The Issue Whether Respondent, Gateway Foundation (Respondent or Gateway), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992,1 by discriminating against the employment of Elise L. Alex-Tanner (Petitioner) because of her age, gender, or race, or in retaliation for her engagement in protected activities. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, and federal laws are to the current versions, which have not substantively changed since the time of the alleged discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Gateway is a not-for-profit organization that provides substance abuse treatment to individuals in residential, outpatient, and correctional program settings at prison facilities. Gateway has a contract with the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) to provide substance abuse treatment services to incarcerated individuals at FDOC facilities. Gateway employees assigned to work within FDOC facilities must comply with Gateway policies and procedures set forth in Gateway’s Code of Conduct and Employee and Professional Boundaries policy, as well as correctional facility policies and procedures. Gateway’s policies and procedures require employees to follow defined standards of conduct that prohibit, inter alia, insubordination, intimidating coworkers, acting contrary to the best interests of the employer, indecent activity, accepting client gifts, and violations of policy. In accordance with Gateway’s policies and procedures, employees must maintain professional behavior and boundaries with clients, including having no social, sexual, or romantic relationships. 2 Unfortunately, Respondent’s Proposed Recommended Order was less helpful because it did not cite to the record as instructed. See pp. 388-389 of Transcript (“should refer back to the record”). Gateway employees working within assigned correctional facilities must maintain security clearance from the correctional facility or be subject to termination. On January 2, 2019, Gateway hired Petitioner as a Counselor I at the Marion County Correctional Institution located in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner’s job functions were to provide substance abuse disorder treatment through group and individual counseling for incarcerated clients while under employer supervision. Gateway relies heavily on its counselors to demonstrate proper judgment regarding substance abuse issues to effectively and safely guide clients recovering from serious addiction. Gateway managers at treatment facilities provide regular coaching and supervision to employees to recognize good performance, address conduct issues, and provide feedback to help the employee have job success. Petitioner was 38 years old at the time of her hire. Her supervisor was Dan Eberlein, who, as program director for Gateway at the facility, had three years’ experience with Gateway, and 28 years of prior experience working for the FDOC. In her Discrimination Complaint, Petitioner alleges: I believe I have been discriminated against pursuant to Chapter 760 of the Florida Civil Rights Act, and/or Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, and/or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act as applicable for the following reason(s): Complainant (CP), an African American female, began her employment with Respondent on 01/02/2019 and held the position of Counselor I. CP was subjected to disparate treatment, retaliation, different terms and conditions of employment and was held to a different standard because of her age (37) sex and race. CP performed the duties and responsibilities of her position in a satisfactory manner and was not the subject of any disciplinary issues. CP was subjected to harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination at the hands of Daniel (Dan) Eberlein, Director of Program. Dan would make sexual insinuations about clients and about CP when she would ask questions about them or meet with them for counseling sessions. Dan wrote CP up because she refused to sign a PIP because she didn’t agree with what Dan was documenting and made false allegations in the write up and physically assaulted and lied on CP. Dan told other staff members that CP was being inappropriate with clients and made her out to be this sexual unprofessional counselor because she wouldn’t mistreat the clients in the manner that Dan and other staff would. CP was retaliated by receiving write ups and monitored by equal level coworkers and staff, which is not allowed. CP was physically assaulted receiving a sprained wrist, CP was the only party put under investigation after her Supervisor (Dan) physically assaulted her. CP states Dan was not investigated nor reprimanded, and Dan was immediately allowed to continue work after CP was escorted off premises. CP was suspended without pay during investigation and failed to be updated on the progression of the investigation, parties purposely withheld documentation from investigation and lied about it, CP had to make all initial contact during investigation process, and no one would contact her nor update her during investigation. Subsequently CP was terminated. Petitioner was employed by Gateway for a total of approximately 10 months. During this period, Petitioner was repeatedly warned in writing, and verbally, of her continuing failure to observe professional boundaries, meet job expectations, and follow Gateway’s policies and procedures. On February 1, 2019, within 30 days of her hire, Petitioner was stopped at the prison gate by FDOC personnel, warned of a dress code violation, and sent home to change. On June 12, 2019, Petitioner, again, was warned of dress code violation by FDOC personnel and sent home to change. According to a staff supervision form dated June 14, 2019, Petitioner’s interaction with FDOC security staff that day “was less than professional.” At the hearing, Petitioner testified that the FDOC security staff that sent her home was composed of older black female officers who were harassing her. According to Petitioner, the security staff harassed her because they “barely have a high school diploma,” and were jealous of her education and good looks. Petitioner’s testimony in that regard, while plausible, was without corroboration and is not credited. Rather, Petitioner’s testimony revealed her attitude toward those security staff and is consistent with the report that her interactions with them that day were unprofessional. In addition to warning Petitioner about unprofessional conduct with security staff, that same staff supervision form dated June 14, 2019, reflects that Petitioner was warned that she violated Gateway’s Employee Ethical and Professional Boundaries policy by accepting gifts in the form of cards from clients. At the hearing, Petitioner denied accepting more than one card, but admitted accepting one card from an inmate. Although Petitioner refused to sign the June 14, 2019, Staff Supervision Form, she testified that she was aware of the concerns expressed in that form. During her employment with Gateway, Petitioner attended multiple staff meetings, including staff meetings on July 2, 2019; July 10, 2019; and July 25, 2019, where she was provided training on professional boundaries with clients and staff expectations. At those trainings, and as explicitly set forth in Section 2.5 of Gateway’s written Employee Ethical and Professional Boundaries policy, Petitioner was warned and advised: Employees must not engage in any dialogue with a client of a sexual or inappropriate nature or respond to inappropriate dialogue from clients in an unprofessional manner that might encourage a client to pursue such line of conversation. Clients should be immediately informed by the employee of the consequences if such discussion continues. The employee is to report this interaction to a supervisor immediately after the interaction occurs. On August 8, 2019, Petitioner was issued a written corrective action form reporting that Petitioner angrily argued with and criticized a colleague’s client management methods. While not agreeing with the way the incident was described in the form, Petitioner testified that she did not get along with the fellow employee, and explained that that she was in a bad mood that day because the son of a friend had been recently murdered. Petitioner signed the corrective action form on August 27, 2019. On August 27, 2019, Petitioner was given, and signed, a performance evaluation wherein she obtained a low score (1.9 out of 4.0) and was warned of required improvement based largely on her continued unprofessional conduct and poor communication with others. On October 14, 2019, Petitioner was warned again in a staff supervision form for violating Gateway’s Employee Ethical and Professional Boundaries Policy for disclosing personal information to a client concerning Petitioner’s Caucasian husband and mixed children. At the time it was issued, Petitioner refused to sign the form because she did not agree with its contents but testified at hearing that she was aware of the concerns set forth in the form. Because of her violations, Petitioner received increased scrutiny from her supervisor, Mr. Eberlein, who met with Petitioner on multiple occasions to discuss the dress code and boundary violations and to counsel her in open- door meetings. He also suggested that she meet with another more experienced employee to mentor her in proper behavior and attire. During this time, Mr. Eberlein kept track of when inmates visited Petitioner’s office. Petitioner perceived Mr. Eberlein’s increased scrutiny as harassment and a hostile work environment. On October 18, 2019, Petitioner made a call to Catherine Graham with Gateway’s human resources to report harassment and a hostile work environment. In a follow-up e-mail to Ms. Graham that day, Petitioner stated: Good morning. I’m having a [sic] issue that I have been dealing with for several months and I feel like I am working in a hostile work environment. My issue is with the director, Dan Eberlein. I have dealt with him making statements about my clothing, my hair and about inmates, implying that someone provoked certain behaviors. Allowing a fellow coworker to make sexist statements about - - I mean sexist statements without nothing being done about it. He himself making sexist statements about the way I look and implementing certain rules that I - - that only apply to me and not my coworkers. At this point I feel like I cannot properly do my job because I am stressed out and having breakdowns on and off the job because I don’t know what to do right at this point because my work ethic is being overlooked due to the harassing behavior. This behavior is not okay, and I refuse to continue having to deal with it. Thank you for your time. While Petitioner testified that she had spoken to her then-current supervisor, Mr. Roberts, on several occasions about her concerns, she did not call Mr. Roberts as a witness or provide further evidence beyond her testimony of the alleged harassment. Petitioner made no allegation, and there is no evidence that Mr. Eberlein ever made any improper advancements or sexually harassed Petitioner. The essence of Petitioner’s alleged hostile work environment claim is based on what she perceived as too much scrutiny. Under the circumstances, however, increased scrutiny of Petitioner’s performance was justified. Notwithstanding her warnings and training, on October 31, 2019, Mr. Eberlein caught Petitioner surreptitiously copying a sexually explicit document given to her by a client. The document, entitled “Arrest Warrant,” promised “kissing, licking, and sucking” and various other “obscene action” all over the arrestee’s “sweet and sexy body” until climatic “moaning and screaming.” The document (Sex Warrant) was attributed to, but was not issued by, the executive department of the State of Florida, the Secretary of State, and Governor. Neither the Secretary of State, Governor, nor any executive agency of the State of Florida issued the Sex Warrant. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted she was given the Sex Warrant by an inmate, and that she ran a google search on Gateway’s computer to locate copy of the Sex Warrant. She also admitted that she discussed the document with the inmate who gave it to her, and that she used Gateway’s copy machine to make copies of the document for personal use. After Mr. Eberlein caught Petitioner copying the Sex Warrant, which was considered prison contraband under both Gateway’s and FDOC’s policies, Mr. Eberlein confiscated the document and had an immediate meeting with Petitioner in his office, with the door open, to discuss the inappropriate nature of the document and Petitioner’s continuing violations of FDOC and Gateway policies and procedures. Petitioner’s possession and copying of the Sex Warrant in the FDOC facility constituted a violation of Gateway’s Employee Ethical and Professional Boundaries Policy and Code of Conduct. Petitioner’s possession and copying of the Sex Warrant for a prisoner client was sufficient grounds for Petitioner’s termination. When, during the meeting, Mr. Eberlein reminded Petitioner of her duty to report the client to the FDOC for the Sex Warrant, because it was contraband, Petitioner refused because she was concerned over what would happen to the prisoner client. During the meeting, Petitioner became angry, snatched the Sex Warrant off Mr. Eberlein’s desk, and abruptly left his office. In response, consistent with Gateway and FDOC policies and procedures, Mr. Eberlein immediately notified FDOC of the sexually explicit document and the incident. Upon being notified of the incident, FDOC employees escorted Petitioner from the facility to the parking lot. In addition, FDOC (not Gateway) immediately revoked Petitioner’s security clearance for all Florida correctional facilities, including Marion Correctional Institute, and commenced an investigation. After her removal from the facility, Petitioner called the Sheriff’s office and accused Mr. Eberlein of grabbing her right wrist to retrieve the Sex Warrant and that, as a result, her wrist was injured. Sheriff’s deputies responding to Petitioner’s accusations that day, and photos of Petitioner’s wrists taken at the time, indicate that Petitioner showed no signs of having been injured during the alleged incident. Mr. Eberlein adamantly denied Petitioner’s accusations. At the time of the alleged incident, Mr. Eberlein was approximately 80 years old with 31 years of combined professional experience with FDOC and Gateway. He had never been previously subject of any similar charge or any charge of discrimination. Mr. Eberlein was not arrested or criminally charged with any offense related to the incident as reported by Petitioner. Considering the evidence, it is found that Petitioner’s allegations against Mr. Eberlein are not credible and are not credited. After responding to the incident, Sheriff’s deputies told Petitioner to leave the facility or be issued a “no trespass” warning. Petitioner left the facility and her suspension commenced. Gateway investigated Petitioner’s accusations against Mr. Eberlein and found no corroboration. Revocation of Petitioner’s security clearance was, in and of itself, grounds for her immediate termination, as was her possession of the Sex Warrant under the circumstances. However, rather than immediately terminating Petitioner, Gateway suspended her for 15 days pending a FDOC investigation and a final decision by Gateway. On November 6, 2019, Gateway notified Petitioner that if the “FDOC will not permit her to return to work within 15 days, she may be subject to corrective action up to and including release from Employment”. On November 25, 2019, after expiration of 15 days, FDOC had not reinstated Petitioner’s security clearance, and she was terminated by Gateway.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Elsie L. Alex-Tanner 12 Banyan Drive Ocala, Florida 34472 Catherine Krolikiewicz Gateway Foundation Suite 1500 55 East Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Daniel Andrew Nicholas, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Suite 400 4301 West Boy Scout Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602
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
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether the Petition to Establish the Three Creeks Community Development District (Petition) meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
Conclusions Having considered the entire record in this cause, it is concluded That all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. That the creation of the CDD is not inconsistent with applicable elements or portions of the State Comprehensive Plan and the Clay County Local Comprehensive Plan, as amended. That the area of land within the proposed CDD is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. That the CDD is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the CDD. That the community development services and facilities of the CDD will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. That the area that will be served by the CDD is amenable to separate special-district government. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 28th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Patricia A. Woodworth, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 James Vaughn Office of Planning and Budget Environmental Policy Unit Room 404 Carlton Building 501 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to contract the Gateway Services District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Overview The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to contract a community development district currently comprised of approximately 5,474 acres located within the boundaries of unincorporated Lee County, Florida and the incorporated City of Fort Myers, Florida. The name for the District, after contraction, will be the Gateway Services Community Development District. At the time the Petition was filed, the District consisted of approximately 5,324 acres. However, on July 29, 2002, a Rule Amendment adopted by the Commission, and filed with the Secretary of State became effective, expanding the District to approximately 5,474 acres. The Petitioner seeks to contract the District by approximately 973 acres. The District, after contraction, will encompass approximately 4,501 acres. All of the property proposed to be contracted out of the District is located within the City of Fort Myers, Florida. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the contraction of the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission, dated January 2002; the Addendum to the Petition, dated March 25, 2002; and the Second Addendum to the Petition, dated July 16, 2002; and the Third Addendum to the Petition, dated July 25, 2002. Ward testified that he had reviewed the contents of the Petition and Exhibits as supplemented and amended by the addenda to the Petition. Ward testified that the Petition and exhibits as supplemented and amended by the addenda, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Tilton testified that he had reviewed Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 of the Petition. Exhibit 1 is the metes and bounds legal description and sketch of the existing District boundaries. Exhibit 2 is the legal description and sketch of the contraction parcels. Exhibit 3 is the amended legal description and sketch of the District, after contraction. Tilton testified that the legal description of the existing CDD boundaries was true and correct, and would be amended by a proposed Rule Amendment filed with the Secretary of State July 9, 2002, and effective July 29, 2002. Tilton testified that Exhibit 2 truly and accurately depicted the legal description of the property proposed for contraction from the District. A Third Addendum to the Petition, filed with the Department of Administrative Hearings on July 29, 2002, identified a scrivener's error in the proposed Rule Amendment filed on July 9, 2002, and included a legal description and sketch of the land within the District, after the contraction. This legal description and sketch amends and replaces Exhibit 3 of the Petition. This legal description was certified as true and accurate by CES Engineering. Garland testified that his office had prepared Exhibit 7 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC). Garland also testified the SERC included with the Petition was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Gnagey testified that at the time of the hearing, Worthington Holdings, Inc. was the owner of all of the lands to be contracted out of the District. Gnagey testified that a portion of the contraction property was under contract for sale. A consent and joinder to the Petition to Contract, executed by the contract purchaser was placed into the record as Exhibit 3. The Petition does not contain the written consent of the owners of all real property to be included in the new District after contraction; nor was there any documentation or other evidence demonstrating that either the District or those giving their written consent to the contraction have control by deed, trust agreement, contract, or option of one-hundred percent (100%) of the real property to be included in the new District, after contraction. See Conclusion of Law 65. Based upon the foregoing, the Petition and its exhibits, as amended and supplemented by the addenda to the Petition, are true and correct. Whether the contraction of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Ward addressed whether the contraction of the District was inconsistent in any way with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Ward also reviewed the contraction of the District, in light of the local government comprehensive plans. Ward testified that the District would continue to assist the local government in providing infrastructure services required pursuant to its locally adopted comprehensive plan. Furthermore, since the State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to provide infrastructure in accordance with locally adopted comprehensive plans, the District would continue to function and assist in meeting this objective of Chapter 187. Resolution No. 2002-11, adopted by the City Council of the City of Fort Myers, Florida, was introduced into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Pursuant to this Resolution, the City Council made a determination that after the contraction, the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements or portions of the State Comprehensive Plan or the City of Fort Myers local comprehensive plan. The Florida Department of Community Affairs reviewed the Petition and provided a letter dated April 16, 2002, which was placed into Evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 7. The letter states that the Petition A "is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of Lee County's Comprehensive Plan.” Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan, the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, or City of Fort Myers Comprehensive Plan. Whether the area of land within the district, after contraction, is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Ward and Tilton. The lands that comprise the District, after contraction, will consist of approximately 4,501 acres, located within the borders of unincorporated Lee County, and the incorporated City of Fort Myers. From a management perspective, the District, after contraction, will continue to be sufficiently sized, compact and contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community. The property remaining within the District will continue to be amenable to receiving services through a community development district. From an engineering perspective, the District, after contraction, will still be larger than other community development districts. It is contiguous and relatively compact. The land remaining within the District can be well- served by water management facilities, water and sewer and irrigation, roads lighting, landscaping and parks provided by the District. From a development planning perspective, the owner of the property, which will be contracted out of the District, intends to market the contraction property for development as three separate, stand-alone communities. This property will be developed independently from the property remaining within the District. Its utility needs will be serviced by the City of Fort Myers. From development planning, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the district, after contraction, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the contracted district. The District currently provides certain infrastructure improvements and facilities to the property which will remain in the District. Currently, no services or facilities are provided by the District to the property to be contracted out of the District. Ward, Tilton, and Garland testified concerning whether the District, as contracted, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area remaining in the District. Ward testified that since the 1980's, the District has provided and maintained infrastructure which services the existing residents of the District, and is also available to service future residents of the District. The District is responsible for financing, operating and maintaining this infrastructure. Based upon its historical track record, and its current activities, the District will continue to serve these purposes. Tilton testified that, from an engineering perspective, the District is an excellent alternative for providing community services and facilities to the property remaining in the District because it provides a higher level of service than would be afforded by Lee County or the City of Fort Myers. This higher level of service meets the desire of the residents within the District. Garland testified that, from an economic perspective, the District as contracted, will still consist of approximately 5,799 equivalent residential units. There will be no financial impact to the landowners remaining in the District because neither the capital assessments nor the operations and maintenance assessments will be affected by the contraction. Currently, the contraction parcel is not taking any of the load for capital assessments or operations and maintenance assessments. Garland also testified that the contraction property is geographically closer to infrastructure facilities available from the City of Fort Myers, than it is to District facilities. Therefore, the District is not the best alternative for providing this infrastructure to the contraction property. From economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the District, after contraction, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will continue to be served by the District. Whether the community development services and facilities of the district, as contracted, will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The services and facilities which will continue to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the boundaries, as contracted, will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to remain within the District. Ward, Tilton, and Garland testified concerning whether the community development services and facilities of the district, as contracted, would be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Ward testified that the District provides services and facilities which compliment the general purpose local governments’ services and facilities. For example, the District has constructed drainage facilities. These services address the requirements for infrastructure of the local government. After contraction, the District will continue to provide these infrastructure services. Tilton testified that the services and facilities provided by the District work very well in concert with the adjacent facilities of the general purpose local government. The roadways, utilities, and water management facilities constructed by the District are integrated into the overall system of the adjacent areas. From a management perspective and an engineering perspective, the facilities and services to be provided by the District, after the contraction, will not be incompatible with the existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district, after contraction, is amenable to separate special district government. As cited previously, from economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The community to be included in the District, after contraction, will continue to require basic infrastructure systems. A determination was made when the District was formed, that the District could best provide these services. This determination will not change as a result of the contraction. From engineering, economic and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the amended District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Elements of the Petition The Commission has certified that the Petition to Contract the Gateway Services District meets all of the required elements of Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to contract the District--the State of Florida and its citizens, the County and its citizens, the City and its citizens, the landowners within the District after contraction, and the Petitioner. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens, are not anticipated to incur any costs from contracting the District. Administrative costs incurred by Lee County and the City of Fort Myers related to this Petition are minimal and should be offset by the filing fees paid by the Petitioner. Landowners remaining within the District will continue to pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. The contraction of District will have no impact on the level of capital assessments or operations and maintenance assessments paid by residents remaining in the District. Benefits to landowners in the District will continue to be a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, construction, operation and maintenance of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. 45. Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, require the Petition to include a SERC which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The Petition contains a SERC. It meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. Other Requirements 46. Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, require the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Lee County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in The News-Press, a newspaper of general circulation in Lee County for four consecutive weeks, on June 18, 2002, June 25, 2002, July 2, 2002, and July 9, 2002. The Affidavit of Publication was placed into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4. Lee County Support for Establishment Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition with the City of Fort Myers and Lee County prior to filing the Petition with the Commission. As permitted by Sections 190.046 and 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the City Council of the City of Fort Myers held a public hearing on March 4, 2002, to consider the contraction of the Gateway Services District. At the conclusion of its public hearing on March 4, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-11 expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule contracting the Gateway Services District. The City of Fort Myers City Council Resolution specifically found that all six (6) of the statutory factors for evaluating the contraction of community development districts found in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, had been met by the Petitioner in this matter. As permitted by Sections 190.046 and 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County held a public hearing on June 25, 2002, to consider the contraction of the Gateway Services District. At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 25, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County adopted Resolution No.02-06-43, expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule contracting the Gateway Services District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, contract the Gateway Services District as requested by the Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed Rule Amendment attached to this Report as Exhibit C. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 92106847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Erin McCormick Larrinaga. Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1700 Tampa, Florida 33602 Gregory Munson, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canady, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Exhibit A Petitioner’s Witnesses at Public Hearing John Gnagey The Worthington Group 14291 Metro Parkway, Building 1300 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 James P. Ward Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. 210 N. University Drive, Suite 702 Coral Gables, Florida 33071 Andrew D. Tilton Johnson Engineering, Inc. 2158 Johnson Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Carey Garland Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 11869 High Tech Avenue Orlando, Florida 32817 Exhibit B List of Petitioner’s Exhibits Exhibit Description Exhibit 1: Memorandum from Greg Munson, Staff Attorney for the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to Barbara Leighty, Clerk for the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, dated March 12, 2002 Exhibit 2: Sketch depicting Gateway Services District Boundaries (Parcels marked “A” constitute the Contraction Parcels which Petition seeks to have contracted from the Gateway Services District) Exhibit 3: Consent and Joinder to Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, executed by Pulte Home Corporation on July 16, 2002 Exhibit 4: News-Press Affidavit of Publication, dated July 9, 2002 Exhibit 5: Certified Copy of Resolution No. 2002-11, approved by the City Council of the City of Fort Myers on March 4, 2002 Exhibit 6: Certified Copy of Resolution No. 02-06-43, approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida on June 25, 2002 Exhibit 7: Letter from the Florida Department of Community Affairs to Ms. Donna Arduin, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, dated April 16, 2002 Exhibit 8: Notice of Receipt of Petition, published by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 17, 2002 Composite Exhibit 9: Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated January, 2002 (includes City of Ft. Myers Comprehensive Plan and Lee County Comprehensive Plan); Addendum to the Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated March 25, 2002; Second Addendum to the Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated July 16, 2002; and Third Addendum to the Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated July 25, 2002. Exhibit C THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT IS: 42F-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: A tract or parcel of land lying Section 35, Township 44 South, Range 25 East and in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12, Township 45 South, Range 25 East; Section 31, Township 44 South, Range 26 East and in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19, Township 45 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 35 run N 00__47' 42" W along the west line of the southwest quarter (SW-3) of said Section for 2643.18 feet to the quarter corner on the west line of said section; thence run N 00_ 43' 47" W along the west line of the northwest quarter (NW-3) of said Section for 1361.42 feet; thence run N 35__45' 29" E for 947.82 feet; thence run N 56__15' 44" E for 690.61 feet to the south line of the Colonial Boulevard right-of-way (State Road 884) (250 feet wide); thence run S 89__38' 27" E along said south line for 2763.96 feet to an intersection with the west line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section; thence run S 02__16' 01" E along said west line for 1,168.38 feet to the southwest corner of said fraction; thence run N 89_ 54' 24" E along the south line of said fraction for 1324.86 feet to the southeast corner of said fraction; thence run S 03__20' 25" E for 1284.37 feet to the quarter corner on the east line of said Section; thence run S 00__01' 59" E along said east line for 2635.65 feet to the northwest corner of said Section 1; thence run N 89__28' 42" E along the north line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 1 for 2,642.98 feet to the quarter corner on said north line; thence run S 89__57' 06" E along the north line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section 1 for 2523.38 feet to the northeast corner of said Section; thence run N 00__57' 01" W along the west line of said Section 31 for 2644.12 feet to the quarter corner on said west line; thence run N 00__35' 02" W along said west line of said Section 31 for 1705.47 feet to an intersection with the southwesterly line of Immokalee Road (State Road 82) (200 feet wide); thence run S 46__07' 29" E along said southwesterly line for 6215.51 feet to an intersection with the south line of said Section 31; thence continue S 46__07' 29" E along said southwesterly line for 1227.27 feet to an intersection with a line common to said Sections 5 and 6; thence continue S 46__07' 29" E along said southwesterly line for 1535.36 feet to a point of curvature; thence run Southeasterly along said southwesterly line along the arc of a curve to the left of radius 5824.88 feet (delta 18_ 13' 21") (chord bearing S 55__14' 10" E) (chord 1844.76 feet) for 1852.55 feet to a point of tangency; thence continue along said southwesterly line S 64__20' 50" E for 22.21 feet to an intersection with the east line of the west half (W-1/2) of said Section 5; thence run S 00__06' 33" E along said east line for 2271.81 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 5 and 8; thence run S 01__02' 00" E along the east line of the west half (W-1/2) of said Section 8 for 3,028.35 feet; thence run N 89__33' 57" E for 605.03 feet; thence run S 01__02' 00" E for 1800.10 feet; thence run S 89__33' 57" W for 605.03 feet; thence run S 01__02' 00" E for 500.03 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 8 and 17; thence run S 01__00' 12" E along the east line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 17 for 926.76 feet to an intersection with the northeasterly line of a Florida Power and Light Company substation site as described in deed recorded in Official Record Book 1606 at Page 1286 of the Lee County Records; thence run N 37__57' 04" W along said northeasterly line for 361.70 feet; thence run S 52__02' 56" W along the northwesterly line of said Site for 361.70 feet; thence run S 37__57' 04" E along the southwesterly line of said Site for 741.48 feet to an intersection with the northwesterly line of Daniels Road Extension (200 feet wide) as described in deed recorded at Official Record Book 1644 at Page 1739 of the Lee County Records; thence run N 68__38' 13" E along said northwesterly line for 64.84 feet to an intersection with said easterly line of said northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 17; thence run S 01__00' 12" E along said east line for 1238.52 feet to the southeast corner of said fraction; thence run S 89__30' 38" W along the south line of said fraction and the north line of the Southwest Florida Regional Airport for 2110.83 feet to an intersection with the southeasterly line of said Daniels Road Extension; thence run S 54__00' 05" W through said Sections 17, 18 and 19 along the southeasterly line of a road right-of-way (200 feet wide) for 7032.17 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Section 19; thence run N 00__55' 36" W along said west line for 1,477.45 feet to the northwest corner of said Section; thence run N 00_ 54' 13" W along the west line of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of said Section 18 for 2,643.95 feet to the quarter corner on said west line; thence run N 00_ 39' 39" W along the west line of the northwest quarter (NW- 1/4) of said Section 19 for 2,674.35 feet to the northwest corner of said Section; thence run N 00_ 57' 26" W along the west line of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of said Section 7 for 2,645.34 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 7 and 12; thence run S 89_ 55' 12" W along the south line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section 12 for 2,524.67 feet to the west line of the east 2,524.14 feet of said northeast quarter (NE-1/4); thence run N 01_ 05' 33" W along said west line for 2,646.07 feet to the south line of said Section 1; thence run S 89_ 56' 14" W along said south line for 2,663.19 feet to the southwest corner of said Section, passing through the quarter corner on the south line of said Section at 69.26 feet; thence run S 89__03' 50" W along the south line of said Section 2 for 2645.12 feet to the quarter corner on said south line; thence run S 00__08' 50" E line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 11 for 2670.22 feet to the center of said Section; thence run S 88__33' 56" W along the south line of said northwest quarter (NW-1/4) for 2745.77 feet to the quarter corner on the west line of said Section 11; thence run S 89__29' 50" W along the south line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section 10 for 2546.16 feet to the center of said Section; thence run N 00__06' 58" W along the west line of said northeast quarter (NE-1/4) for 2668.79 feet to the quarter corner on the north line of said Section; thence run S 88__57' 32" W along the south line of said Section 3 for 2649.25 feet to the southwest corner of said Section; thence run S 88_ 54' 32" W along the south line of said Section 4 for 2059.99 feet to an intersection with the southeasterly line of the Six Mile Cypress Acquisition Area; thence run Northeasterly along said southeasterly line the following courses and distances: N 31__38' 21" E for 261.19 feet; N 01__23' 47" W for 277.78; N 37__53' 18" E for 246.16 feet; N 18_ 15' 00" E for 91.84 feet; N 56__35' 37" E for 169.92 feet; N 85__38' 45" E for 379.20 feet; N 70__16' 34" E for 105.12 feet; N 06__16' 12" E for 108.95 feet; N 89__11' 29" E for 322.80 feet; N 71_ 11' 39" E for 95.05 feet; N 55__29' 43" E for 156.24 feet; S 86__54' 42" E for 285.36 feet; N 55_ 11' 00" E for 58.82 feet; N 73__00' 08" E for 140.00 feet; N 54__05' 49" E for 115.77 feet; N 10_ 34' 05" E for 104.79 feet; N 24__05' 57" E for 100.09 feet; N 67__22' 01" E for 230.59 feet; S 85__03' 28" E for 211.24 feet; N 05__10' 02" E for 54.09 feet; N 27__24' 58" E for 106.63 feet; N 10__08' 05" E for 139.90 feet; N 44__41' 11" E for 147.83 feet; N 62__35' 02" W for 105.53 feet; N 23__59' 48" E for 476.74 feet; N 15__42' 08" E for 368.41 feet; N 20__55' 23" E for 222.23 feet; N 45__09' 19" E for 183.23 feet; N 31__07' 36" E for 305.01 feet; N 32__55' 08" E for 155.78 feet; N 17__03' 28" E for 110.45 feet; N 26__26' 47" E for 300.81 feet; N 18__42' 17" E for 150.86 feet; N 04__51' 19" W for 340.19 feet; N 12__09' 34" E for 251.79 feet; N 27__12' 34" E for 210.15 feet; N 14__53' 31" E for 323.53 feet and N 35__18' 42" E for 275.49 feet to an intersection with the north line of said Section 3; thence run N 88__37' 17" E along said north line for 530.84 feet to an intersection with the westerly line of State Road No. 93 (Interstate 75) (324 feet wide); thence run S 14_ 49' 52" E along said westerly line for 677.99 feet to an intersection with the east line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 3; thence run S 00__49' 04" E along said east line for 1299.77 feet to the northwest corner of the west half (W-1/2) of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said section; thence run N 88__12' 52" E along the north line of said fraction for 323.06 feet to an intersection with said westerly line of State Road No. 93; thence run S 14__49' 52" E along said westerly line for 2.67 feet to an intersection with the east line of said fraction ; thence run S 00__37' 05" E along said east line for 650.21 feet to the southeast corner of said fraction; thence run N 88__09' 46" E along the north line of the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of said Section 3 for 2250.18 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 2 and 3; thence run N 00__47' 03" E along the west line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 2 for 2605.26 feet to the Point of Beginning. Less and except all that part of the right-of-way for State Road No. 93 (Interstate 75) lying within the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of Section 3 and within the northeast quarter (NE- 1/4) of Section 10, Township 45 South, Range 25 East, Lee County, Florida, as more particularly described in the petition for this rule. Containing 5,474 5324 acres, more or less. PARCEL "A" A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 35 TOWNSHIP 44 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, SECTIONS 1, 2, 11 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 44 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND IN SECTIONS 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35 RUN N 00?47'42" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF SAID SECTION FOR 2643.18 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?43'47" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION FOR 1361.42 FEET; THENCE RUN N 35?45'29" E FOR 947.82 FEET; THENCE RUN N 56?15'44" E FOR 690.61 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE COLONIAL BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY (STATE ROAD 884) (250 FEET WIDE); THENCE RUN S 89?38'27" E ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 539.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE S 89?38'27" E ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2224.05 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN S 02?16'01" E ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1168.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN N 89?54'24" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 1324.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN S 03?20'25" E FOR 1284.37 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN S 00?01'59" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 2635.65 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE RUN N 89?28'42" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 1 FOR 2642.98 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE RUN S 89?57'06" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3) OF SAID SECTION 1 FOR 2523.38 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?57'01" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 FOR 2644.12 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON SAID WEST LINE; THENCE RUN N 00?35'02" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 FOR 1705.47 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (STATE ROAD 82) (200 FEET WIDE); THENCE RUN S 46?07'29" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 6215.51 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE CONTINUE S 46?07'29" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 1227.27 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 5 AND 6; THENCE CONTINUE S 46?07'29" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 1535.36 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 5824.88 FEET (DELTA 18?13'21") (CHORD BEARING S 55?14'10" E) (CHORD 1844.76 FEET) FOR 1852.55 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE S 64?20'50" E FOR 22.21 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF (W 2) OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE RUN S 00?06'33" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 2271.81 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 5 AND 8; THENCE RUN S 01?02'00" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF (W 2) OF SAID SECTION 8 FOR 3028.35 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89?33'57" E FOR 605.03 FEET; THENCE RUN S 01?02'02" E FOR 1800.10 FEET; THENCE S 89?33'57" W FOR 605.03 FEET; THENCE RUN S 01?02'00" E FOR 500.03 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 8 AND 17; THENCE RUN S 01?00'12" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 17 FOR 926.76 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SUBSTATION SITE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1606 AT PAGE 1286, LEE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE RUN N 37?57'04" W ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE FOR 361.70 FEET; THENCE RUN S 52?02'56" W ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SITE FOR 361.70 FEET; THENCE RUN S 37?57'04" E ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SITE FOR 741.48 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF DANIELS ROAD EXTENSION (200 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1644 AT PAGE 1739, LEE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE RUN N 68?38'13" E ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 64.84 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE RUN S 01?00'12" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 1238.52 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN S 89?30'38" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION AND A NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL AIRPORT FOR 2110.83 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID DANIELS ROAD EXTENSION; THENCE RUN S 54?00'05" W THROUGH SAID SECTIONS 17, 18, AND 19 ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (200 FEET WIDE) FOR 7032.17 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN N 00?55'36" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1477.45 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?54'13" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF SAID SECTION 18 FOR 2643.95 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER OF SAID WEST LINE; THENCE RUN N 00?39'39" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 18 FOR 2647.35 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?57'26" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF SAID SECTION 7 FOR 2645.34 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 7 AND 12; THENCE RUN S 89?55'12" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3) OF SAID SECTION 12 FOR 2524.67 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 2524.14 FEET OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3); THENCE RUN N 01?05'33" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 2646.07 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE RUN S 89?56'14" W ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2663.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, PASSING THROUGH THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION AT 69.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89?03'50" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 2 FOR 3096.18 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED TREELINE BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING BEARING AND DISTANCES: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2625.00 FEET (DELTA 29?13'02") (CHORD BEARING S 15?09'16" W) (CHORD 1324.12 FEET) FOR 1338.58 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S 29?45'46" W FOR 618.63 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1487.50 FEET (DELTA 28?50'26") (CHORD BEARING S 15?20'33" W) (CHORD 740.87 FEET) FOR 748.75 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S 00?55'22" W FOR 166.10 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11; THENCE RUN S 88?33'56" W ALONG SAID LINE FOR 125.11 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED TREELINE BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING BEARING AND DISTANCES: THENCE RUN N 00?55'22" E FOR 171.23 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1612.50 FEET (DELTA 28?50'26") (CHORD BEARING N 15?20'33" E) (CHORD 803.13 FEET) FOR 811.67 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 29145"46' E FOR 618.63 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2500.00 FEET (DELTA 33?36'51") (CHORD BEARING N 12?57'22" W) (CHORD 1445.75 FEET) FOR 1466.69 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 03?51'03" W FOR 959.31 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.06 FEET (DELTA 10?24'15") (CHORD BEARING N 01?21'04" E) (CHORD 507.76 FEET) FOR 508.45 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 06?33'12" E FOR 1166.54 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET (DELTA 43?02'49") (CHORD BEARING N 14?58'12" W) (CHORD 733.76 FEET) FOR 751.31 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 36?29'36" W FOR 266.36 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2000.00 FEET (DELTA 37?40'00") (CHORD BEARING N 17?39'36" W) (CHORD 1291.27 FEET) FOR 1314.81 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 01?10'24" E FOR 245.33 FEET; THENCE S 89?25'36" W LEAVING SAID WEST LINE FOR 114.67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF TREELINE BOULEVARD (TO BE RE-ALIGNED) AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1529 BEGINNING AT PAGE 412 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF LEE COUNTY; THENCE N 00?02'17" W FOR 68.31 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 44 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE N 01?00'06" W ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF TREELINE BOULEVARD (TO BE RE-ALIGNED) FOR 2642.68 FEET; THENCE N 00?58'02" W ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF TREELINE BOULEVARD (TO BE RE-ALIGNED) FOR 1048.01 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET AND TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS S 47?49' 01" E; SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2581 BEGINNING AT PAGE 4060 OF THE LEE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET (DELTA 41?49'26") (CHORD BEARING N 21?16'16" E) (CHORD 749.56 FEET) FOR 766.46 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 00?21'33" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 721.50 FEET; THENCE N 45?21'33" E FOR 42.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 4,390 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND RIGHTS- OF-WAY (RECORDED AND UNRECORDED, WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN) BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST AS BEARING S88?57'32"W. TOGETHER WITH: DESCRIPTION SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL "B" A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHICH TRACT OR PARCEL IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3 RUN N 88?37'17" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3 FOR 2477.68 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 75 (I-75) (STATE ROAD NO. 93) (324 FEET WIDE) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN S 14?49'52" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE FOR 677.94 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE RUN S 00?49'05" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 1299.77 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF (W 2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3) OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 88?12'52" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 323.06 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID WESTERLY LINE OF STATE ROAD NO. 93; THENCE RUN S 14?49'52" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE FOR 2.67 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN S 00?37'05" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 650.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN N 88?09'46" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 3) OF SAID SECTION 3 FOR 163.88 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S 14?49'52" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR 1474.99 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT OF RADIUS 22800.31 FEET (CHORD BEARING S 13?33'28" E) (CHORD 1013.23 FEET) (DELTA 02?32'47") FOR 1013.31 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE; THENCE RUN N 82?23'52" W FOR 122.32 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON- TANGENT CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 22685.31 FEET (CHORD BEARING N 13?36'38" W) (CHORD 966.55 FEET) (DELTA 02?26'29") FOR 966.63 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN N 14?49'52" W FOR 542. 01 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 250.00 FEET (CHORD BEARING N 54?04'24" W) (CHORD 316.30 FEET) (DELTA 78?29'05") FOR 342.45 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S 86?41'03" W FOR 1133.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N 02?10'37" W FOR 387.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N 87?40'37" W FOR 838.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 01?19'23" E FOR 243.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 88?09'46" W FOR 190.18 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SIX MILE CYPRESS PRESERVE, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1741 AT PAGE 1241 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN THE FOLLOWING FIFTEEN (13) COURSES ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE; N 15?42'08" E FOR 184.34 FEET; N 20?55'23" E FOR 222.23 FEET; N 45?09'19" E FOR 183.23 FEET; N 31?07'36" E FOR 305.01 FEET; N 32?55'08" E FOR 155.78 FEET; N 17?03'28" E FOR 110.45 FEET; N 26?26'47" E FOR 300.81 FEET; N 18?42'17" E FOR 150.86 FEET; N 04?51'19" W FOR 340.19 FEET; N 12?09'34" E FOR 251.79 FEET; N 27?12'34" E FOR 210.15 FEET; N 14?53'31" E FOR 323.53 FEET; N 35?18'42" E FOR 275.49 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE RUN N 88?37'17" E ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 530.87 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 111.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOTAL AREA FOR BOTH PARCELS 4,501.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS HEREINABOVE MENTIONED ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3 TO BEAR N 88?37'17" W WHICH BEARING IS DERIVED FROM PLANE COORDINATE FOR THE FLORIDA WEST ZONE (1979 ADJUSTMENT). Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005, FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005, FS. History - new 5-22-86, Amended .
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Fiddler's Creek Community Development District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Park Central Industrial, which is referenced in this record as Park Central DRI, was originally called the "Andrews Avenue Business Park." This project is referred to as "Park" for convenience sake. The Park application for development approval (ADA) was filed in 1982 with Broward County, Florida since the property was, at that time, within an unincorporated area of the county. The Broward County Commission adopted Ordinance 82-43, effective August 26, 1982, which approved the project and made specific findings in connection with the development. At the time of the passage of Ordinance 82-43, Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, did not require the inclusion of a buildout date in a development order. At the time of the passage of Ordinance 82-43, Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, did not preclude the inclusion of a buildout date in a development order. Ordinance 82-43, recorded in the public record for Broward County, Florida, which is also known as the original development order (Joint Ex. 2), provided, in pertinent part: Section 3. Phasing of Development 3.01 The development and construction of each of the five (5) phases within the Andrews Avenue Business Park shall proceed in accordance with the Master Development and Phasing Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "2." * * * Section 4. General Provisions. 4.01 The ADA submitted to the SFRPC, is incorporated herein by reference and relied upon by the parties in discharging the statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Substantial compliance with the representations contained in the ADA is a condition for approval unless waived or modified by agreement among the parties. * * * 4.08 . . . The Applicant shall obtain County approval of any proposed change in the state Phasing Plan, as prescribed in Section 3.02 of this Development Order. The Phasing Plan identified as Exhibit "2" in Section 3.01 above specified that the final date for construction to end for all five phases was 1991. Such date has been interpreted by the City and Intervenor to mean not later than December 31, 1991. The ADA incorporated by reference to Ordinance 82-43 provided for a buildout date of 1991. Additionally, the title to the original development order specified that the ordinance was "ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR CONTROLLED BUILDOUT OF THE ANDREWS AVENUE BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT." In September 1983, the Park was annexed into the City. Consequently, the City became the local governmental agency responsible for assuring compliance with the development order. On March 22, 1988, the City adopted two ordinances which amended the original development order. These ordinances, numbered 88-39 and 88-40, allowed the inclusion of an additional 9.5 acres and made pertinent findings related to this case. Ordinance 88-39 provided, in part: WHEREAS, the development phasing of this project is being extended by four years beyond the original Development Order schedule such that full development will not be completed until 1995; and * * * 7. The proposed extension of the date of buildout for the development does not exceed the threshold limitations established in Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes. Ordinance 88-40 provided, in part: Section 3: This Development Order shall terminate at midnight on December 31, 1995. Park did not challenge the findings nor the conclusions reached in Ordinances 88-39 and 88-40. Subsequently, however, Park filed an application with the City to again amend the development order to extend the buildout and termination dates from December 31, 1995 to December 30, 2002. With input from the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs, the City enacted Ordinance 95-23 which provided, in part: WHEREAS, The Applicant also requested on September 30, 1994 that the buildout date be extended to December 30, 2002; and WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on Ocober (sic) 4, 1994, the Applicant requested that the City Commission consider an alternative buildout date extension to December 30, 1998; and * * * Section 1. The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are true and correct and are hereby ratified and confirmed by the City Commission. Section 2. The City, pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, makes the following findings of fact: * * * Broward County Ordinance 82-43 and subsequent City ordinances established December 31, 1991 as the buildout date for this project by incorporation of the Phasing Schedule and by incorporating the Application for Development Approval. City of Pompano Beach Ordinance 88-40 created a termination date of December 31, 1995. The requested buildout date extension to December 30, 2002, represents a cumulative extension of approximately eleven (11) years. An extension of the buildout date to December 30, 1998 represents a cumulative extension of not more than seven (7) years. * * * SECTION 3. Conclusions of Law. Pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, the City makes the following conclusions of law: * * * The Applicant's proposal to extend the buildout date to December 30, 2002 is presumed to constitute a substantial deviation and the Applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption. An extension of the buildout date to December 30, 1998 does not constitute a substantial deviation. SECTION 4. Modification of Development. The Development Order is hereby amended as follows: The buildout date of the Park Central Development of Regional Impact is hereby extended and the new buildout date is December 30, 1998. The termination date of the Park Central Development of Regional Impact is hereby extended and the new termination date is December 30, 1998. Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that an extension of a buildout date of less that seven years is presumed not to create a substantial deviation. The extension of a buildout date beyond seven years creates a presumption of a substantial deviation which a developer must refute with clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order finding that the original development order contained a buildout date of 1991 which was extended to December 31, 1995 by the subsequent ordinance and which cannot under the circumstances of this case be extended beyond December 31, 1998. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 6th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1452DRI The parties did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Gordon B. Linn, Esquire City of Pompano Beach Post Office Box 2083 Pompano Beach, FL 33061 Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire Brady & Coker 1318 SE 2nd Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Robert B. Bradley Secretary Land & Water Adjudicatory Comm. 2105 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Carolyn Dekle Director South Fla. Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Blvd., Ste 140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Dan Stengle, Esquire Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Gregory Smith, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Suzanne H. Schmith Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 James F. Murley Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to establish the District meets the criteria set forth in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. For the Petitioner:
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Wellness Way Area Plan Map and Text Amendment to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (“Remedial Amendment”) adopted through Lake County Ordinance No. 2016-1 is “in compliance,” as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Cemex is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Lake County. Cemex made timely objections and comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment. Petitioner Lake Louisa is a limited liability company that owns property in Lake County. Lake Louisa made timely objections and comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment. Cemex leases 1,200 acres of land in Lake County from Lake Louisa. The leased property is located within the area affected by the Remedial Amendment. Cemex proposes sand mining on the leased property and obtained all the required state permits. Prior to adoption of the Remedial Amendment, Cemex sought a conditional use permit from Lake County for its proposed sand mining. Respondent Lake County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and adopted the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Intervenors South Lake Crossings I, LLC; South Lake Crossings II, LLC; South Lake Crossings III, LLC; Clonts Groves, Inc.; Catherine Ross Groves, Inc.; and Cra-Mar Groves, Inc., (referred to collectively as “South Lake”) own 2,500 acres in Lake County which are subject to the Remedial Amendment. Intervenors made timely comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment.1/ The Wellness Way Area The Wellness Way Area comprises 15,471 acres in southeastern Lake County. It is bordered by U.S. Highway 27 to the west, the City of Clermont to the north, and Orange County to the east. Currently, the Wellness Way Area is mostly designated as agricultural with some small areas of residential and industrial uses. However, there is only one active agricultural operation. The majority of properties within the Wellness Way Area are large tracts of unused land. Directly east of the Wellness Way Area, in Orange County, is the Horizon West Sector Plan which consists of 23,000 acres and is one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. The Remedial Amendment To address DEO’s objections to the Lake County Wellness Way Sector Plan, the County adopted the Remedial Amendment which converted the Sector Plan into the Wellness Way Urban Service Area. Based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the ordinance adopting the Remedial Amendment, and Lake County’s stipulation on the record, the Wellness Way Sector Plan no longer has force or effect. The Remedial Amendment creates five future land use categories within the Wellness Way Area: Town Center and Wellness Way 1 through Wellness Way 4. Each future land use category allows a mix of uses, but with different density and intensity limits in each category. The highest density and intensity limits are in the Town Center category, located along U.S. Highway 27. The lowest limits are in the Wellness Way 4 category. The Town Center and Wellness Way 1-3 categories have identical permitted and conditional land uses. Wellness Way 4 allows fewer types of land uses and no residential land use because the land is publicly owned and contains a large wastewater reclamation facility. The new land use categories provides for a distribution of land uses by percentage of total land area within the category. In Town Center, the distribution is 25 percent non- residential, 45 percent residential, and 30 percent open space. In Wellness Way 1-3, the distribution is 10 percent non- residential, 60 percent residential, and 30 percent open space. The allowable residential density for each category differs. The Town Center has a minimum density of 6.0 dwelling units per net buildable acre (“du/ac”) and a maximum density of 25 du/ac. Net buildable acre is defined as gross acres minus wetlands, waterbodies, and open spaces. Wellness Way 1 has a minimum density of 3 du/ac and a maximum density of 20 du/ac. Wellness Way 2 has a minimum density of 2.5 du/ac and a maximum density of 15 du/ac. Wellness Way 3 has a minimum density of 2 du/ac and a maximum density of 10 du/ac. Wellness Way 4 has no density criteria because residential uses are not allowed. The allowable intensity for non-residential uses in each category also differs. The Town Center has a minimum average Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 30 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 1 has a minimum average FAR of 25 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 2 has a minimum average FAR of 20 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 3 has a minimum average FAR of 15 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 4 has no intensity criteria. Implementation of the Remedial Amendment goals, objectives, and policies is to be accomplished through the review and approval of planned unit developments (“PUDs”). Despite the density allowances stated above, the total number of dwelling units that can be included in a PUD are further controlled by Policy I-8.2.1.1, which ties residential development to job creation. For each dwelling unit proposed in a PUD, a certain number of jobs must be created through the setting aside of areas for non-residential uses. The jobs-to- housing ratio assumes that one job is created for every 450 square feet of non-residential development. Each land use category has a different jobs-to-housing ratio applicable to approved PUDs. In Town Center, the jobs-to- housing ratio is 2.0 to 1.0, meaning 900 square feet of non- residential development must accompany every proposed dwelling unit. In Wellness Way 1, the jobs-to-housing ratio is 1.75 to 1.0. In Wellness Way 2, the ratio is 1.50 to 1.0. In Wellness Way 3, the ratio is 1.35 to 1.0. In the Remedial Amendment, the information and criteria for a PUD application are more detailed and extensive than under the Comprehensive Plan provisions for PUDs outside the Wellness Way Area. For example, a PUD application under the Remedial Amendment must include a report on the PUD’s impact on transportation facilities and the need for additional transportation improvements, and a detailed plan for public facilities, such as potable water, sanitary sewer, and schools. The Remedial Amendment requires each PUD to establish Wellness Way Corridors, which serve as buffers around the border to connect job hubs and neighborhoods through trails and other pedestrian facilities. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Sand Mining Approval Petitioners contend the Remedial Amendment fails to provide meaningful and predictable standards governing sand mining within the Wellness Way Area. Sand mining is listed as a conditional use in all land use categories. Comprehensive Plan Objective III-3.5 and its policies, which address sand mining, were not changed by the Remedial Amendment. They prohibit mining in environmentally sensitive areas which cannot be reclaimed, require mining within aquifer protection zones to be performed in a manner that would not negatively impact water quality, and require mining operators to demonstrate a practical and environmentally sound reclamation plan. Under the Remedial Amendment, an application for a conditional use in the Wellness Way Area must be combined with a PUD application and must comply with the detailed PUD criteria of new Policy I-8.7. By combining a conditional use application with a PUD application, Lake County can impose additional conditions designed to assure the conditional use will be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Remedial Amendment adds more criteria and greater detail than exists currently in the Comprehensive Plan for reviewing a proposal for sand mining. Adding these review criteria is not a failure to provide meaningful and predictable standards. PUD Densities and Intensities Petitioners contend that the densities and intensities within the Wellness Way Area cannot be reasonably predicted because Policy I-8.2.1.2 permits the density and intensity of developments to exceed or fall below the required maximum and minimum densities and intensities of use so long as a PUD as a whole fits within the limits. Petitioners’ evidence on this point was not persuasive. Applying density and intensity limits to the entire area of a PUD is not unreasonable and does not fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards. Location of Future Land Uses A more persuasive argument made by Petitioners is that the land use planning flexibility in the Remedial Amendment goes too far because the location of particular land uses will not be known until PUDs are approved. Lake County’s arguments in this regard do not overcome the fact that, under the Remedial Amendment, the determination where land uses will be located in the Wellness Way Area is deferred to the PUD process. The Remedial Amendment itself does not establish the location of future land uses in the Wellness Way Area. A landowner or citizen cannot predict where future land uses will be located in the Wellness Way Area. Lake County did not present evidence to show that any other local government comprehensive plan in Florida uses a similar planning approach. There appears to be no other comprehensive plan amendment that was the subject of a DOAH proceeding which left the location of future land uses unspecified in this way. Potential PUDs Petitioners contend that the Remedial Amendment fails to provide meaningful and predictable standards because applications for development approvals in the Wellness Way Area are reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their effect on approved and “potential PUDs.” Policy I-8.7.1 provides: Until and unless a PUD is approved by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, the property in the WWUSA area shall maintain the existing zoning (e.g. A, R-1, CFD, PUD). All applications for development approvals (i.e. lot splits, conditional use permits, variances, etc.) on any property within the WWUSA area shall be reviewed on a case-by- case basis for the effect of such development approval on adopted or potential PUDs and compliance with the general principles of the Urban Service Area. The Remedial Amendment’s requirement that development approvals account for potential PUDs makes it impossible to predict how Lake County will make a land use decision because it is impossible to know or account for an unapproved, potential PUD. This standard lacks meaning and predictability for guiding land development. Case-by-Case Approvals Petitioners assert that Policy I-8.7.1 also creates internal inconsistency because it requires all development to be approved through the PUD process, but then appears to also provide for non-PUD development approvals on a case-by-case basis. The testimony presented by Lake County seemed to support Petitioners’ claims. Exceptions can be stated in a comprehensive plan without constituting an internal inconsistency. However, the ambiguity of Policy I-8.7.1 causes it to lack meaning and predictability for guiding land development. Urban Form Guiding Principles Policy I-8.2.2 of the Remedial Amendment sets forth guiding principles for development derived from the goals, objectives, and policies for the Wellness Way Area and establishes principles to guide development. Petitioners argue that the principles are not meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land because they were described by a Lake County witness at the final hearing as “aspirational.” The policy itself states that, “These guiding principles shall be specifically demonstrated in the PUDs.” The plain meaning of this statement is that application of the principles is mandatory. A witness’ testimony cannot alter the plain meaning of a policy for purposes of an “in compliance” determination. Data and Analysis Planning Timeframes Petitioners contend that the Remedial Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and an analysis because they address only infrastructure needs at the time of the Wellness Way Area’s buildout in 2040; no intermediate timeframes were used. Although section 163.3177(5)(a) requires comprehensive plans to “include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan’s adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period,” the statute is less clear on the requirements applicable to a comprehensive plan amendment. Petitioners’ evidence and argument on this claim was insufficient to meet their burden of proof. Potable Water Supply Petitioners claim the Remedial Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and an analysis to show that the demand for potable water will be met at buildout. Petitioners’ evidence was insufficient to prove this claim. Internal Consistency Goal I-8 Petitioners argue that Goal I-8 of the Remedial Amendment contains an impermissible waiver of any Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, or policies that conflict with the Remedial Amendment. Goal I-8 provides: The following Objectives and Policies shall govern the WWUSA as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. In the event that these Goals, Objectives or Policies present either an express (direct) or implied (indirect) conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies that appear elsewhere in the comprehensive plan, the provision elsewhere in the comprehensive plan that is in direct or indirect conflict with a Wellness Way Goal, Objective or Policy shall not apply to the WWUSA area. All Goals, Objectives and Policies in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan that do not directly or indirectly conflict with this Goal and associated Objectives and Policies shall apply to the WWUSA area depicted in the Future Land Use Map. Goal I-8 gives no hint as to the nature or the number of potential direct or indirect conflicts that could arise. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the goal creates an unlawful waiver of unidentified inconsistencies. Urban Service Area The Wellness Way Area is intended to be an urban service area. “Urban service area” is defined in section 163.3164(50): “Urban Service Area” means areas identified in the comprehensive plan where public facilities and services, including, but not limited to, central water and sewer capacity and roads, are already in place or are identified in the capital improvements element. The term includes any areas identified in the comprehensive plan as urban services areas, regardless of local government limitations.” Petitioners contend the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Remedial Amendment because Lake County did not amend the Capital Improvements Element to address public facilities and services in the Wellness Way Area. Lake County responds that it does not own or operate the utility companies that would provide the services, but who owns and operates the utilities has no effect on the statutory requirement to do public utility planning. Lake County argues that it was sufficient for the County to simply identify the utility providers. Section 163.3164(50) requires more. It requires the identification of public facilities and services. Furthermore, section 163.3177(3)(a) requires a capital improvement element “to consider the need for and location of public facilities.” The Remedial Amendment creates an internal inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan by providing for greater growth and a new urban service area in the Wellness Way Area without amending the Capital Improvements Element to address the greater growth or the urban service area. The Capital Improvements Element should have been amended to include some of the data and analysis that was used to support the Remedial Amendment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission issue a final order determining that the Remedial Amendment adopted by Lake County Ordinance No. 2016-1 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2016.
The Issue The sole issue is whether the Petition to establish the District meets the applicable factors set forth in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
