The accuracy of the fiscal model used by WGC for projecting costs and revenues for the Gateway development. By its terms, this requirement applies to Area 2 and possibly "the next Area Master Plan." (Respondent's Exhibit 107). WGC's fiscal analysis for Area 2, dated April 19, 1989, stated: It is premature to monitor the fiscal impacts from Area 1 since there are certificates of occupancy only for the model center and offices. Until more construction activity occurs, monitoring should be delayed. Fairly soon after WGC submitted the Area 2 fiscal analysis its economic consultant discovered an error in the development absorption period used (20 years instead of 10 years). However, WGC decided not to call the error to the attention of the County during its review of Area 2. The error was corrected shortly before final hearing in the instant case. (Fishkind, Tr. 122 3-5, 1265- 6; WGC Exhibits 103 and 104). In the staff report to the Local Planning Agency dated June 5, 1989, County staff analyzed the WGC fiscal analysis for Gateway AMP 2 as follows: Gateway's economic consultant has done an analysis of the fiscal impacts of the project using a range of variables in response to staff questions. Although staff generally accepts the various computer runs, there are still outstanding concerns and questions: Any computer model is only as accurate as the variables used in the calculations. In the case of a long term project such as Gateway, the major assumption is that the project will be constructed and sold as it is currently phased, planned and priced. In other words, the fiscal impact model assumes from the beginning the project will be an economic success. If this assumption is accurate, the project will, after 3 to 5 years, be yielding a net positive cash flow to local government. However, the future fiscal impacts are difficult to predict due to changes in taxable values, residential and commercial development variables, and the project phasing and construction period. If any of these items should change significantly, the fiscal impact of the project could be very different. Gateway has a requirement (Area 1 Development Order Condition 46) to perform a fiscal analysis for each area when submitted and to monitor the fiscal impacts of previously submitted areas. It is not possible to monitor Area 1 because there has been no substantive construction for use in the fiscal impact model. When originally submitted, the phasing schedule estimated that by 1990 there would be 2,080 dwelling units and 119 acres of commercial development existing in the project. DRI projects typically do not meet their phasing schedules, and this invalidates the fiscal impact model. As part of the DRI annual monitoring report required by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Gateway should provide sufficient information to allow staff to update the fiscal impact model rather than having to wait until the submission of the next area plan in addition to the existing monitoring requirement. The applicant's consultant has added one variable not generally used by staff. The variable is the tax dollars generated by the undeveloped land that is part of the project. The addition of this variable has the effect of causing the project to demonstrate a net positive cash flow much sooner than it normally would. The fiscal impact model uses average county values and assumes that all locations of all projects in the county are equivalent when, in fact, they are not. For the above reasons staff recommends that there be no further Area Master Plan submittals until Areas 1 and 2 have been developing for at least three to five years and there is sufficient information to monitor and update the impacts from Areas 1 and 2. (WGC Exhibit 128). In the staff report to the County dated July 31, 1989, County staff abbreviated their comments on the fiscal analysis as follows: Gateway's economic consultant has done an analysis of the fiscal impacts of the project using a range of variables in response to staff questions. The concern with fiscal impact analysis is the long-term build-out of the project. Gateway has a requirement (Area 1 Development Order Condition 46) to perform a fiscal analysis for each area when submitted and to monitor the fiscal impacts of previously submitted areas. It is not possible to monitor Area 1 at this time because there has been no substantive construction for use in the fiscal impact model. When originally submitted, the phasing schedule estimated that by 1990 there would be 2,080 dwelling units and 119 acres of commercial development existing in the project. DRI projects typically do not meet their phasing schedules. Gateway has provided language that would allow for monitoring at five-year intervals until it is determined that fiscal neutrality occurs. Staff is reviewing this language, which initially appears to resolve this issue. (WGC Exhibit 133). At the December 11, 1989, final County hearing leading to adoption of the 1989 DO for Gateway Area 2, WGC's economic consultant stated that: The last thing I would offer for your consideration is that this project generates a rather large fiscal surplus of the county budget after accounting as best we can for fiscal impacts. That was one of the conditions that this Commission required of Area One and now requires of Area Two. And we have a monitoring provision in the development order that as soon as there is support development to monitor we'll be able to get a better appreciation on what it is. But the numbers are -- the positives are quite large. I'm confident after monitoring that's how the equation will turn out. The County responded by adding Paragraph 46b. to the 1985 DO: 46b. If staff can not determine at the time of the Area Master Plan submittal whether or not Gateway will impose a negative fiscal impact upon the County, due to the lack of available data or lack of agreement on the fiscal model, then WGC shall submit a fiscal monitoring analysis in five years from the date of the most recent Area Master Plan approval, and every five years thereafter, until staff has sufficient data to undertake a valid analysis on the fiscal neutrality issue. WGC accepted this treatment of the issue. (Gibbs, Tr. 1248; Respondent's Exhibits 588 and 606). There is general agreement that, in the long run, Gateway's overall fiscal impact on the County should be positive. Although the point that it becomes positive has not yet been shown through monitoring, WGC suggested that any general revenue surplus could be used by the County to offset Gateway's road impacts. WGC also acknowledged, however, that the County could have higher priorities to which such funds may be devoted. WGC's fiscal analysis, dated September 13, 1990, points out that, at least in the short run, the County's expenditures, like those of local governments throughout much of Florida, substantially exceed revenues. The general policy throughout the federal, state and local governments is that transportation should be financed through user fees and "that general taxation should not be used to finance transportation unless there is a clear and extraordinary benefit accruing to the general public." The County does not utilize ad valorem tax revenues to build roads. (Koste, Tr. 611; Fishkind, Tr. 1228, 1296; Spikowski, Tr. 1857; Nicholas, Tr. 3365-66, 3368, 3382-83, 3428-30; Respondent's Exhibits 10 and 236). In its petition filed in this case, despite its earlier agreement, WGC asserted that paragraph 46.b. "goes far beyond the substantive scope of review of an area master plan under the Gateway DRI Development Order." Accordingly, in an effort to be fair to WGC, the County has proposed a less stringent requirement which deletes paragraph 46.b. and states in lieu thereof: "Condition H of Master Plan 1 shall also apply to Area 2." (Gibbs, Tr. 2305-06; Respondent's Exhibit 742). WGC's corrected fiscal analysis for Area 2 dated September 13, 1990, and submitted at hearing in the instant case, remains a projection and does not purport to contain the monitoring data required for Area 1. WGC conceded that its projections for non-residential development at Gateway are "aggressive". It is reasonable, therefore, to leave Condition H of the Area Master Plan 1 DO Amendment applicable to Area 2 as proposed by the County. In addition to proposing a revision for fiscal conditions, County planning staff has proposed other minor changes to the 1989 DO on appeal, which are set forth in respondent's exhibit 742. (Gibbs, Tr. 2305-06; Fishkind, Tr. 1276-76; WGC Exhibit 104; Respondent's Exhibit 742). Abandonment of DRI In the 1989 DO which was appealed, the County added a condition to the 1985 DO related to the abandonment of the Gateway DRI. It provided that if no significant development activity occurred for five years, the DRI would be required to cease development pending further County consideration. After further examination of state regulations concerning abandonment, County planners concluded that this condition was unnecessary, and the County has subsequently proposed to delete this condition. This proposal resolves an issue raised by WGC. (Spikowski, Tr. 1803, 1888; Respondent's Exhibit 742). Protective Services The 1989 Area 2 DO on appeal contained a provision limiting credits toward impact fees imposed for police, fire and emergency medical protective services to 57% of the value of any land dedicated by WGC for such purposes. After further consideration, County planners concluded that provisions related to impact fee credits for land dedications by WGC for provision of these services should be instead subject generally to the credit provisions of the protective services impact fee ordinance. The County now proposes to delete the 5% limitation and provide that WGC would be eligible for impact fee credits based on the fair market value of protective services sites dedicated under the terms of impact fee ordinances addressing protective services needs. This resolves an issue raised by WGC. (Spikowski, Tr. 1806; Respondent's Exhibits 606 and 742). Roadway Maintenance The 1985 DO contained a provision requiring that WGC or a Community Development District created by WGC pay for operation and maintenance of all roads within the Gateway DRI, except for arterial and collector roads built as a result of the Lee County Official Trafficways Map. The 1989 DO on appeal modified this provision to require the County to pay the operation and maintenance costs for arterial roads serving a countywide function and shown on the Official Trafficways Map, while leaving responsibility for operation and maintenance of other arterial up to future Board determination. To address this issue raised by WGC, the County has now proposed to reinstate the original 1985 DO condition, which was unchallenged by WGC. (Respondent's Exhibits 505, 742, and 809). General Governmental Facilities and Park Site Hearing Procedures The 1989 Area 2 DO contained provisions related to procedures for locating sites within Gateway for general governmental facilities and park sites. These provisions established that if WGC and County staff could not agree on location of such sites, the issue would be sent to the County's Hearing Examiner for resolution. The County has proposed to add procedural details for appeals to the Hearing Examiner making it clear that such proceedings will be administrative appeals like others governed by the provisions of the Lee County Zoning Ordinance. (Spikowski, Tr. 1806-07; Respondent's Exhibits 606 and 742). Wildlife and Vegetation Condition The parties have agreed that a stipulation and agreement dated September 6, 1990, resolves the appeals in regard to the vegetation and wildlife condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission adopt an amended final development order for Gateway Area 2 approving the application subject to conditions. Those conditions should incorporate the proposed September 5, 1990 revisions to the County's 1989 Area 2 Development Order, including the County's October 1990 determination of the required transportation proportionate share contribution and the further payment option described in conclusion of law 213. Respectfully submitted this 14th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX Petitioner WGC: 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. 4-5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 6. Covered in preliminary statement. 7-8. Rejected as being unnecessary. 9-12. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 15-16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. 17-21. Partially adopted to the extent they are consistent with findings of fact 11 through 25. 22-28. Adopted in conclusion of law 203 to the extent the undersigned found the project is not an AMDA. 29. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. 30. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. 31. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. 32. Partially adopted in finding of fact 20. 33-34. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. 35-36. Partially adopted in finding of fact 19. 37. Partially adopted in finding of fact 42. 38. Partially adopted in finding of fact 38. 39. Partially adopted in finding of fact 17. 40. Partially adopted in finding of fact 18. 41. Partially adopted in finding of fact 19. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Partially adopted in finding of fact 18. 44-46. Partially adopted in findings of fact 17-25. 47. Partially adopted In finding of fact 32. 48. Partially adopted in finding of fact 35. 49. Partially adopted in finding of fact 42. 50. Partially adopted in finding of fact 38. 51-52. Partially adopted in finding of fact 37. 53-58. Partially adopted in finding of fact 38. 59-63. Partially adopted in finding of fact 64-65. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. 68-69. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Covered in conclusion of law 201. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. 72-77. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. 80-81. Rejected as being unnecessary 82-83. Partially adopted in finding of fact 193. 84-86. Partially adopted in findings of fact 183-192. 87-105. Partially adopted in findings of fact 164-167. 106-111. Partially adopted in findings fact 168-181. 112-116. Partially adopted in finding of fact 194. 117-119. Partially adopted in finding of fact 196. 120. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 121-127. Partially adopted in finding of fact 195. 128-131. Partially adopted in findings of fact 132-134. 132-137. Partially adopted in finding of fact 196. 138-140. Partially adopted in finding of fact 197. 141-315. Partially adopted in findings of fact 43-163. Petitioner DCA: 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 2-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 17. 5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 20. 6-7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 32. 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 35. 9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 63. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially adopted in finding of fact 44. Partially adopted in findings of fact 97-99. 13-14. Partially adopted in findings of fact 94-95. Partially adopted in findings of fact 96-97. Partially adopted in findings of fact 61-100. Partially adopted in finding of fact 82. Partially adopted in finding of fact 92. 19-20. Partially adopted in finding of fact 130. 21. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. 22-23. Partially adopted in finding of fact 19. 24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 154 25-27. Partially adopted in findings of fact 72 and 155. 28. Partially adopted in finding of fact 95. 29-30. Partially adopted in finding of fact 96. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible evidence. Note -- Where proposed findings have been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the more credible evidence, or a conclusion of law. Respondent: Respondent's proposed findings of fact have been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Carlton Building, Room 415 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Charles L. Siemon, Esquire Andrew C. Stansell, Esquire Laura E. Peck, Esquire 2 East Camino Real Boca Raton, FL 33432 Peter D. Doragh, Esquire 11691 Gateway Boulevard Fort Myers, FL 33913 M. D. Adelson IV, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Gary P. Sams, Esquire Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Diana M. Parker, Esquire O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 David E. Bruner, Esquire 1114-B North Collier Boulevard Marco Island, FL 33937 James G. Yeager, Esquire 1831 Hendry Street Fort Myers, FL 33901
Findings Of Fact On or about February 13, 1995, Petitioner, Hillary Sklar, filed Petitioner's Second Amended Petition. Ms. Sklar has challenged the Department's determination that an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan adopted by Ordinance No. 94-2-2 was "in compliance." In the second amended petition Ms. Sklar made the following allegations concerning her standing to institute this proceeding: * * * 2. The Petitioner's address is 11321 Southwest 49th Place, Fort Lauderdale, 33330, in the County of Broward, Florida. * * * 4. On February 8, 1994, the Respondent passed Ordinance NO. 94 -2 -2 authorizing the implement- ation of Land Use Plan Amendment 94 - S - 1. The Land Use Plan Amendment affects property located at 11791 Southwest 49th Street, Cooper City, in the County of Broward. . . . * * * Petitioner's property is located in a section of unincorporated Broward County which abuts and adjoins the property in question. Petitioner's property has been defined by Respondent as an "enclave." Petitioner's property is similarly situated to those of property owners in Cooper City and will be affected more than those property owners located in Cooper City; including, but not limited to, the allegations contained in Paragraphs 10 through 17, inclusive. Petitioner made objections to the ordinance at the February 8, 1994 City Council meeting discussing adoption of the ordinance. . . . * * * Ms. Sklar has still failed to allege that she resides, owns property or operates a business located with a City of Cooper City address or which otherwise is subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Cooper City. The oral objections made by Ms. Sklar were made at a public hearing of the City of Cooper City Council held on February 8, 1994. According to the minutes of that meeting, Ms. Sklar "said the zoning is a done deal and the annexation and sale was a done deal. Why should it be a done deal before the Public Hearing was held, she asked." The factual information contained in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order is hereby incorporated by reference.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's Second Amended Petition, filed by Hillary Sklar. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward R. Curtis, Esquire Bruce Botsford, Esquire 1828 S.E. 1st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Suzanne H. Schmith Certified Legal Intern Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
