The Issue There are four issues in this proceeding. Whether the Petitioner, Edgewater Beach Owners Association, Inc. (the Association) has been denied a right to a quasi-judicial proceeding regarding Walton County Resolution 95-82 (the December 1995 Amendment). Whether the December 1995 Amendment improperly revives a development of regional impact development order. Whether the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment is vested from compliance with the local comprehensive plan adopted by the County in April 1993 (the 1993 Comp Plan). If not vested, whether the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment is consistent with the 1993 Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact Background The Association, a Florida condominium association, is the owner of property developed pursuant to a development of regional impact (DRI) order, Walton County Resolution Number 82-12 (Original D.O.), issued by the County on June 8, 1982. The Original D.O. stated that it would remain in effect for ten years or until development was completed, whichever occurred first. It also stated that, upon application of the developer, the duration of the development order could be extended by the County. The Original D.O. authorized the construction of a six-phase condominium development, to consist of 476 residential units and associated recreational amenities. Phases I and II of the proposed six phase development were completed in 1984 and consist of 175 residential (both ownership and rental) units with associated amenities. Phase I and II consists of one building ranging, in a staircase fashion, from nineteen stories to three stories, with the lower portion of the building being located closest to the beach. This building is located on property now owned by the Association. In 1987, before any construction on the remaining four phases began, the original developer lost its interest in the undeveloped property through foreclosure. The Respondent, KPM, Ltd. Company (KPM), which is a Florida limited liability company, acquired title to the undeveloped property in March 1992. On May 25, 1992, in response to a request from KPM, the County voted to extend the termination date of the Original D.O. However, the Florida Department of Community Affairs subsequently informed the County and KPM that, in order to effect such an extension, the developer would be required to file a formal notice of proposed change and undergo further review pursuant to chapter 380, Florida Statutes. In September 1992, KPM filed a notice of proposed change asking the County to revive the Original D.O. KPM subsequently amended its notice to request a reduction in the number of units to be included in Phase III. In January 1993, the County approved KPM's proposed changes, revived the Original D.O., and extended the duration of the development order to January 1, 1999. This approval was formalized in Walton County Resolution Number 93-2 (the 1993 Amendment) and included the proviso that KPM submit an updated traffic analysis before Phases IV through V could be constructed. The Association filed a Section 380.07 appeal of the 1993 Amendment (EBOAI) and, in that appeal, specifically challenged the County's authority to revive the Original D.O. Following a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, FLWAC entered a final order dismissing EBOA's appeal of the 1993 Amendment on October 24, 1995. The FLWAC final order is presently pending on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal. Neither FLWAC nor the court have entered an order staying the effectiveness of the final order. In April, 1993, the County adopted the 1993 Comp Plan. KPM submitted a second notice of proposed change in January 1995, requesting certain changes in the phasing of the project. Included with the materials submitted to the County was the updated traffic analysis required by the county as a precondition to the approval of future phases III and IV to 71 and 124, respectively. The number of units included in Phase V was reduced to 86 and Phase VI was deleted altogether. The net effect was that the total number of units to be included in the undeveloped phases of the project remained at 281. The Association filed a FLWAC appeal challenging the April 1995 Amendment. Since the April 1995 Amendment is pending on appeal to FLWAC, it is not yet effective. The Association also brought two separate suits challenging the April 1995 Amendment in circuit court, one under Section 163.3215, Florida Statues, and the other under common law certiorari. All three actions have been abated and remain pending. In June 1995, KPM transferred its interest in the undeveloped property to the Respondent, Grand Dunes, Ltd. (Grand Dunes). Grand Dunes is a limited partnership, of which KPM is a limited partner. In addition, KPM retains the right to reacquire the undeveloped property should Grand Dunes decide against developing it. On or about October 5, 1995, the Developers jointly filed another notice of proposed change, through which they sought authorization to increase the number of units in Phase III to 89, decrease the number in Phase IV to 89, and delete Phases V and VI altogether. The net effect of the proposed change is a reduction in the total number of units in the undeveloped phases from 281 to 178. The December 1995 Amendment, which is the subject of this proceeding, reflects the County's approval of these proposed changes. Quasi-judicial Proceedings The Association asserts that the County's December 12, 1995, hearing (the County hearing) was deficient in two respects: 1/ 1) the transportation report appended to the notice of proposed change was not competent substantial evidence; and 2) the Association was not afforded appropriate procedural rights. The Transportation Report The transportation analysis submitted by the Developers as part of their notice of proposed change was dated October 7, 1994, and was identical to the report submitted in support of the April 1995 Amendment. No further updated transportation information was provided to the County by either the Developers or the Association prior to or during the County hearing. The author of that report, David Muntean, is an expert in transportation engineering. Muntean explained at final hearing that the purpose of the analysis reflected in the report was to determine whether the development changes being considered by KPM in the fall of 1994--ultimately embodied in the April 1995 Amendment--would have a significant impact on area roadways. Two specific issues are addressed in making this determination: 1) at build-out (1998), whether traffic generated by the proposed development, considered together with the already built Phases I and II and all other traffic on an area roadway, will result in traffic volumes that exceed the traffic capacity recommended for the roadway (i.e. cause a degradation in the level of service); and 2) at build-out, whether the proposed development, together with Phases I and II, will generate five (5) percent or more of the traffic volume recommended for a roadway. In order to determine whether there may be a degradation in the level of service, Muntean made a projection of the volume of traffic that would be generated by sources other than the proposed development (the background traffic) in 1998. He accomplished this by extrapolating between the background traffic reflected in the latest Department of Transportation traffic figures then available (1993) and the projected traffic volume for the year 2015, as calculated in the Fort Walton Beach Urban Area Transportation Update. Since Phase I and II of the Original D.O.-- the Association's buildings-- were completed back in 1984, traffic generated by those phases was included in the calculation of background traffic. Muntean then projected the number of trips that would be generated by the proposed development itself, using data supplied by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This source provides a formula for calculating projected numbers of vehicular trips based upon the type of development being proposed. Once a raw figure was calculated using the ITE formula, certain adjustment factors were applied. These included adjustments for household size and for internal capture. Internal capture represents the number of trips that might otherwise be generated by a project if not for amenities available within the project itself that reduce the number of vehicular trips taken off the project premises. The adjustment factor used for internal capture was conservative, in order to ensure that the number of trips generated by the project would not be underestimated. In calculating the number of trips projected to be generated by the project, Muntean included not only those trips that would originate from the proposed new development, but also those trips that could be expected to originate from the already developed Phases I and II. Since the traffic from those completed phases was also included in the calculation of projected background traffic, Muntean's analysis double counts the Phases I and II traffic. The result is another overestimation of the traffic impacts of the project. Based upon a total development of 456 units, the traffic report established that there are projected to be two roadway segments which will operate below their recommended level of service at build-out. However, the trips generated by a 456 unit development was projected to account for less than five percent of the assigned level of service. (i.e. the maximum recommended traffic volume). Similarly, the report projects that, at build-out, trips generated by a 456 unit development would account for more than five percent of the maximum recommended traffic volume for two roadway segments. Those two roadways, however, will continue to operate well within their assigned levels of service. While the initial report projects the traffic impacts of a 456 unit development, the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment will have fewer total units--only 353. (The 175 already constructed units owned by the Association and 178 to be built by the Developers). The Association offered no evidence suggesting that the conclusions reflected in the initial traffic report were faulty or inapplicable to the development at hand. Nor did the Association offer any reports or analysis of its own. While the projections reflected in the report may not predict 1998 traffic with absolute accuracy, it reflects a best estimate of the traffic impacts of the development. Accordingly, the initial traffic report constitutes competent substantial evidence. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the initial report also supplies a sufficient evidentiary basis on which to make a finding regarding traffic impacts. However, the Developers provided further support by commissioning Muntean to prepare a second traffic report, based upon the most up-to-date traffic information. Muntean used basically the same methodology utilized for the previous report. 2/ However, in the second report, Muntean did decrease the total number of units being analyzed for traffic impacts to reflect the 353 that the County actually approved during the County hearing. The conclusions reflected in the second report do not deviate significantly from those reported in the first. At build-out, three roadway segments are projected to operate below their assigned levels of service, but, in each case, the traffic from the 353 unit development will account for less than five percent of the maximum capacity allowable under the assigned level of service. On one other roadway segment, traffic from the total project is projected to account for more than five percent of the maximum allowable volume for the roadway's assigned level of service, but that roadway will continue to operate well within its assigned level of service, even with the build-out development's traffic. The evidence presented by the Developers establishes that the proposed development, even when considered together with the already constructed phases now owned by the Association, will not significantly impact any area roadway. Consequently, the County's determination, that the proposed development does not constitute a substantial deviation, is supported by competent substantial evidence. Procedural Opportunities The County hearing was preceded by notice published in a local newspaper on November 16, 1995. That notice clearly identifies the date and time of the hearing regarding the Developers' proposed changes. The Association has not alleged that it failed to receive said notice. As is the practice of the County for all agenda items, the agenda indicated that ten minutes were set aside for consideration of the Developers' proposed changes. However, the transcript of that hearing indicates that both the Developers and the Association were afforded as much time as they desired to make arguments or present evidence. Both the Association and the Developers were represented at the County hearing by their attorneys, but neither offered any live testimony, even though the transcript clearly establishes that both the Association and the Developers were afforded that opportunity. Counsel for the Association did have one exhibit admitted into the record. In addition, the only documentary evidence admitted into the record consisted of the documents filed as part of the notice of proposed change itself, supplements to the notice submitted by the Developer prior to the County hearing, the reports and comments of regulatory agencies, and the general warranty deed reflecting transfer of the property from KPM to Grand Dunes. The record is devoid of any evidence establishing that the Association requested either the Developers or the County to make witnesses available at the County hearing for cross-examination. Nor does the record include any evidence that, prior to the County hearing, the Association requested that it be made a party to the proceeding. There can be no question that, even if all appropriate procedural rights were not already offered to the Association at the County hearing, the present proceeding provided ample opportunity for the Association to offer evidence, either in the form of documents or testimony, and to cross-examine the Developers' witnesses. Notably, the exhibits entered into the record before the County, were admitted as joint exhibits in this proceeding, without any limitation as to their weight or relevance. Revival of the Original D. O. Even the closest scrutiny of the December 1995 Amendment reveals the complete absence of any provision extending the termination date of the Original D.O. In essence, the Association attempts, through this proceeding, to obtain review of action taken by the County in January, 1993, while stipulating that the County revived the Original D.O. in January 1993. Since the Original D.O. had already been revived, approval of the December 1995 Amendment did not require the County to revive anything. Vesting and Consistency with the Local Comprehensive Plan The development approved by the December 1995 Amendment will include eighteen stories of living space, with two stories of parking underneath. The resulting density will exceed twelve units per acre. The December 1995 Amendment expressly states that the proposed development is not subject to the height and density requirements of the 1993 Walton County Local Comprehensive Plan (the 1993 Comp Plan). The County has consistently treated DRI developments as vested from compliance with the 1993 Comp Plan, even when there has been a change in ownership. This position has been endorsed by the Department of Community Affairs. When the 1993 Comp Plan was being drafted, the County staff specifically intended that the height and density limitations in that plan not apply to already approved DRI developments. Approved DRIs were seen as sources of tax revenue that would alleviate losses attributable to the development restrictions imposed by the 1993 Comp Plan. The Department of Community Affairs has taken the position, and has consistently advised local governments, that, if a DRI development order is amended to reflect a decrease in the intensity of the project -- a decrease in the number of units, for example -- the development would not lose its statutory vesting. The Association's Purpose for Commencing This Proceeding The association's president repeatedly stated in her deposition that the Association's membership intend to do everything that they can to prevent the revival of the Original D.O. and to ensure that, whatever the Developers build, it is consistent with the 1993 Comp Plan. In addition to the present proceeding, the Association has also initiated six other legal proceedings challenging development proposed for the Developers property, Section 380.07, Florida Statutes appeals of both the 1993 and the April 1995 Amendments, two actions for certiorari challenging both of the April and the December 1995 Amendments, and two actions under Section 163.2115, Florida Statutes, challenging both of the 1995 Amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order approving the development proposed by the Developers and dismissing the Association's appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1996.
The Issue Whether the City of Fernandina Beach (“City” or “Respondent”) Future Land Use Map Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 2019-08 (“FLUM Amendment”), qualifies as a small scale development amendment to the City Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”); and, if so, whether the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” as that term is used in section 163.3187(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing ATC is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with a substantial number of members who reside in, own property in, or operate businesses in the City. ATC is an affected person under chapter 163, part II. ATC’s Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed. Members of ATC submitted oral and written comments on the FLUM Amendment to the City prior to and at the adoption public hearing. Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization with 67 chapters, including the Nassau County Sierra Club Group with a substantial number of members who reside in, own property in, or operate businesses in the City. Sierra Club participates in activities and outings on the Egans Creek Greenway (“Greenway”) for its members and the general public and has organized and participated in the removal of invasive species in the Greenway. Sierra Club is an affected person under chapter 163, part II. Sierra Club’s Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed. Members of Sierra Club submitted oral and written comments on the FLUM Amendment to the City prior to and at the adoption public hearing. Petitioners have standing to maintain these proceedings because they are affected persons and presented (or had their attorney or representative present) comments at the adoption hearing of the proposed FLUM Amendment. The City is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. The City provided timely notice to the parties and followed the plan amendment procedures required by the City’s codes and chapter 163, part II. The subject property is located within the City’s jurisdiction. Amelia Bluff is a Florida limited liability company conducting business in the City. By virtue of its ownership of the property that is subject to the FLUM Amendment and this dispute, Amelia Bluff is affected by the challenge to the FLUM Amendment and has standing to intervene in this proceeding. The Subject Property The Property is part of a larger parcel of approximately 15.07 acres (the “School Board Property”) that was previously owned by the School Board of Nassau County (the “School Board”). The School Board Property was essentially undeveloped, though it had been used as outdoor classroom space for the high school. The School Board Property is located on the east side of Citrona Drive and is bounded on the west by Fernandina Beach High School/Middle School. The School Board Property is bounded on the south by the Hickory Street right-of-way, which is an access to the Greenway. Across from the Hickory Street right-of-way is Shell Cove, a residential subdivision that, according to the City Staff Report, is zoned R-2 with a Medium Density Residential FLUM designation. Shell Cove, which is completed, is of greater density than the proposed Amelia Bluff subdivision. The School Board Property is bounded on the north by a tract of undeveloped property. According to the City Staff Report, the property to the north is zoned R-1 with a LDR FLUM designation. The School Board Property is bounded on the east by 200 to 400 feet of publicly-owned, predominantly wetland property. That property merges into the western edge of the main channel of Egans Creek. The Egans Creek Greenway then extends eastward from the western edge of Egans Creek. The School Board Property includes a relatively steep bluff running generally from the northwest corner of the Property at Citrona Drive, diagonally to the southeast to the Hickory Street right-of-way. The elevation of the upland portion of the School Board Property, which is the portion proposed for development, is from 18 to 20 feet above sea level at its northwest corner, to 11 to 12 feet above sea level at its southeast corner. Roughly 3.76 acres of the School Board Property at and east of the toe of the bluff consists of jurisdictional wetlands, dominated by wetland vegetation, at an elevation of 1 to 2 feet above sea level. The upland portion of the School Board Property includes the 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision. Those uplands were, at the time of the June 2016 purchase by Amelia Bluff, fully wooded with predominantly hardwood species, interspersed with pine, holly and other species. The 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision are appropriately zoned R-1 for low-density residential development. The Property that is the subject of the FLUM Amendment consists of approximately 6.40 acres of uplands within the 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision. The Property is designated on the FLUM as Conservation. The remainder of the proposed subdivision is designated on the FLUM as LDR. The evidence indicates that there is no difference in the nature of the tree cover in the 6.4 acre Property and in the remaining acreage of the proposed subdivision. Maritime Forest/Maritime Hammock There was a good deal of testimony directed to the issue of whether the trees on the Property constitute a “maritime forest” or an imperiled “maritime hammock.” The tree cover on the Property, as established by the tree survey, consists largely of live oak, laurel oak, and water oak, interspersed with magnolia, pine, red maple, and other species. Ms. Jetton described the cover of the Property as maritime forest, and stated that “maritime forest” is identified as an imperiled community in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (“FNAI”) and designated in the Egans Creek 2015 Greenway Management Plan (“Greenway Management Plan”) as such. Although a “maritime hammock” is designated as an imperiled vegetative community, a “maritime forest” is not. Ms. Jetton later clarified her testimony, stating that “I probably shouldn't have said ‘hardwood hammock.’ I'm accustomed to using that term in the Florida Keys. I know this is a maritime forest, but it is composed of hardwood trees, live oak trees, pine trees.” When asked about the terms “maritime forest” and “maritime hardwood hammock,” she stated that “it was a faulty use of my words. I should have stuck with ‘maritime forest.’” There was little to suggest that the Property contains a “maritime hammock,” which is a specific type of imperiled vegetative community identified in the FNAI and the Greenway Management Plan. Mr. Gerald indicated that it did not. Rather, Mr. Gerald indicated that the type of “maritime forest” that exists on the Property, i.e., a forest on a barrier island, is “very common throughout the mainland, throughout Nassau County, Duval County, St. Johns, Clay, all the way out through pretty much all of North Florida.” It is not an imperiled or unique community, as is a maritime hammock. The Ecological Assessment of Egans Creek Greenway indicates that maritime hammock communities associated with the Greenway “are located along the eastern part of the Greenway,” with another near an indeterminate stretch of Jasmine Street and bisected by a wide and deep canal that is not surficially connected to Egans Creek, and a third set at the southern portion of the Greenway that appear to be adjacent to a beach dune community. There is nothing in the Ecological Assessment to suggest that a maritime hammock community exists to the west of the Greenway. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the Property contains an imperiled “maritime hammock” as described in the FNAI and the Ecological Assessment of Egans Creek Greenway. There is little question that the Property is a beautifully wooded tract. However, the issue is not whether the Property merits preservation, but whether the FLUM Amendment, that will allow for the development of the Property as the Amelia Bluff subdivision, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Egans Creek Greenway The Greenway is a system of approximately 317 acres of publicly-owned waterways, marshes, and wetlands that extends in a north-south direction through Amelia Island, separating the City’s beaches from its downtown and commercial areas. Egans Creek is not an Aquatic Preserve or Outstanding Florida Water. Egans Creek flows into the Amelia River and the Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve. The Greenway is a regional drainage facility that receives untreated stormwater from areas including part of the original plat of the City. Water quality in Egans Creek is degraded, though the creek is not designated as “impaired.” The City’s Greenway Management Plan provides that “[t]he primary purposes of the project are to protect this sensitive natural area from development,” and that “[a]ll of the property encompassed in this project will be designated as recreational/wetlands and protected in the City’s future land use plan.” The Greenway extends from the western bank of the Egans Creek channel eastward. The Greenway is separated from the Property by 200 to 400 feet of publicly-owned, predominantly wetland property, the first hundred feet or so of which is dense willow/wax myrtle/Chinese tallow shrub, and then brackish march to the Egans Creek channel. Procedural History of the Amelia Bluff Subdivision In June 2016, Amelia Bluff entered into a contract to purchase the 15.07-acre School Board Property from the School Board. The School Board Property includes the 6.4-acre Property. Amelia Bluff proposed to develop the upland portion of the School Board Property, including a significant portion of the Property, for the proposed subdivision. On September 27, 2016, the School Board filed an application to vacate a 60-foot right-of-way known as Gum Street extending through the School Board Property in connection with the School Board’s intent to sell the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff, memorialized as City Planning Advisory Board (“PAB”) Resolution 2016-24. On August 10, 2017, the School Board, Amelia Bluff, and the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), which memorialized the parties’ understanding of the conditions of the City’s agreement to vacate a portion of Gum Street extending through the School Board Property. The MOU stipulated that Amelia Bluff would (i) provide access to the abutting properties owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) located on the eastern boundary of the School Board Property through the creation of a City right-of-way to connect Hickory Street to the property owned by the FDOT; (ii) transfer the wetlands portion of the School Board Property to the City for conservation; and (iii) donate $115,000 to the City for land conservation efforts, to be paid at the conclusion of all legal challenges and/or appeals for all subdivision approvals. On August 15, 2017, the City adopted: (i) Ordinance No. 2016-40, which vacated a portion of Gum Street; and (ii) Resolution 2017-123, which approved the MOU. On November 29, 2017, the School Board conveyed the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff. On February 16, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed an application for preliminary plat approval for the subdivision. On March 9, 2018, in accordance with the MOU, Amelia Bluff conveyed to the City approximately 3.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in two parcels (3.63 acres and 0.13 acres in size) and dedicated to the City approximately 0.917 acres for the right-of-way connection between Hickory Street and the FDOT property. The City accepted the conveyance of wetlands and dedication of right-of-way on March 20, 2018, pursuant to Resolutions Nos. 2018-39 and 2018-40, respectively. On April 11, 2018, the PAB reviewed the application for preliminary plat and issued a recommendation of approval. On May 1, 2018, the Commission approved the preliminary plat for the Amelia Bluff subdivision. On May 10, 2018, the City’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) reviewed and approved the preliminary plat for technical completeness and issued a compliance letter on May 14, 2018 (SPR 2017-09), authorizing the commencement of subdivision infrastructure improvements. In August 2018, Amelia Bluff commenced work on subdivision infrastructure improvements. On October 18, 2018, Amelia Bluff applied for final subdivision plat approval. The City and Amelia Bluff determined that the Property was designated Conservation under the Comprehensive Plan and would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the FLUM designation of the Property from Conservation to LDR. On November 15, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed the application for the FLUM Amendment to change the Conservation designation of the Property. City professional staff reviewed the FLUM Amendment application and determined that the FLUM Amendment sought by Amelia Bluff was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and furthered the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The determination was memorialized in a Staff Report prepared for consideration by the PAB prior to the PAB’s regular meeting on January 9, 2019. On January 9, 2019, the PAB reviewed the applications for the FLUM Amendment and final plat and issued recommendations of approval for the FLUM Amendment (PAB 2019-01) and final plat (PAB 2018-26). On February 19, 2019, the Commission approved the FLUM Amendment on first reading. On February 21, 2019, Amelia Bluff stopped work on the subdivision infrastructure improvements pursuant to the City’s request. On April 16, 2019, the Commission adopted: (i) Ordinance No. 2019-08, which approved the FLUM Amendment to change the FLUM designation of the Property from Conservation to LDR, allowing up to four residential dwelling units per acre; and (ii) Resolution 2019-57, which approved the final subdivision plat. Because of Petitioners’ pending challenge, the effective date of Ordinance No. 2019-08 is delayed. The Ordinance provides: “If challenged within 30 days after adoption this Ordinance may not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission, respectively, issues a final order determining that the adopted ordinance is in compliance pursuant to Section 163.3187, Fla. Stat.” Similarly, Resolution 2019-57 provides “[t]his Resolution shall become effective on the same date as Ordinance 2019-08 (a small scale Future Land Use Map Amendment that becomes effective pursuant to Section 163.3187, Fla. Stats.)” Thus, development may resume without any further action by the Fernandina City Commission if the FLUM Amendment becomes effective. Other Governmental Authorizations On December 28, 2017, the St. Johns River Water Management District (“SJRWMD”) issued Amelia Bluff an Environmental Resource Permit, No. 151737-1 (“ERP”), which notice was recorded in Official Records Book 2177, Page 1100 of the Public Records of Nassau County, Florida on February 15, 2018. On May 14, 2018, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) issued Amelia Bluff Permit No. 0003152-107-DWC, which authorized Amelia Bluff to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system on the site, and accepted Amelia Bluff’s Notice of Intent to Use the General Permit for Construction of Water Main Extensions for PWSs. The Proposed Subdivision The proposed subdivision consists of 30 lots, designed with two entrances from Citrona Drive, and two cul-de-sacs. The legal description for the final plat approved on April 16, 2019, in Resolution 2019-57, describes the proposed subdivision as containing “10.29 acres more or less.”3/ In addition to the property conveyed to the City or dedicated to the city as right-of-way, the final plat depicts Tract “C” (0.25 acres) as a “recreation/open space tract” that is removed from development. The proposed subdivision was initially designed with stormwater detention ponds near the front of the subdivision, near Citrona Drive and away from the bluff. However, placement at that location would have required extensive grading and tree clearing to direct the flow of water against its natural flow direction. After discussion with City staff, the decision was made to reconfigure site drainage so that stormwater would be directed via overland flow and drainage structures from northwest to southeast, generally following site topography. Stormwater from lots, sidewalks, and streets will be directed to two dry detention ponds located at the southeast portion of the subdivision, and adjacent to the bluff. By allowing stormwater to follow the natural topography, grading and clearing for stormwater purposes will be minimized. The two dry detention ponds are connected by a 12-inch pipe approximately 100 feet in length that is designed to equalize water levels in the ponds. The ponds have a discharge structure in the southernmost pond that is designed to discharge treated stormwater after a 25-year storm to the bottom of the bluff. Efforts were made to design utilities, the stormwater system, and the roadways and associated structures to avoid particular specimen trees within the rights-of-way. In addition, Tract “C” located near the northwest corner of the subdivision, as well as portions of Tract “A” in the vicinity of the dry detention ponds were preserved due to an abundance of trees at those locations. The subdivision is designed with a 25-foot wetland buffer that prohibits removal of native vegetation or other disturbance within 25 linear feet of the jurisdictional wetlands. The buffer encompasses the entirety of the bluff. It was noted during the hearing that the buffer terminates near the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision. It was explained, credibly, that the 25-foot buffer is to buffer wetlands, and that there were no wetlands within 25 feet of the southwest corner that required a buffer. It was also noted that several lot lines extended into the wetland buffer. The buffer will be marked and restrictions recorded. Much of the evidence offered by Petitioners was directed to concern that the disturbance of the Property and removal of trees would destabilize the “relic dune” upon which the proposed subdivision is to be built. The testimony regarding that issue was conclusory, and not based on site- specific studies. However, Dr. McPhillips noted that there is residential development up and down the Greenway, and that the adjacent Shell Cove subdivision had experienced no evidence of dune collapse. Work Completed to Date In June 2016, after Amelia Bluff contracted to purchase the School Board Property, the owner representative, Wirt Beard, met with City planning staff to engage in preliminary discussions regarding the development of the proposed subdivision. At that time, Amelia Bluff and the City planning staff noted that the Property was subject to a Conservation designation on the FLUM. The planning director at the time, Marshall McCrary, indicated that it was his opinion that the FLUM Conservation designation was a “scrivener’s error,” and that it would be taken care of. Considerable discussions regarding the abandonment of the Gum Street right- of-way then commenced, and the Conservation designation was essentially disregarded. Nonetheless, there is no question but that Amelia Bluff knew and understood at that time that the Property was not designated for development. Amelia Bluff’s decision to proceed with development planning and construction was not taken without considerable support by the City. Despite the fundamental issue of whether the proposed subdivision could go forward in light of the unresolved Conservation designation, the City proceeded with a number of actions that would have led Amelia Bluff to the reasonable conclusion that the matter was, in fact, being “taken care of.” As set forth previously, the City entered into the MOU with Amelia Bluff and the School Board that required Amelia Bluff to establish a City right-of-way through the Property to connect Hickory Street to FDOT property and to transfer roughly 3.76 acres of wetlands on the Property to the City for conservation, upon which the City would vacate a portion of Gum Street extending through the Property. Ordinances approving the MOU and vacating the Gum Street right-of-way were adopted on August 15, 2017. The sale of the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff was then closed on November 29, 2017. On March 9, 2018, in accordance with the MOU, Amelia Bluff conveyed the 3.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands to the City, and dedicated 0.917 acres for the FDOT right-of-way. The City accepted both by resolution on March 20, 2018. On February 16, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed its application for preliminary plat approval. On April 11, 2018, the PAB reviewed the application for preliminary plat and recommended approval, which was approved by the Commission on May 1, 2018. On May 10, 2018, the TRC issued a compliance letter authorizing the commencement of subdivision infrastructure improvements. Amelia Bluff commenced work on infrastructure improvements for the Project in August 2018. When work was suspended on February 21, 2019, pursuant to the City’s request, the stormwater collection system was substantially complete, stormwater ponds had been cleared and constructed, and the stormwater collection system had been installed. In addition, roads had been cleared and curbs installed. City Commission FLUM Amendment Meetings The undersigned viewed and listened to every minute of the City Commission meetings of February 19, 2019; March 19, 2019; and April 16, 2019. The exclusive theme of those meetings was whether the Conservation designation of the Property was a “scrivener’s error.” The staff presentations were directed solely to the historic zoning and land use designations of the Property. Aerial photographs going back to 1943, and plats going back nearly as far, formed the temporal starting point of the presentations. Charts, maps, and plans were presented and discussed that showed the Property to be subject to a residential “zoning map” designation starting in 1961 and extending through the 1990 FLUM. The Property then became subject to a Wetlands Protection zoning map designation in 1993 and FLUM designation in 1997. In 2005, the Property appeared with a LDR designation in the City GIS FLUM Map. The Property was then made subject to the Conservation designation in 2006, a designation that was adopted by City ordinance. Regardless of how the Property became subject to the Conservation designation, that is its official designation, adopted by ordinance, reviewed by the state land planning agency, and not subject to any timely challenge. The staff presented little or no “data and analysis” as to the compliance of the FLUM Amendment itself with the Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the Commission. The discussion of the FLUM Amendment by the Commissioners involved the alleged “scrivener’s error,” the cost associated with litigating a Bert Harris Act “takings” claim if the FLUM Amendment was denied, the cost of acquiring the Property from Amelia Bluff and the source of funds to do so, and nothing more. Though the evidence establishes that the Commission had “data and analysis” as to the compliance of the FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, there was not a whisper of acknowledgment or direct evidence of consideration. Several Commissioners, and particularly Mr. Chapman and Mr. Kreger, made statements that their votes to approve the FLUM Amendment were driven solely by the assumption that the Conservation designation was an error, with Commissioner Chapman discussing the cost of buying the Property in lieu of other sensitive lands in the community, stating that “I cannot justify giving up . . . 452 acres of land for six, I just can’t do it,”4/ and Vice-Mayor Kreger stating explicitly at the April 16, 2019, meeting that “to me, this is a mapping error, . . . I made the motion and I will vote yes on this.”5/ The undersigned is convinced that, at least as to the public discussions of the issue, little consideration was given to whether the FLUM Amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue in this case was whether the Commission actually considered available data and analysis supporting consistency, the evidence would suggest the answer is “no.” However, the issue in this de novo proceeding is whether data and analysis that was available to the Commission at the time of the adoption of the FLUM Amendment, and whether that data and analysis, together with any subsequent analysis, establishes that the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” with the Comprehensive Plan under a “fairly debatable” standard. Available Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires all plan amendments to be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but is not limited to, surveys, studies, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. Section 163.3177(2) requires the elements of the Comprehensive Plan to be supported by data and analysis. Likewise, section 163.3177(6)(a)8. requires FLUM amendments to be based upon an analysis of data. Section 163.3178(2) states that a local government’s coastal management element of its Comprehensive Plan must be based upon studies, surveys, and data. When the application for the FLUM Amendment was filed, Amelia Bluff provided the City with a substantial volume of information for consideration by City staff, and to which the Commission had access at the time it voted to approve the FLUM Amendment. The surveys, studies, and data included: a site survey prepared by Manzie & Drake Land Surveying; engineering plans for the proposed subdivision, including water and sewer design and stormwater system design prepared by Gillette & Associates, Inc.; a wetland delineation, wetland survey, and documents conveying all wetlands to the City; a topographic survey; preliminary and final plats which include a depiction of the upland/wetland buffer; stormwater modeling data and site drainage calculations prepared by Gillette & Associates, Inc.; the SJRWMD ERP; a geotechnical and soils report for the stormwater model and roads prepared by AGES of Jax, Inc.; a tree survey with input from an arborist; and a wildlife assessment prepared by LG2 Environmental Solutions, Inc. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Small Scale Development Amendment Section 163.3187 applies to “small scale development amendments,” which may be adopted when “[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer.” Petitioners allege that the FLUM Amendment is not a small scale development amendment since the 6.4 acre FLUM Amendment is part of a use, i.e., the proposed subdivision, that is greater than 10 acres in size. The FLUM Amendment is designed to change the land use category on the 6.4-acre Property. Both Ms. Gibson and Mr. Teeple testified credibly that the size of a FLUM amendment application is the acreage of the property on which the land use category is to be changed. Mr. Teeple testified that, in his extensive experience, he was unaware of any instance in which the 10-acre threshold was applied to the applicant’s total acreage, on the size of a “parent parcel,” or on the overall size of a development of which a FLUM amendment parcel was a part. Ms. Jetton testified on behalf of Petitioners that the Amelia Bluff subdivision is the “use,” which includes “the lots, the driveways, the stormwater ponds, the entire use,” although only the land use designation on the 6.4 acres would be amended. She asserted that the FLUM Amendment “should have been for the Conservation land with an explanation along with it that it would be part of a use that includes” the entire proposed subdivision. Her opinion as to “use” notwithstanding, Ms. Jetton testified that if the FLUM Amendment had occurred prior to the plat approval, “and they only offered the Conservation land as a small scale amendment, then that would have met the statute,” and the FLUM Amendment would properly be for the 6.4 acres for which the land use category change was being sought. Ms. Jetton, and Petitioners, rely exclusively on St. George Plantation Owners Association, Inc. v. Franklin County, Case No. 95-5124GM (Fla. DOAH Feb. 13, 1997; Fla. ACC Mar. 27, 1997). That case will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law herein. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is the established and accepted practice of the City and the regional council to base the determination of whether an amendment is a small scale amendment on the size of the property subject to modification. That determination is consistent with the plain language of the statute and is accepted as reflecting an accurate application of the standards for a small scale FLUM amendment. Internal Inconsistency In the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, Petitioners identified the specific goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that they assert render the FLUM Amendment inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Each of those goals, objectives, and policies is addressed as follows: Policy 5.07.09. The City shall prohibit any development activity that would potentially endanger lives and/or harm property, water quality, and quantity or any other valued environmental system resulting from an alteration to existing drainage structures and natural drainage patterns. Ms. Gibson testified that the City applied this policy and found that it was met as evidenced by modifications to the original stormwater system design and the permitting of the stormwater system by the city and the SJRWMD. As originally configured, the stormwater system would have required significant regrading and virtual clear-cutting of the entire Property to allow stormwater to flow against the natural topography of the land to the front of the proposed subdivision adjacent to Citrona Drive. With input and direction from the City, the system was redesigned to direct stormwater generally from the high point of the property to its low point at the southeastern corner, following the natural topography of the proposed subdivision. All stormwater is to be directed to the permitted stormwater facility. The 25-foot upland buffer is not designed or intended to treat stormwater. The stormwater system consists of dry detention ponds, which are preferred by the SJRWMD. The vertical percolation rate is calculated at 42.8 feet per day. The horizontal percolation rate was calculated at 0.6 feet per day. Mr. Gillette testified that the stormwater system was designed to manage 100 percent of the stormwater from a 25-year storm event, which exceeds the City requirement of a system capacity to handle a 10-year storm event. The treatment volume does not include infiltration and percolation of stormwater. Mr. Desilet reviewed the drainage plans and calculations and determined that they were in compliance with the City Land Development Code. He further confirmed that Amelia Bluff received a stormwater permit from the SJRWMD as required by the Local Development Order. The system is designed and engineered such that flow from the proposed subdivision in its post-development state does not exceed flow from the proposed subdivision in its pre-development state. The system is designed to hold and treat stormwater on site from a 25-year storm. After that, stormwater will be allowed to “pop-off” to the stormwater drain and culvert. Nonetheless, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that any water leaving the site will be treated stormwater, meeting both permitting and water quality standards. Mr. Gillette testified that the modeling performed in support of the stormwater system indicates that for a mean storm event (5.4 inches of rain), pre-development stormwater outfall from the proposed subdivision is 3.8 cubic feet per second (“CFS”), while post-development outfall is expected to be 0.67 CFS. For a 25-year storm event, pre-development stormwater outfall from the proposed subdivision is 16 CFS, while post- development outfall is expected to be 5.6 CFS. Mr. Desilet testified that the engineered stormwater system proposed by Amelia Bluff “addresses water quality by providing the minimum required treatment volume and infiltration under [SJRWMD] guidelines.” As such, he testified that under rules governing the SJRWMD, “[i]f the specified volume required by the pervious area of the site is provided, and it's shown that it infiltrates in the system and it meets other site criteria in the [SJRWMD] code, it is presumed to meet state water quality standards.” Consistent with Mr. Desilet’s testimony, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.432(2)(a), which is applicable to the SJRWMD, provides that “[w]hen a stormwater management system complies with rules establishing the design and performance criteria for such systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the discharge from such systems will comply with state water quality standards.”6/ The stormwater system complied with the applicable rules, thus leading the SJRWMD to issue a stormwater permit to Amelia Bluff. There was no persuasive evidence introduced to rebut the presumption that state water quality standards would be met. The City reviewed Amelia Bluff’s stormwater plans for compliance with the City’s Land Development Code and determined that water quality was addressed, and that the data and analysis regarding stormwater from the proposed subdivision was compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence offered to establish that the stormwater system designed for the proposed subdivision would “endanger lives and/or harm property, water quality, and quantity or any other valued environmental system resulting from an alteration to . . . natural drainage patterns” was not persuasive. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.07.09. Policy 5.07.12. The City shall require low-impact development strategies or conservation-based landscape planning and installation, water efficient irrigation, and appropriate measures that promote conservation of water resources and reduction of non-point source pollution as part of sustainable water management for new public and private development. New waterfront development shall be designed so that stormwater runoff and erosion are retained on-site or are channeled so as not to degrade water quality of adjacent waters. Ms. Gibson testified that the City required Amelia Bluff to apply low-impact development strategies, including its dedication of all wetlands to the City; the requirement of the 25-foot, naturally vegetated wetland buffer; modifications to the stormwater system to account for the natural topography of the land; and modification and realignment of infrastructure to preserve significant trees. Mr. Teeple testified that the proposed density of less than three units per acre is less than the four units per acre allowed under the LDR designation, thus supporting his opinion that Amelia Bluff applied a low-impact development strategy. Petitioners’ alternatives to the low-impact development strategies identified by Ms. Gibson included clustering all development onto that portion of the proposed subdivision currently designated as LDR, requiring swales in lieu of a “focused” drainage pattern, and increasing the width of the buffer. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its low-impact development policy was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. There are different ways to measure the effectiveness of low-impact development strategies, and people may -- and do -- disagree as to the appropriate means to accomplish the policy. The issue is not, however, which strategies should be implemented, but whether the City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s strategy was beyond fair debate. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.07.12. Objective 5.08. - Wetlands Protection and Preservation Petitioners assert that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 5.08. of the Comprehensive Plan, which provides as follows: The City shall direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, and shall protect and preserve wetlands from physical and hydraulic alterations, in order to maintain the following functions: natural biological functions . . . natural drainage systems impacting sedimentation patterns, salinity distribution, flushing characteristics . . . shielding other areas from wave action, erosion, or storm damage; storage areas for stormwater and flood waters; natural recharge areas; and natural water filtration processes that serve to purify water. Objective 5.08. is implemented through the City’s wetland Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policies: Policy 5.08.05. The City shall continue to ensure the protection and mitigation of wetlands, consistent with existing state and federal regulations, and shall ensure the following: Land uses which will have little or no adverse impact on wetlands; Standards and criteria for wetlands which possess significant functional value; and Activities that would provide direct public benefits and that would exceed those benefits lost to the public as a result of the degradation or destruction of wetlands. Policy 5.08.06. The City shall protect wetlands from impacts of adjacent development, and shall ensure through regulations included in the Land Development Code: Proper siting of development structures and infrastructure, including clustering of development away from wetlands; Location of buffer zones of native vegetation around wetlands and surface water bodies to prevent erosion, retard runoff, and provide habitat; and Setback of buildings and other structures from wetlands and water bodies. Policy 5.08.08. In instances in which development is proposed that is adjacent to a wetland, the boundary of a wetland transition area shall be established by an on-site field survey . . . . The City shall maintain land development regulations which ensure that the transition area provides a buffer between wetlands and upland development. Such buffer shall ensure existing vegetation is not disturbed; where new vegetation is required, plants or ground cover native or appropriate to a wetlands transition area shall be used. The data and analysis established clearly that the Property encompassed by the FLUM Amendment includes no wetlands, and that the proposed subdivision will result in no direct degradation, destruction, or impact to wetlands. Ms. Gibson testified that the Wetlands Protection and Preservation objective and policies were advanced in several ways, including the dedication of all wetlands on the School Board Property to public ownership so as to protect and preserve the wetlands, the creation of the wetland buffer between wetlands and the upland development, and the requirement -- enforced through the plat and engineering documents, Homeowners’ Association covenants, and City code provisions -- that native vegetation be maintained in the buffer. Petitioners argued that wetlands are adjacent to the proposed subdivision, that stormwater can drain from the proposed subdivision to the wetland, and that, ipse dixit, there will be an adverse affect on the wetlands. That allegation was not proven, and is inconsistent with the SJRWMD stormwater permit creating a presumption that the stormwater system complies with water quality standards. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its wetland protection and preservation objective and policies was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 5.08., or Policies 5.08.05, 5.08.06, or 5.08.08. Objective 5.10. - Wildlife Planning. The City shall encourage development and management of resources in a manner which sustains local wildlife, their habitat and the ecological services of the land, and shall protect significant habitats of populations of threatened or endangered species in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 16 USC 1531, and Florida Administrative Code Division 68A. Objective 5.10. is implemented through the City’s wildlife management Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policies: Policy 5.10.01. When reviewing development proposals for public or private development, the City shall take into account the following strategies: * * * Preserve native vegetation and habitat types; Preserve forested areas, the understory and native soil associations; and Avoid activities that dehydrate landscape features or alter seasonal water flows or duration of inundation to wetlands, hammocks or water bodies. Policy 5.10.02. The City shall protect significant habitats for native wildlife and vegetation in areas of known environmentally sensitive habitats, including habitats of endangered species. The Land Development Code shall be updated with regulations to ensure that prior to the issuance of development permits in such areas, detailed inventories and assessments of impacts of development shall be conducted. If on-site habitat will be disturbed by new development, the habitat shall be relocated or the impacts mitigated, if viable by virtue of its size, configuration, and connecting habitat. . . . Mr. Teeple testified that the donation of wetlands and the efforts taken, as described herein, to minimize impacts to trees on the Property, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. When confronted with the fact that the proposed subdivision will not “preserve the forested areas, the understory, and the native soil associations,” Mr. Teeple testified credibly that Policy 5.10.01 “doesn't say ‘preserve all native vegetation and all habitat types.’ It's incongruous with the nature of development.” The data and analysis demonstrate that Amelia Bluff made efforts to preserve native vegetation and forested areas on the property, as described herein, though it is without question that the Property will be subject to the normal impacts of low- density development. Compliance with the stormwater standards is sufficient to demonstrate that there will be no adverse water quality or water quantity impacts from the stormwater collection and management system, and that the system will not alter seasonal water flows or duration of inundation to wetlands, hammocks, or water bodies. Dr. McPhillips testified as to her concern that the buffer vegetation on the northern -- and more elevated -- side of the proposed subdivision will be desiccated, and that the vegetation on the southern -- and lower -- side near the dry detention ponds will, from time to time, become saturated. Her concern was that trees at the buffer would not be able to generate interfacial friction between the roots and soil to stabilize them under any appreciable wind load. However, Dr. McPhillips was not familiar with the adjacent Shell Cove subdivision, which has similar characteristics, or the requirements of the SJRWMD and the calculations required for a stormwater permit. Her opinions were not supported by specific facts as to how the site will hold or drain water, and were more in the nature of “pure opinion” testimony based on her admittedly extensive professional education and experience. The data and analysis was adequate to establish that the stormwater management system would not result in adverse impacts resulting from the system, including dehydration of landscape features. As to Policy 5.10.02, the evidence indicated that the City Land Development Code required detailed inventories and assessments of impacts of development. As part of the data available to the City, Amelia Bluff provided a wildlife survey. The survey established that the Property contained no environmentally sensitive habitats, including habitats of endangered species. The known environmentally sensitive habitats in the form of wetlands have been protected through conveyance to public ownership and the establishment of naturally vegetated buffers to protect off-site habitat. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its wildlife planning objective and policies was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 5.10., or Policies 5.10.01 or 5.10.02. Objective 5.11. - Tree Preservation and Urban Forestry. The City shall commit to preservation of community trees and the urban forest to improve air quality, community health, quality of life, aesthetics, and energy conservation. Objective 5.11. cannot be read in isolation from the policies adopted to implement the objective. Those policies include Policy 5.11.09., which requires the City’s Land Development Code to “protect and retain existing trees and require replacement of trees lost to land clearing,” with the objective of “achiev[ing] no net loss of trees per development site,” as well as “[m]aintenance of a Tree Fund for payments in lieu of replanting or mitigation of protected trees.” Mr. Platt testified that the City’s objective has been met through a number of strategies and policies applied to Amelia Bluff. Mr. Platt and Ms. Gibson testified that individual lots will be required to submit a land clearing application at the time of the single-family home permit, and the lot grading and tree removal associated with each individual lot will be reviewed on a parcel-by-parcel basis at that time. The City's Land Development Code has provisions for the protection of noninvasive, healthy trees larger than five inches in diameter at breast height (“DBH”) within five feet of a home footprint. For any tree in the protected class that must be removed, the City has a mitigation and minimum planting ordinance which requires that any tree planted as part of mitigation be a noninvasive, native tree, at a minimum of two and a half inches DBH and eight feet in height. In addition to the foregoing, the City Land Development Code has a provision that allows for up to 50 percent of on-site mitigation to be accomplished through an “inch-for-inch” payment to a tree mitigation fund. That provision is, according to Mr. Platt, rarely used, though it is consistent with Policy 5.11.09 described above. As indicated previously, Amelia Bluff set aside several areas of the proposed subdivision, both within the Property and within the remaining generally indistinguishable acreage, for protection of both important specimen trees and clusters of trees, most notably Tract “C” (0.25 acres) near the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision, areas around the dry detention ponds (0.17 acres), and tree “islands” in the cul- de-sacs. In addition, Amelia Bluff worked with the City to realign roadways and utilities to avoid particular trees. Petitioners assert that Objective 5.11. has not been met because the overall forest will be altered, not only through the installation of infrastructure, but also through the clearing that will be necessary for homes and driveways. Petitioners argue that the inevitable thinning of the forest and damage caused through construction activities will weaken the remaining trees, and diminish the storm protecting qualities of an unbroken forest. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with Objective 5.11. was supported by data and analysis, including the tree survey and the retention/removal plan. It was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications, when considered in conjunction with the related policies and the City’s Land Development Code, as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. People clearly, and in good faith, disagree as to the best means of preserving the urban forest. Development, even of low density, by its very nature entails a modification of the natural state. However, the issue is whether the City’s determination that the FLUM Amendment, including protections proposed by Amelia Bluff, was, beyond fair debate, in error. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Tree Preservation and Urban Forestry Objective 5.11. Objective 6.05. - Open Space. Open spaces shall be protected within urbanized areas for their aesthetic, health, environmental, and economic benefits. The City shall continue to maintain standards in its land development regulations for the provision and maintenance of open space in the community, including in private developments and publicly owned lands. Objective 6.05. is implemented through the City’s open space Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policy: Policy 6.05.03. Privately-owned open space, such as those within subdivisions or PUD developments, which consist of a conservation future land use or contains environmentally sensitive lands, shall be protected through the acquisition of conservation easements. There was surprisingly little or no testimony offered by anyone other than Ms. Gibson and Mr. Teeple regarding the consistency of the FLUM Amendment with this objective and policy. Mr. Teeple testified to the difficulty in applying Policy 6.05.03 -- despite the provision that open space “within subdivisions or PUD developments, which consist of a conservation future land use . . . shall be protected through the acquisition of conservation easements” -- due to “the out- of-sequence process that we're going through by dealing with land use last.” Had the FLUM Amendment been considered “in- sequence,” there would have been no subdivision to which Policy 6.05.03 would have applied. Several witnesses testified that had the sequence of events not been skewed by Mr. McCrary’s ill- advised statement that the “scrivener’s error” would be taken care of, a number of issues created as a result of the amendment of the FLUM after plat approval would not have been problems. This appears to be one. It does appear that Policy 6.05.03. was designed to apply to open space lands within a developed subdivision, ensuring through a conservation easement that such designated open space lands would not be encroached upon. That scenario does not present here. The evidence establishes that all of the “environmentally sensitive lands” on the School Board Property were conveyed to the City. Though the Property is forested, it is of a nature common throughout north Florida, and not imperiled “maritime hammock.” Amelia Bluff conveyed all wetlands on the Property to the City. Amelia Bluff also placed 0.25 acres into “recreation/open space, preserved significant stands and individual trees, and donated $115,000 to the City for land conservation efforts. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with Objective 6.05. and Policy 6.05.03. was supported by data and analysis as described above. Though a facially credible argument can be made that the Property is land designated as Conservation within a “subdivision”, under the specific -- and peculiar -- facts of this case, the legislative decision to adopt the FLUM Amendment as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, when considered in conjunction with the related policies and the City’s Land Development Code, was fairly debatable. Objective 6.10. - Egans Creek Greenway. The City shall protect Egans Creek Greenway for its value as a recreational asset, for its significance as an outstanding natural resource, and for its role in providing wildlife habitat. The Amelia Bluff subdivision does not front onto the Egans Creek Greenway. Rather, the easternmost edge of the Property is from 200 to 400 feet removed from the Greenway. The Greenway was protected by the dedication of all wetlands that were part of the School Board Property to the City. The Greenway is further protected by the establishment of the 25-foot naturally vegetated upland buffer. As established herein, any stormwater discharged from the dry detention ponds is not reasonably expected to result in the violation of water quality or water quantity standards established by the SJRWMD or the City. While recognizing the value of the Egans Creek Greenway, the evidence does not demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will impair the Egans Creek Greenway’s value as a recreational asset, its significance as an outstanding natural resource, or its role in providing wildlife habitat, and does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 6.10. Policy 1.02.04. Decision on amendments to the FLUM shall be based on an analysis of the suitability and compatibility of the proposed use, based on the following factors: Type and density or intensity of surrounding uses; Zoning districts in the surrounding area; Demonstration of adequate water supply and water supply facilities; Appropriateness of the size of the parcel compared to the proposed use; Physical condition of the site, and the suitability of soils and topography for the proposed use; Suitability of the site based on the presence or absence of natural resources, environmentally sensitive lands, flood zones, or historic resources; Compatibility factors; Impact on adopted levels of service standards and quality of service standards; and Location in a Coastal Upland Protection Zone (CUPZ). Petitioners’ argument on this point is essentially that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by relevant data and analysis in the form of the assessments called for in the policy. That argument is separate and apart from the issue of whether the FLUM Amendment creates an internal inconsistency with the policy. As set forth herein, the data available to the City, and the analysis of that data, met the substantive requirements of Policy 1.02.04. Thus, the record does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.02.04. Data and Analysis Petitioners’ last argument is, as expressed in section II.a.(3) of the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with various provisions of section 163.3177, including that the proposed FLUM Amendment be based on “accurate” data and analysis. In that regard, section 163.3177(1)(f) provides that: All . . . plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment. (emphasis added). Section XI of the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation then identifies the following issues as remaining for disposition: Whether the [FLUM] Amendment is based upon appropriate data and analysis including the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and suitability of the property for the proposed use in accordance with Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes. Whether the development . . . ensures the protection of natural resources and the compatibility of adjacent land uses as required under Section 163.3177(3). Whether the development . . . directs future land uses that are incompatible with the protection of wetlands and wetland functions in violation of section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes. Whether the development . . . will adversely impact water, wetlands, wildlife, habitat, soils, native vegetative communities, existing natural preserve areas, and other natural and environmental resources pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), (6), Florida Statutes. (emphasis added). Ms. Gibson testified that the FLUM Amendment is supported by information described in paragraph 73, and described in further detail throughout these Findings of Fact. The availability of the data was corroborated by Mr. Platt, Mr. Desilet, Mr. Gillette, and Mr. Gerald. Though there was little evidence that the data and analysis was fully considered by the Commission,7/ the evidence established that there was substantial data “available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment,” and that the data was, at a minimum, analyzed and considered by City staff. Consistency of the FLUM Amendment with section 163.3177(2), (3), and (6) has been addressed in conjunction with the specific Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies set forth in detail herein. Based thereon, Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis, or are otherwise inconsistent with section 163.3177(1)(f), (2), (3), and (6). Conclusion In analyzing the consistency of the FLUM Amendment with the Comprehensive Plan, the undersigned gave full attention to not only the witnesses and evidence produced by the parties, but also to the public comment taken during the evening of July 15, 2019. This project has clearly evoked a great deal of justifiable passion from people who are concerned, invested, and involved in their community. However, the burden applicable in proceedings of this nature -- beyond fair debate -- is substantial. The decision that was made by the City officials was, as discussed herein, a legislative decision. Regardless of the extent that their attention may have been misdirected to the issue of whether the adopted and valid Conservation designation was a “scrivener’s error,” the data and analysis in support of the FLUM Amendment was available. Under the specific facts of this case, the decision of the elected City officials to approve the FLUM Amendment, regardless of their publicly stated reasons, was one that reasonable persons could differ over, and was therefore “fairly debatable.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan FLUM Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-08 on April 16, 2019, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 16th day of September, 2019.
The Issue Whether, in accordance with Section 4.1(l)(f), State Requirements for Education Facilities (SREF), Respondent has grounds to ratify the Superintendent's determination that Petitioner is delinquent, so as to be disqualified for a period of one year from bidding on any construction contracts with Respondent that require certification.
Findings Of Fact Introduction This case involves the construction of lighted aluminum walkway covers at several dozen of Respondent's existing schools. Walkway covers are the canopies that are erected over sidewalks to protect pedestrians from rain and sun. The construction of lighted walkway covers is not complicated. The job requires electrical, aluminum, drainage, and concrete work. The contractor lays a new sidewalk or widens an existing sidewalk; erects columns to support the cover or canopy, accommodate the conduit to drain stormwater from the covers to the ground, and support light fixtures; fabricates and installs the canopy; installs in-ground drainage features; excavates trenches for electrical service and drainage; and restores the construction site. Prior to the period in question, Respondent contracted with Walker Design & Construction Co. (Walker) for the construction of lighted walkway covers at Respondent's schools. In the summer of 2009, contemplating the construction of a large number of walkway covers over a short period of time, Respondent decided to broaden its pool of contractors. For schools with urgent needs, which constituted about one-quarter of the construction budget, Respondent assigned the work to Walker through its competitively bid annual contract that had been in place since 2007. Walker's work on these urgent-needs schools is not addressed in this recommended order. For the remaining schools, Respondent decided to issue a request for proposals to obtain as many as four contractors from which it could later solicit bids for groups of projects. Respondent sought design/build contracts, in which the contractors would assume the responsibility of designing lighted walkway covers that met the stated requirements of Respondent. Contract Documents RFP and Selection of Four Design Builders By Request for Proposal for the Design/Build of Aluminum Walkway Covers (RFP) published in August 2009, Respondent requested proposals by September 21, 2009, for the design, permitting, fabrication, and installation of lighted aluminum walkway covers over existing and new sidewalks at about 50 sites at an estimated budget, per site, of $50,000-$500,000 and at a total approved budget of $8 million. The RFP Instructions to Proposers is identified as Section 00100.2/ Paragraph 00100.7.2 states that Respondent will award up to four contracts "to establish a pool of qualified Design Builders to [construct] . . . walkway covers at locations requested by the District on an as needed basis" for the ensuing two years. Paragraph 00100.7.2 explains that Respondent will request the selected Design Builders to participate in an invitation to bid for each project that Respondent chooses to undertake. Paragraph 00100.9 provides that Respondent will issue a Notice to Proceed after the selected Design Builder3/ has submitted to Respondent the necessary documents. Paragraph 00100.9.2 requires the Design Builder, within 14 days after being awarded a specific project, to submit a performance bond, a labor and materials payment bond, proof of insurance, a list of subcontractors, a "preliminary progress schedule," and a "Schedule of Values," which is detailed in Paragraph 00700.9.2. This paragraph is in the General Conditions of the Contract for Design/Build, which is discussed below. In November 2009, Respondent selected four proposals submitted in response to the RFP. The winning contractors were Petitioner, Walker, Pirtle Construction Co. (Pirtle), and Hardy Industries. Hardy Industries later decided not to bid on any of the projects, so only three Design Builders competed for the projects. With each Design Builder, Respondent entered into a master contract, a copy of which had been attached to the RFP as a Sample Owner-Design/Builder Agreement. As Respondent identified specific projects, each Design Builder conceptualized the work sufficiently to prepare an estimated cost, so as to permit the Design Builder to submit a bid for the project. Respondent then selected the lowest bid for each project. Ultimately, Petitioner won contracts for 17 schools, Pirtle won contracts for six schools, and Walker won contracts for the remaining schools, which probably numbered at least 27. Owner-Design/Builder Agreement, General Conditions, Special Conditions, Supplementary Conditions, and Design-Build Criteria Owner-Design/Builder Agreement Petitioner and Respondent executed an Owner- Design/Builder Agreement on November 6, 2009. This document is identified as Section 000510 and contains Articles, not Paragraphs. References to Article 1, for instance, will thus be to Article 000510.1. Article 000510.1 provides that the Contract Documents are the RFP, the Owner-Design/Builder Agreement, the performance and payment bonds, the Design Builder's proposal, documentation submitted by the Design Builder before and after the awarding of the contract, General Conditions, Special Conditions, Supplemental Conditions, Educational Specifications, District Master Design Specifications and Criteria, each project's Design/Build Criteria Package, Preliminary and Final Drawings, the Project Manual, and all addenda and modification issued-- respectively--before and after the submittal of the Proposal. Article 000510.3 states that the Contract Time begins with the issuance of the Notice to Proceed, and the Work must be Substantially Completed by the date specified in the Notice to Proceed. Article 000510.3 adds that a failure to complete the Project in the specified time "shall result in substantial injury to the Owner," and a failure to meet the Substantial Completion deadline shall result in the payment of Liquidated Damages. 2. General Conditions As already mentioned, the General Conditions of the Contract for Design/Build is identified as Section 00700. Paragraph 00700.1.1.1. defines the Contract Documents as the Owner-Design/Builder Agreement, the General, Supplementary and other Conditions of the Contract, the Drawings, the project manual, and all addenda and modifications. Paragraph 00700.1.1.1 adds that Contract Documents "also include [the RFP], sample forms, the Proposal or portions of Addenda related to any of these, or any other documents, unless specifically enumerated in the Owner-Design Build Agreement, unless [sic] specifically enumerated in the Owner-Design/Builder Agreement." Count I cites Paragraphs 00700.4.12 and 00700.4.14, which are in the General Conditions. Article 00700.4.12 addresses the use of the site. The sole provision in this article is Paragraph 00700.4.12.1, which states: "The Design/Builder . . . shall not unreasonably encumber the Site with any materials or equipment." Article 00700.4.14 addresses cleaning up. The sole provision in this article is Paragraph 00700.4.14.1, which states: The Design/Builder at all times shall keep the Project and surrounding areas free from accumulation of waste materials or rubbish caused by his operations. At the completion of the Work, he shall remove all his waste materials and rubbish from and about the Project as well as all his tools, construction equipment, machinery and surplus materials. The Owner may, at any time deemed necessary, direct the Design/Builder to clean up the site to the Owner's standard. Count II cites Article 00700.8.2 and Paragraphs 00700.8.2.1 and 00700.8.2.2 of the General Conditions. Article 00700.8.2 addresses progress and completion. Paragraph 00700.8.2.1 states that all time limits in the Contract Documents are of the essence. Paragraph 00700.8.2.2 requires the Design Builder to start the work on the date of commencement, as defined in Paragraphs 00700.8.1.1 and 00700.8.1.2, and complete the work within the Contract Time. Paragraph 00700.8.1.1 provides that the Contract Time starts with the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Paragraph 00700.8.1.1.3 defines Final Completion as the date set forth in the Proposal, unless the Owner agrees to amend this date. Paragraph 00700.8.1.2 defines Substantial Completion as the date certified by the Owner that construction is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Contract Documents that the Owner "can occupy or utilize the Project for its intended purpose." Paragraph 00700.8.1.2 adds that all warranties begin the next day. Count III cites Paragraph 00700.9.5.4 of the General Conditions. This paragraph requires the Design Builder, within ten days of receipt of payment from the Owner, to pay each Subcontractor, out of the amount paid to the Design Builder on account of the Subcontractor's Work, the amount to which the Subcontractor is entitled, less any retainage withheld by the Owner on account of such Subcontractor's Work. Paragraph 00700.1.1.1 defines a Modification as an amendment to the Contract that is signed by both parties, a Change Order, a "written interpretation" issued by the Owner under Paragraph 00700.2.2.8, a "written order for a minor change in the Work" issued by the Owner, and a "Constructive [sic] Change Directive." Paragraph 00700.13.1.1A defines a Change Order as a "written order to the Design/Builder signed by the Owner issued after execution of the Contract, authorizing a change in the Work or an adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time." This provision warns, "The Contract Sum and the Contract Time may be changed only by a Change Order." Under Paragraph 00700.13.1.3, the cost or credit to the Owner may be determined by mutual agreement, unit prices, or costs plus a mutually acceptable fixed or percentage fee. In addition to these options, Paragraph 00700.13.1.4 authorizes the Design Builder to proceed with Work that is described by a written order. The compensation will be based on a determination of the Owner based on its analysis of the Design Builder's "itemized accounting . . . with appropriate supporting data" covering the cost of materials, cost of labor, bond premiums, rental value of equipment and machinery, and the additional cost of supervision and field office personnel directly attributable to the change. Paragraph 00700.13.1.4.1 limits the cost allowance for overhead and profit to no more than 15 percent of the net cost. The meaning of a "written instruction" that may support a Modification is unclear because there is no Paragraph 00700.2.2.8. Other provisions under Paragraph 00700.2.1 discuss the authority of the School Board designee to interpret the Contract Documents, but do not suggest that such interpretations would constitute Modifications. Paragraph 00700.13.2 addresses Construction Change Directives. According to Paragraph 00700.13.2.1, such a directive is a "written order signed by the Owner, directing a change in the Work and stating a proposed basis for adjustments, if any, in the Contract Sum or Contract Time, or both." Paragraphs 00700.13.2.3 and 00700.13.2.5 incorporate similar provisions to those discussed above in connection with Change Orders for determining the appropriate adjustment in the Contract Sum for a Construction Change Directive. Paragraph 00700.13.4.1 provides that, if the Design Builder wishes to claim an increase in the Contract Sum, it shall give the Owner written notice within 20 days after the start of the occurrence of the event giving rise to the claim. Any change in the Contract Sum resulting from such a claim shall be authorized by a Change Order. Untimely claims are waived. Other relevant provisions of the General Conditions deal with the School Board designee, through whom the Owner's instructions are transmitted to the Design Builder, according to Paragraph 00700.2.1.2. This paragraph states that the School Board designee has authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent provided in the Contract Documents, "unless otherwise modified by written instruments in accordance with Subparagraph [00700.]2.2.15." The elusiveness of this provision--initially because the all-inclusive definition of the Contract Documents would likely capture any such written instrument--is reinforced by the nonexistence of Subparagraph 00700.2.2.15. Paragraph 00700.2.1.3 advises that the School Board designee will visit the Site at appropriate intervals to familiarize himself with the progress and quality of Work and determine if the Work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. Paragraph 00700.2.1.3 requires the Design Builder to inform the Owner of its progress by providing written monthly reports "defined as follows:." Nothing follows. Paragraph 00700.2.1.4 states that the School Board designee "will not be responsible for the Design/Builder's failure to carry out the Work in accordance with Contract Documents," nor will the designee "be responsible for or have control or charge over acts or omissions of the Design/Builder . . . ." Paragraph 00700.2.1.6 states that, "[b]ased on the School Board designee's observation and an evaluation of the Design/Builder's Application for Payment," Respondent will recommend the amounts owing to the Design Builder and issue a Certificate for Payment of such amounts. Paragraph 00700.2.1.7 identifies the School Board designee as the "interpreter of the requirements of the Contract Documents." The School Board designee has the authority to reject Work that fails to conform to the Contract Documents, according to Paragraph 00700.2.1.11, and he has the authority to determine the date of Substantial Completion, according to Paragraph 00700.2.1.13. However, the School Board designee may order only minor changes in Work and is authorized only to prepare Change Order Requests, as provided by Paragraph 00700.2.1.12. Paragraph 00700.2.1.9 states that, if the Project Manager cannot resolve any disputes relating to the execution or progress of Work or interpretation of Contract Documents, the dispute shall be referred to the Director of Program Management.4/ Paragraph 00700.3.3.1 states that if the Design Builder "fails to correct defective work as required in Paragraph 00700.13.2 or persistently fails to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents, the Owner . . . may order the Design/Builder to stop the Work or any portion thereof until the cause for such order has been eliminated[.]" Paragraph 00700.13.2 does not address defective work or the failure to correct such work. However, Paragraph 00700.14.2.1 provides: "The Design/Builder shall promptly correct all Work rejected by the Owner as defective or as failing to conform to the Contract Documents whether observed before or after Substantial Completion and whether or not fabricated, installed or completed. The Design/Builder shall bear all costs of correcting such rejected Work." Paragraph 00700.3.4.1 authorizes the Owner to correct any deficiencies in the Design Builder's Work if the Design Builder fails to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents and fails to commence corrections within seven days of the receipt of written notice of such failure. Paragraph 00700.3.6.1 provides that a failure of the Design Builder "to make prompt payments to " Unfortunately, the sentence, which appears at the bottom of page 00700-7, is never completed. At the top of the next page is the beginning of Paragraph 00700.3.6.2, which provides, among other things, that the failure of the Subcontractors to comply with the Contract Documents is a ground for the Owner to find the Design Builder in default. Dealing with the Design Builder's failure to comply with the Contract Documents, Paragraph 00700.4.3.4 states: "The Design/Builder shall perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents and submittals approved pursuant to Paragraph 00700.4.11. Paragraph 00700.4.11.1 identifies Shop Drawings as drawings prepared by the Design/Builder or a Subcontractor to illustrate some part of the Work. Paragraph 00700.4.10.1 requires the Design/Builder to maintain onsite a copy of all Drawings, Specifications, Addenda, Change Orders, and Modifications "marked currently to record all changes made during construction." Various provisions address the work schedule and progress payments. Paragraph 00700.4.9.1 requires the Design Builder to submit to the Owner a Construction Schedule, which must include at least three weeks for permitting of the Foundation, Shell, and Building. The Design Builder must promptly inform the Owner of any proposed change to the Schedule and revise the Schedule with ten days of Owner approval of such change. Monthly progress payments will not be approved until the Owner receives required updates to the Schedule. Paragraph 00700.4.9.3 requires the Design Builder to submit to the Owner, with each Application for Payment, a copy of the approved progress schedule marked to show the percentage completed for each part of the Work. The monthly submission must state the estimated total number of days that the Work is ahead of or behind the Contract Completion Date. This paragraph concludes: Should the Design/Builder fail to meet the approved schedule, documentation acceptable to the Owner shall be required of the Design/Builder to show just cause for delays or for additional time requests. Failure to comply with this subparagraph shall be sufficient grounds for the Owner to find the Design/Builder in substantial default and certify that sufficient cause exists to terminate the Contract or to withhold Payment to the Design/Builder until an updated progress Schedule acceptable to the Owner is submitted. Such failure shall not be cause for additional time. Paragraph 00700.9.3.1 requires the Design Builder to submit to the Owner an Application for Payment at least 14 days before the date of the sought progress payment. Prior to receipt of all payments after the first payment, the Design Builder must furnish to the Owner a Release of Lien/Verification of Payments proving that all labor and materials furnished through the date of the preceding requisition have been fully paid, less any retainage. Paragraph 00700.9.4.1 states that, within three days of receipt of the Application for Payment, the Owner shall issue a Certificate for Payment or notify the Design Builder why it is withholding a certificate. Paragraph 00700.9.4.2 states that the Certificate for Payment constitutes a representation by the Owner that the Work has progressed to the point indicated on the Application and the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents, subject to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion. Paragraph 00700.9.5.1 requires the Owner to make monthly progress payments of 90% of the amount otherwise due within 11 days after issuance of the Certificate of Payment. Paragraph 00700.9.11.1 requires the Design Builder, prior to receiving the Final Payment, to furnish to the Owner one complete set of drawings "indicating all construction changes." Paragraph 00700.7.7.1 provides that Respondent's Building Department is the designated inspector of the Owner. The Building Department shall inspect the Work for compliance with the Florida Building Code and other legal requirements. The School District's designee shall inspect for compliance with the Contract Documents. Several provisions deal with the Contract Time, in addition to those cited in Count II. Paragraph 00700.8.1.1.1 states that the Contract Time starts with the date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Paragraph 00700.8.1.1.3 states that the Final Completion Date of the Project is the date established by the Proposal unless amended by consent of the Owner. Paragraph 00700.8.1.2 states that the Date of Substantial Completion of the Work is the date certified by the Owner when the construction is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Contract Documents, so the Owner can use the Project for its intended purpose. Paragraph 00700.8.3.1 provides that the Owner shall extend the Contract Time, by Change Order, for "such reasonable time as the Owner may determine" for any delays caused by the neglect of the Owner or Owner's subcontractor, Change Orders, or other justifiable cause. The Design Builder must present a claim for extension of time not more than 20 days after the commencement of the delay, or else the claim will be waived. Paragraph 00700.8.4.1 provides for Liquidated Damages for failing to meet the Substantial Completion and Final Completion deadlines. 3. Special Conditions As already mentioned, the Special Conditions is identified as Section 00830. These conditions apply directly to the RFP process and are identified as part of the Contract Documents. Count IV cites Paragraph 00830.1.4 of the Special Conditions. This paragraph incorporates, among other documents, the District Master Specifications. Likewise, Paragraph 00830.8.1 provides that the walkway covers will be constructed in accordance with the District Master Specifications, although it erroneously asserts that "[a] design criteria package is not applicable to this RFP." (Count IV's citation to "Article 2" is unclear, but unnecessary, as Paragraph 00830.1.4, as well as other provisions, incorporate the District Master Specifications into the Contract Documents.) Paragraph 00830.2.3 states that Respondent intends to award a two-year contract, subject to a renewal of two years, to as many as four contractors, whose proposals in response to the RFP are ranked the highest by an evaluation committee. Paragraph 00830.10.1 states that, as a prerequisite for final payment, the Design Builder must furnish the Owner with drawings of all "modifications, additions, deletions, etc. to construction which are at variance with or in addition to the information show on the original drawing," and all "modifications, additions, deletions, etc. to utilities, pipes, conduits, etc. for all site work and construction which are at variance with or in addition to information shown on original drawings." 4. Supplementary Conditions 45. The Supplementary Conditions of the Contract for Design/Build is identified as Section 00850. None of these provisions is relevant to this case. 5. Walkway Cover Design-Build Criteria The Aluminum Walkway Cover Design-Build Criteria Package (Design/Build Criteria) does not bear a section number. This document is attached to the RFP. (Respondent Exhibit 106) Paragraph 1.C of the Design/Build Criteria states that Walkway Covers shall cover the existing or specified width of indicated sidewalks plus at least one foot on either side. Paragraph 1.E requires that designs must comply with SREF, the Florida Building Code, the District Master Specifications, the Design Criteria, and other materials. The District Master Specifications and Design Criteria are discussed below. Paragraph 3 advises that Design Builders must provide enough information in their plans to be able to obtain Individual Building Permits. Paragraph 3.iii. warns, "This is a critical function in order to meet contract timeframes." Paragraph 3.iii.2. identifies the items for which the Design Builder may obtain approval from the Building Department prior to bidding. These items include engineering and drawings for typical concrete foundations and light fixtures. Paragraph 3.iii.4.a.i. requires the drawings to show all drainage discharge points from the walkway canopies. This provision adds: "If permitted, [the drainage discharge points] can discharge to a grassed area where there is an inlet that will route drainage to the storm sewer system. Otherwise the discharge must be collected by storm water leaders that directly discharge to the storm sewer system." Paragraph 3.iii.4.a.i.1 requires that all "storm water leader or collection design shall be clearly shown on the drawings." Paragraph 3.ix. requires the Design Builder to "[f]inish the construction completion punchlists in a prompt and workmanlike manner. Restore work sites equal or better." Paragraph 3.x requires the Design Builder to provide a simple Gantt chart illustrating a schedule of progress. The Design Builder must provide this schedule after the issuance of the Purchase Order and before the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The schedule must show the design, the acquisition of the Building Permit, the fabrication of components, mobilization, foundation construction, the Covered Walkway installation, electrical/lighting construction, site cleanup and restoration, the Substantial Completion date, and a four-week period for completion of the final punchlists and issuance of the Certificate of Completion. Paragraph 3.xi. requires the Design Builder to provide a Schedule of Values after the issuance of the Purchase Order and before the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The cost breakout must include Design and Permitting, fabrication, shipping and delivery, foundation construction, drainage construction, installation of covered walkway structures, installation of electrical and lighting features, and site restoration. Paragraph 3.xii. states that a PPE will accompany each progress payment. Paragraph 3.xiii. requires the Design Builder to provide Lien Releases for payments made in the previous progress payment. Paragraph 4 provides details of the scope of Work. Paragraph 4.i.10. requires the Work to include "[s]tormwater downspouts . . . with Concrete precast splash blocks where they are permitted to be used, or they shall be hard-piped to offsite discharge where necessary to avoid erosion and ponding issues on site." This provision adds that the latter option "may include construction of stormwater piping, yard drains and connection to existing drainage structures. . . . Positive drainage may be needed. . . . When drainage features are included, provide inlet and invert elevations and piping details." Paragraph 4.iii. addresses Lighting. Paragraph 4.iii.2. requires a "minimum illumination of 2 footcandles on the sidewalks being covered, to be verified with charted photometrics and computations." Paragraph 4.iii.3 specifies that "Light Fixtures shall be Model number LVP 58-1 PL T42- 12/277-HPF-Prismatic-WHT-WET-AL or equal." This specification is for a fluorescent fixture. The Design Builder is required to install the lights so they are "securely mounted to the canopy columns." This provision concludes: "Provide a submittal for District acceptance before procuring." Paragraph 4.vii. states that "Time is of the essence." This provision warns that Liquidated Damages are tied into the Contract Time, as set forth in the Purchase Order and Notice to Proceed. Attached to the Design/Build Criteria is Attachment 1: "List of Items That Can Be Approved Prior to Bid." This form instructs each Design Builder to submit to the Building Department various items prior to bidding for particular projects--obviously, in an effort to expedite permitting. The listed items are the Demountable Anchorage System, which would permit the nondestructive relocation of columns as portable buildings are removed or relocated; engineering and drawings for columns, beams and decks, as well as all standard installation features and designs, so that a Design Builder would later only have to submit drawings for site-specific improvements; the engineering and drawings for typical concrete foundations; and the proposed light fixtures and timers. District Master Specifications and District Design Criteria District Master Specifications The District Master Specifications provides requirements for several elements of construction. Each element bears its own Section number, but each section also bears parenthetically a number in the format "xx xx xx," which format, as noted above, is used in Count IV. Except for the Section cited in the Count IV, citations to the District Master Specifications shall not include the parenthetical identification number. Count IV cites Section 01540 (01 56 00) of the District Master Specifications. This Section addresses security barriers and enclosures. Section 01540 provides: SECTION INCLUDES Security Program Entry Control Personnel Identification SECURITY PROGRAM Protect work, existing premises, and Owner's operations from theft, vandalism, and unauthorized entry. Initiate program in coordination with Owner's existing security system at project mobilization. Maintain program throughout construction period until Owner acceptance precludes the need for Contractor security. ENTRY CONTROL Restrict entrance of persons and vehicles into Project site and existing facilities. Allow entrance only to authorized persons with proper identification. Maintain log of workers and visitors, make available to Owner on request. Coordinate access of Owner's personnel to site in coordination with Owner's security forces. PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION Provide identification badge to each person authorized to enter premises. Maintain a list of accredited persons; submit copy to Owner on request. For Earth Moving, Paragraph 02200.3.16.A requires the contractor to "[u]niformly grade areas to a smooth surface, free from irregular surface changes." Paragraph 02200.3.19.A states that the contractor must "[r]emove surplus satisfactory soil and waste material, including unsatisfactory soil, trash, and debris, and legally dispose of it off Owner's property." For Storm Drainage Utilities, Paragraph 02700.1.1.C.1. requires the contractor to "[p]rovide storm water branches to roof leaders (8" dia. 1% min slope)." For Sodding, Paragraph 02938.1.2.B states: "Unless otherwise indicated, the Contractor is responsible for the repair of any existing low areas disturbed during the construction process." For Walkway Coverings, Paragraph 10532.1.4.A. requires the contractor to submit "shop drawings including plans, elevations and details, with dimensions and grades, for approval by Architect." The architect is an employee of the Building Department. For Summary of Work/Contractor Conduct on Campus, Paragraph 01010.1.3.B states: "Do not unreasonably encumber site with materials or equipment." For Procedures for Payment, Paragraph 01027.1.3.C. requires the use of data from the approved Schedule of Values. Paragraph 01027.1.4.D requires the submittal of Release of Lien waivers. For Contract Modification Procedures, Paragraph 01028.1.3.B. requires the contractor requesting a change in cost or time to provide sufficient data to support the request. Paragraph 01028.1.3.C lists data supporting computations as quantities of products, labor and equipment, taxes, insurance and bonds, overhead and profit, justification for any change to Contract Time, and credit for deletions from the Contract. Paragraph 01028.1.3.D lists supporting documentation for additional costs as the origin and date of the claim, dates and times that work was performed and by whom, time records and wage rates paid, and invoices and receipts for products, equipment and subcontracts. For Project Management and Coordination, Paragraph 01039.1.2.E requires the contractor to "[c]oordinate completion and clean up of Work of separate sections in preparation for Substantial Completion and for portions of Work designated for Owner's partial occupancy." For Alteration Project Procedures, Paragraph 01120.3.6.A. requires the contractor to "[p]atch or replace portions of existing surfaces damaged, lifted, discolored, or showing other imperfections." 2. District Design Criteria The District Design Criteria is sometimes referred to as the Design Criteria, but is not to be confused with the Design/Build Criteria. One of the sections, the Architectural Design Criteria, presents a broad set of criteria. Paragraph I.A explains that the District Design Criteria and District Master Specifications are to inform the preparation of design and contract documents for particular projects. Another section, the Electrical Design Criteria, presents a broad set of electrical criteria. Paragraph II.B.3.a. requires at least two footcandles of lighting for walkway covers and canopies. Paragraph II.B.3.e. requires that all exterior light fixtures be high-pressure sodium or metal halide. D. Interpretation of Contract Documents The various Contract Documents do not provide for the means by which to resolve any conflicts among the provisions of these various documents. The most notable such conflict in this case is between the specification of high-pressure sodium or metal halide5/ light fixtures in the District Design Criteria and the specification of fluorescent fixtures in the Design/Build Criteria. Among Respondent's employees, it is common knowledge that the documents that are more specific to a particular project control over more general documents that pertain to all projects. (Tr. 283, 1402, 3974). Thus, the Design/Build Criteria would control over the District Design Criteria. Petitioner's Projects For each of the 17 schools for which Petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a brief Short Form Agreement, which states the Contract Price and various deadlines. For these 17 schools, the total Contract Prices exceeded $1.75 million. In January 2010, the parties entered into Short Form Agreements for Binks Forest Elementary School (Binks) for $51,280, Grassy Waters for $91,450, and Egret Lake for $145,345.26. In February 2010, the parties entered into Short Form Agreements for Spanish River for $233,439, Atlantic for $81,930, Jupiter Elementary School (Jupiter) for $18,748, Lighthouse for $129,796, Limestone Creek for $147,469, Watkins for $145,097, Independence for $212,272, Jupiter Farms for $69,957, Olympic Heights High School (Olympic Heights) for $97,946, and Poinciana Elementary School (Poinciana) for $86,901. In April 2010, the parties entered into Short Form Agreements for Lake Worth Middle School (Lake Worth) for $135,982, Lantana Elementary School (Lantana) for $24,918, Indian Pines Elementary School (Indian Pines) for $81,628, and Crosspointe Elementary School (Crosspointe) for $40,292. Based on the individual Short Form Agreements, the milestone dates for the submission of plans and drawings, the issuance of the building permit, and the installation of the cover for the 17 projects were as follows (all dates are in 2010): School Drawings Permit Cover Installed Binks February 5 March 15 April 15 Grassy Waters February 5 March 15 May 20 Egret Lake Spanish River Atlantic February March 31 March 31 5 March 15 April 31 April 31 May 31 June 31 June 31 Jupiter April 20 May 20 June 20 Lighthouse April 20 May 20 June 20 Limestone Creek April 20 May 20 June 20 Watkins April 20 May 20 June 20 Independence April 20 May 20 July 20 Jupiter Farms April 20 May 20 July 20 Olympic Heights March 31 April 31 June 31 Poinciana March 31 April 31 June 31 Lake Worth June 15 July 29 September 15 Lantana June 15 July 29 September 15 Indian Pines July 15 August 29 October 15 Crosspointe July 23 August 27 October 5 For the purpose of this procurement, Respondent divided all of the schools in the walkway cover projects into various groups. The 17 above-mentioned schools were in six groups. Group 2 included Binks, Grassy Waters, and Egret Lake. Groups 5 and 6 included Atlantic, Olympic Heights, Poinciana, Spanish River, Watkins, Independence, Jupiter, Jupiter Farms, Lighthouse, and Limestone Creek. Groups 7, 8, and 9 included Lake Worth, Lantana, Indian Pines, and Crosspointe. As can be seen from the construction milestone dates listed in the charts immediately above and below, the three schools in Group 2 were the earliest projects, and the four schools in Groups 7, 8, and 9 were the latest projects. Count I raises issues of Petitioner's site management and cleanup at Limestone Creek. Count II raises the issue of Petitioner's timeliness of construction at the previously identified Six Schools, which are within Groups 5 and 6.6/ Count III raises the issue of Petitioner's payment of a subcontractor and a supplier at an unspecified number of schools. Count IV raises an issue as to Petitioner's return of keys at Grassy Waters, Egret Lake, Atlantic, Lighthouse, Limestone Creek, and an 18th school, Dwyer. As noted in the Contract Documents, Respondent was to issue a Notice to Proceed as soon as Petitioner had submitted the necessary preliminary documentation for each project. As provided in the General Conditions and Owner-Design/Builder Agreement, the Contract Time for determining the Substantial Completion Date started with the issuance of the Notice to Proceed for each project. On their face, the Notices to Proceed provide the following dates for Commencement, Substantial Completion, and Final Completion for the 17 projects (all dates are in 2010): School Commencement Substantial Final Binks March 9 July 6 August 5 Grassy Waters March 9 July 6 August 5 Egret Lake March 9 July 6 August 5 Spanish River March 9 July 30 August 29 Atlantic March 9 June 30 July 30 Jupiter March 9 June 28 July 28 Lighthouse March 9 July 16 August 16 Limestone Creek March 9 July 16 August 16 Watkins March 9 July 15 August 14 Independence March 9 July 28 August 27 Jupiter Farms March 9 July 12 August 12 Olympic Heights March 9 July 13 August 12 Poinciana March 9 June 29 July 29 Lake Worth June 14 September 14 October 14 Lantana Indian Pines Crosspointe June 13 July 14 July 14 September October 5 September 13 29 October 13 November 4 October 29 As shown on this chart, the approximate duration of construction--following the receipt of a building permit--was 90-120 days. The preliminary documentation that resulted in the issuance of a Notice to Proceed did not include the drawings and plans on which a Design Builder would obtain a building permit for a particular project. Each Design Builder submitted these drawings and plans after the Commencement Date, as discussed in more detail below. As noted below, the Building Department was expected to take about 30 days to act on the drawings and plans. If a Design Builder were prepared to submit the drawings and plans at or a few days after the Commencement Date and, assuming that the drawings and plans were adequate to support the issuance of a building permit without the submittal of any revisions, the Design Builder would therefore have a building permit and could begin construction a little more than one month after the Commencement Date. For all but the last four projects, if Petitioner had obtained building permits in four or five weeks after Commencement, it would have had about three months to reach Substantial Completion on all but two of the projects and another month to reach Final Completion on all of the projects.7/ Respondent's Main Personnel and Departments At the time of the hearing, James Kunard was the director of the Facilities Services Department; at the time of the events in question, Mr. Kunard was the general manager of the Facilities Services Department. The director of the department was Martin Mets. Mr. Kunard directly supervised Terrence Bailey, who was the project manager for the walkway cover projects. Mr. Kunard and Mr. Bailey directly supervised the Facilities Management Coordinators, who served as the liaisons between the school principals and the Facilities Services Department. Although herself a Facilities Management Coordinator, Dorothy Banaszewski generally supervised the other coordinators because of her education in civil engineering, her licensing as a professional engineer, and her superior experience in construction. At the time in question, as previously noted, Ms. Swan was the director of the Purchasing Department. Additionally, Thomas Hogarth was the director of the Building Department, and Robert Upson was a professional engineer in the Project Controls Department. Supervising Mr. Kunard, Ms. Swan, Mr. Hogarth, and Mr. Upson was Joseph Sanches, who was the Chief of Support Operations. Mr. Sanches' supervisor was Joe Moore, who was the Chief Operating Officer. After executing Owner-Design/Builder Agreements with each of the Design Builders, the Facilities Services Department prepared the Design/Build Criteria to provide the Design Builders with the basic information necessary for them to price individual jobs in the course of preparing bids. Ms. Banaszewski conducted mandatory prebid site visits so that the Design Builders could acquaint themselves with the sites on which they would be bidding. During these visits, Ms. Banaszewski gave the Design Builders site plans showing the locations of the walkways to be constructed and where they would connect to existing buildings, as well as floor plans indicating the location of electric closets and energy management system devices. Ms. Banaszewski and Mr. Kunard also described the early phases of the walkway cover projects, including such critical matters as that the Building Department would require 30 days to examine applications and issue building permits. After the commencement of construction, the Facilities Services Department assumed a wide range of duties, including monitoring the work, enforcing the Contract Documents, processing Change Orders, preparing punchlists and monitoring their completion, and pursuing liquidated damages. Operating autonomously from Respondent's other departments, the Building Department had three discrete tasks in connection with the walkway cover projects. First, the Building Department issued building permits after assuring that the proposed construction, as evidenced by the drawings and other documentation submitted to the Building Department, conformed to the Florida Building Code, the District Master Specifications, and the District Design Criteria. In issuing building permits, the Building Department might examine plans for compliance with the Design/Build Criteria, but the primary responsibility for this review was with the School Board Designee. Because of the absence of a School Board Designee, ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Design/Build Criteria was with the Facilities Services Department. Second, the Building Department issued any stop work orders for work that did not conform to the drawings and other documentation on which a permit was based. Third, marking Final Completion, the Building Department issued a certificate of completion (CC) after determining that the construction conformed to the Florida Building Code and other applicable law, as well as the approved plans and drawings. The Building Department's issuance of a CC is not conditioned on the Design Builder's completion of any punchlist, unless a punchlist item raises an issue of compliance with the Florida Building Code or other law or compliance with the approved plans and drawings. In coordination with the principal of the school, the Facilities Services Department prepares a punchlist when the job reaches Substantial Completion. Substantial Completion occurs when Respondent is able to take beneficial possession of the improvements.8/ The job of ensuring the completion of the punchlist falls to the Facilities Services Department, so the incentive for the Design/Builder to complete the punchlist is not the obtaining of a CC, but the payment of the retainage and avoidance of a determination of delinquency or a suspension of its certification to bid on Respondent's projects. The Purchasing Department manages the purchasing of goods and services, including construction work. The Purchasing Department conducts solicitations, but only at the request of schools or other departments. After concluding the procurement process, the Purchasing Department turns over the duties of contract management to the Facilities Services Department, although the Purchasing Department remains available to provide support to the Facilities Services Department, as requested. Early in the walkway cover projects, Mr. Kunard and Ms. Swan discussed in detail how to structure the procurement of the necessary work. These discussions included the allocation of the schools with urgent needs to Walker under its existing design/build contract, and the use of new design/build contracts for work on the remaining schools. As will be seen below, the Purchasing Department must also approve change orders proposed by the Facilities Services Department. Thus, the Purchasing Department retains the ability to prevent the Facilities Services Department from agreeing to the purchase of additional work from a Design Builder, even if the related work is related to the work for which Respondent has already contracted. The Project Controls Department also exercises responsibilities as to change orders. The Project Controls Department is an independent watch-dog department whose financial-accountability responsibilities include assisting the Facilities Services Department in determining fair and reasonable costs for change orders. Mr. Upson provided assistance in these matters to Mr. Kunard. Timeframes of Counts I-IV The timeframe of Count II spans much of the time period covered by this case, which starts in first half of 2009. The timeframe of Count III starts in the summer of 2009, as the alleged claims of the supplier and subcontractor arose during this period. The timeframe of Count I covers most of the time period covered by this case. The timeframe of Count IV extends over the period that starts with the completion of work at the earliest schools to be finished. Count II: Timeliness of Construction at Spanish River, Watkins, Lighthouse, Limestone Creek, Independence, and Jupiter Farms Permitting As noted above, the milestones for drawings and permitting for five of the Six Schools are the same: April 20 and May 20, respectively. For Spanish River, these milestones are March 31 and April "31," respectively. The deadlines for Substantial Completion for the Six Schools ranged from July 12-30, 2010, and the deadlines for Final Completion for the Six Schools ranged from August 12-29, 2010. Slippage occurred immediately, as Petitioner did not timely submit drawings to the Building Department for any of the Six Schools. For Spanish River, Petitioner submitted drawings on April 27, 2010--about four weeks late. For the remaining five schools, Petitioner submitted drawings on May 27, 2010-- about five weeks late. The main reason for the loss of time was probably that Petitioner's aluminum walkway subcontractor unexpectedly discontinued business in the first quarter of 2010. According to the minutes of a meeting that took place on March 4, 2010, Hydn Rousseau, the president of Petitioner, and Ed Vlock, the construction manager of Petitioner's walkway cover projects, discussed this development with Mr. Kunard and Mr. Bailey. Mr. Kunard warned that there would be financial consequences if Petitioner tried to back out of its contractual obligations. According to the minutes, Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Vlock assured Mr. Kunard they intended to perform their obligations under the contracts, but needed the help of the Facilities Services Department to urge the Building Department to expedite the issuance of building permits. This request was premature. As noted above, from the time of this meeting, nearly eight weeks would pass before Petitioner would submit its first set of plans and drawings--for Spanish River--and 12 weeks would pass before Petitioner would submit the plans and drawings for the other five schools. The minutes document an alternative proposed by Respondent's representatives: for each project, Petitioner could request an extension of the Contract Time, free of liquidated damages, as long as the Contract Price did not change and the construction was completed before school started in August. The minutes note: "[Petitioner] will consider this, noting that it is juggling the timing of projects to ensure profitability." This is an early appearance of Respondent's concern with time juxtaposed with Petitioner's concern with costs. However, Petitioner accepted Respondent's offer. By letter dated March 4, 2010, regarding the "Design/Build of Aluminum Walkway Covers," Petitioner asked for an extension of the time stated in "the" Notice to Proceed due to the need to substitute Perfection Architectural Services (Perfection) as the new aluminum walkway subcontractor "for Projects related to RFQ awarded on November 3, 2009." This reference suggests that the request is for all 17 projects. The March 4 letter states that work will start by June 5, 2010, and will be complete prior to the resumption of school on August 17, 2010. The letter states that Petitioner will honor its bid prices, but asks for a waiver of liquidated damages for any delay. By undated memo from Mr. Bailey to Petitioner, Respondent granted the request to substitute Perfection for the former aluminum walkway subcontractor. The memo requests a revised schedule of completion of work and states that all construction must be completed by August 1, 2010. The memo concludes that Respondent will issue a Notice to Proceed on receipt and acceptance of the revised schedule. Although Mr. Bailey uses the singular form, it is likely that he meant to refer to all 17 of Petitioner's projects.9/ But for the problem with the original aluminum walkway subcontractor, confusion caused by Respondent's representatives might have caused some delay in the start of Petitioner's projects. In early April 2010, Shams Moghadam, a professional engineer assigned to Respondent's Building Department, met with Malcolm Cooper, a civil engineer employed by the civil engineering consultant hired by Petitioner. In this meeting, Mr. Moghadam "confirmed" to Mr. Cooper that Petitioner was prohibited from mounting light fixtures on wet columns, which are those columns that support drainage conduits routing stormwater from walkway canopies to in-ground drainage features. By email dated April 12, 2010, to Mr. Moghadam, as well as Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Bailey, Mr. Cooper documented this communication. According to Mr. Moghadam, Mr. Cooper stated that he did not want to locate light fixtures on wet columns. This is Mr. Cooper's recollection, as well. (Pet. Ex. 233, p. 81) But the process by which Mr. Cooper's preference became Respondent's prohibition is unclear. Two things are clear, though. First, wet columns may support light fixtures without posing any increased risk of electrocution; for many years, Respondent has allowed this practice at its schools. Second, by his own admission, Mr. Moghadam never contacted Mr. Cooper to "correct" the prohibition stated in his April 12 email. This failure by Mr. Moghadam led to Respondent's implementation of the prohibition and its label in this recommended order as the Moghadam Prohibition. The Moghadam Prohibition had a significant impact on the lighting design of a project. Generally, every other column was wet, so the prohibition against locating light fixtures on wet columns removed half the columns as locations for light fixtures. A Design Builder suddenly found itself with the challenge of meeting the existing criteria of two footcandles at ground level using a specified fixture of a specified wattage or an approved substitute--all while meeting the new criterion of the Moghadam Prohibition. Mr. Moghadam seems to have been aware of the difficulties in satisfying all these criteria. Mr. Cooper's April 12 email continues: Shams suggested considering the same fixture but with two 26 Watt bulbs, rather than a single 42 Watt bulb.[10/] See attached technical data sheet Lamp No. 2PLC26. You will therefore need to revise the photometric analyses for Groups 2 and 4, as a priority, avoiding the wet columns meeting the 2 foot candle minimum criterion. We can then incorporate these changes on our electrical drawings along with any . . . Building Dept. comments, which we may receive, in the same revision. As is evident from these comments, the timing of the Moghadam Prohibition affected the timing of the plans and drawings for the first three schools, which are in Group 2, rather than any of the Six Schools. Mr. Cooper believed that the lighting changes necessitated by the Moghadam Prohibition, if done promptly, could be incorporated into any revisions required by the Building Department to issue the building permits for the three schools in Group 2 and posed little, if any, impact in terms of timing on the remaining schools, including the Six Schools. Mr. Cooper was right. The Moghadam Prohibition had no significant impact on the timing of the Six Schools. As of April 12, Petitioner still had eight days until the milestone of submitting drawings for five of these schools. For Spanish River, the milestone had passed on March 31--unmet due to reasons, such as the loss of the original aluminum walkway subcontractor, having nothing to do with the as-yet-undeclared Moghadam Prohibition. As indicated below in the discussion of the early phase of the Spanish River project, the time spent in incorporating design changes necessitated by the Moghadam Prohibition likely amounted to no more than ten days. Unsurprisingly, due to Petitioner's late submittals of plans and drawings, the building permits were also late-- through no fault of Respondent. The Building Department issued the building permit for Spanish River on June 8, 2010. The milestone for this permit was April "31"--i.e., May 1. The Spanish River project, which was behind by 27 days when Petitioner submitted the plans and drawings, was now behind by 38 days. The Building Department withheld approval of the initial drawings because, among other things, they failed to depict the connection of proposed drainage pipes to existing pipes and failed to specify all main drainage leader sizes and lengths--deficiencies that were not corrected until June 28--20 days after the Building Department issued the permit. The criticality of these missing items emerges below in the discussion of the stop work order that was later issued at Limestone Creek. The Building Department issued the building permits for Lighthouse, Limestone Creek, Watkins, Independence, and Jupiter Farms--the remaining five schools of the Six Schools--on June 24, 2010. The milestone for these permits was May 20. These five projects, which were behind by 37 days when Petitioner submitted the plans and drawings, were now behind by 35 days. The Facilities Services Department employees urged the Building Department to issue permits, even in the face of missing items. In June, Mr. Kunard and Ms. Banaszewski offered Mr. Hogarth any and all assistance necessary to expedite the issuance of the building permits. By email dated June 23, 2010, to Mr. Hogarth, Ms. Banaszewski stated that Petitioner "is geared up and ready to roll. They have been installing at an incredible rate. They feel they can still meet their completion dates if they have permits this week. We are very anxious for them to proceed because they can move much more quickly during the summer when school is not in session." Later the same day, Victor Chodora, an architect in the Building Department, noted that the plans for Watkins, Independence, Jupiter Farms, and Lighthouse were missing drainage details--again, as noted below, items that turned out to be important regarding the stop work order described below. Trying to expedite the permits, though, Mr. Chodora stated: "I suggest that [Petitioner] at least send email indicating that revised plans addressing the [missing] items will be submitted and approved prior to the first inspection for underground drainage. With the understanding that [for] the next project the items need to be addressed before permit." Yielding to the pressure brought to bear by the Facilities Services Department, later on the same day, Mr. Hogarth emailed Mr. Kunard: "I will issue the permits subject to the following condition: [Petitioner] first must send me a message accepting the plan review comments and agreeing to submit revised drawings and obtain approval prior [to] calling for the first inspection." By email to Mr. Hogarth at 7:35 a.m. the next day, Mr. Vlock accepted the conditions and thanked Mr. Hogarth for his consideration in this matter. It is only for these extraordinary efforts and accommodations of the Building Department that Petitioner obtained the building permits for the Six Schools as soon as it did. Attempting to reinforce an element of uniformity on the aluminum walkway cover projects, on May 25, 2010, Mr. Bailey sent an email to the principals of all four Design Builders, including Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Vlock. In its entirety, the email states: [A]s I inspect the projects in construction I will be taking special note [of] a few of the specific design criteria that we have outlined on each project, i.e., no splash block and all drainage connected with 8" minimum pipes except at parent drop off and bus loops, No High Pressure Sodium Lights, demountable column footings, and no lights on wet columns. If you have a project under this current contract that may have missed my eye while reviewing your drawings for these issues please review and revise the design accordingly as this will not be acceptable at final inspection. In a note to Mr. Moghadam and Patrick Joyce, a civil engineer in the Building Department, Mr. Bailey asked for the assistance of the Building Department to ensure that these criteria were met as projects proceeded through the Building Department's periodic inspections. This seemingly innocuous email is interesting for three reasons. First, Mr. Bailey is acknowledging that he may have missed noncompliances in Design Builders' plans and drawings. As noted above, Petitioner's plans and drawings for Spanish River had been submitted one month earlier, and its plans and drawings for the remaining five schools were submitted two days after the issuance of Mr. Bailey's email. Second, even though the Building Department is not responsible for this task, Mr. Bailey tried to enlist its aid in ensuring that the work conformed to the Design/Build Criteria and such additional requirements, such as the Moghadam Prohibition--even if such assistance were provided as late as the point at which the project is otherwise eligible for a CC. Third, Mr. Bailey provided a clear statement that the lighting was not to be high-pressure sodium and the drainage pipes were to be 8" in diameter.11/ In response to his copy of Mr. Bailey's May 25 email, also by email dated May 25, Mr. Kunard advised the Design Builders, including Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Vlock, that Respondent had required light fixture "Model number LVP 58-1 PL T42- 120/277-HPF/Prismatic-WHT-WET-AL or equal. . . . Provide a submittal for District acceptance before procuring." Mr. Kunard's repetition of the Design/Build Criteria requirement of a 42-watt fluorescent bulbed fixture regrettably fails to respond to Mr. Cooper's statement that Mr. Moghadam had suggested two 26-watt bulbs in place of a single 42-watt fixture. Perhaps Mr. Bailey had failed to copy his supervisor, Mr. Kunard, with Mr. Cooper's email. By email dated July 26, 2010, to the Design Builders, including Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Vlock, as well as Mr. Kunard and Ms. Banaszewski, Mr. Bailey noted that a contractor had proposed a different light fixture from the 42-watt fluorescent lamp specified in the "RFP." The contractor had proposed an 85-watt fluorescent lamp, and Respondent had accepted the change to avoid delaying the projects. The email allows all Design Builders to use this fixture because its use reduces the number of required light fixtures, even though the fixture "does not look as ecstatically as pleasing." Mr. Bailey's etymological innovation aside, this email illustrates two principles of later importance in this case: first, it is an example of Respondent's treating all contractors fairly by notifying all of them of the option of using this cheaper solution to the lighting design; and second, it is an example of Respondent's recognition of the need for expediting construction to outweigh other considerations--here, aesthetics. The force of the first principle, though, is somewhat attenuated by the apparent fact that Respondent had approved the single 85-watt solution two months prior to informing other contractors that this was an option. As is true of much else in their discharge of contract-management responsibilities in this case, Respondent's representatives appear to have failed to have advised other Design Builders of the availability of the 85-watt solution due to mere neglect, not favoritism. Summer 2010: Construction Activity Petitioner's pay applications approximate the progress of Petitioner's work. With each pay application at each job, Petitioner represented the extent to which it had completed the work by type, such as site drainage or concrete. The record does not disclose any disputes concerning these pay applications, so they are suitable guides to Petitioner's progress on each job. During the early phase of construction, Respondent issued PPEs coinciding with the submittal of the pay applications; Respondent later discontinued the issuance of PPEs. Petitioner started actual construction first at Spanish River among the Six Schools. The first pay application that Petitioner submitted for Spanish River is dated April 13, 2010. The payment application seeks full payment for bonds and insurance premiums and structural drawings, but not the civil and electrical drawings being prepared by Mr. Cooper's civil engineering firm. Ten days later, on April 23, Petitioner submitted its second pay application for Spanish River. This application includes the charge for the civil and electrical drawings-- suggesting that Mr. Cooper was able to incorporate the Moghadam Prohibition in the 10-day interval between the first and second pay applications. (Likely, if it could have done so, Petitioner would have included these drawings in the initial pay application because it did so with the remaining five schools when it submitted their initial pay applications in mid-May, as detailed below.) On May 3, 2010, Ms. Banaszewski issued a PPE for Spanish River and assigned Petitioner an average score of 2.8. A "0" is "unacceptable, a "1" is "poor," a "2" is "satisfactory," a "3" is "good," and a "4" is "excellent." Petitioner's lowest score, a 2, was for scheduling and coordination. On May 25, Ms. Banaszewski issued PPEs for the other five schools; the average scores and scheduling and coordination scores for these five schools were the same as for Spanish River. On May 14, 2010, Petitioner submitted its initial pay applications for four of the other five schools. For Watkins, the date of the first pay application is April 13, 2010. Petitioner submitted its third pay application for Spanish River on June 10, 2010. At this point, although work at Spanish River was further along than at the other five schools, Petitioner largely synchronized the submittal of pay applications for the Six Schools for the remainder of the summer. The following chart reflects the pay applications submitted on May 14 (April 13 for Watkins and June 10 for Spanish River), July 31, and September 1 (except for Jupiter Farms, for which Petitioner submitted no pay application between July 31 and October 1).12/ Under each date column, the dollar amount represents the value of the work billed on that date, and the percentage represents the percentage of work remaining. The percentage of work remaining reflects the work already billed plus the value of stored materials. General Conditions $5205-70% $6246-34% $5899--0% Site Drainage $2968-70% $5934-10% $991--0% Concrete $13,500-70% $31,500-0% done Aluminum Walkways $10,212-70% $1506-69% $11,750-7% Electrical $2235-70% $745-60% $0-60% School May 14 July 31 September 1 Spanish River Watkins General Conditions $0-100% $5021--28% $1000--14% Site Drainage $0-100% $5603---0% $0---0% Concrete $0-100% $21,978--0% $0---0% Aluminum Walkways $0-100% $23,656--0% $0---0% Electrical $0-100% $8640--40% $4608---8% Independence General Conditions $0-100% $6640--58% $6165-29% Site Drainage $0-100% $9396---0% done Concrete $0-100% $48,000--7% $0-7% Aluminum Walkways $0-100% $4269--25% $25,002-0% Electrical $0-100% $2462--67% $2462-37% Limestone Creek General Conditions $0-100% $1500--83% $3322-44% Site Drainage $0-100% $0--100% $3648-20% Concrete $0-100% $0--100% $27,145-13% Aluminum Walkways $0-100% $3090--23% $0-23% Electrical $0-100% $0--100% $7208-60% Lighthouse General Conditions $0-100% $3000--68% $1100-57% Site Drainage $0-100% $0-100% $4889--0% Concrete $0-100% $0-100% $11,818-50% Aluminum Walkways $0-100% $2587--26% $0--26% Electrical $0-100% $0-100% $7840-60% Jupiter Farms General Conditions $0-100% $1200--79% no pay app. Site Drainage $0-100% $0-100% no pay app. Concrete $0-100% $0-100% no pay app. Aluminum Walkways $0-100% $1493--26% no pay app. Electrical $0-100% $0-100% no pay app. The June 10 pay application for Spanish River incorporates Change Order #1: to avoid incurring sales tax, Respondent would pay Perfection directly the $119,000, less sales tax, scheduled to be paid this subcontractor for aluminum fabrication and installation. Change Order #1 reduces the Contract Price by this amount, less sales tax. This process is referred in the record to as a Direct Purchase Order (DPO). The July 31 pay application for Spanish River incorporates Change Order #2, which reduces the Contract Price by the sales tax avoided through the use of the DPO. On July 23, 2010, Respondent and Petitioner entered into Change Order #3, which is for additional canopies that were required when Respondent was forced to alter its sidewalks at Spanish River due to requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Change Order #3 added about $14,000 to the Contract Price, but did not extend the Contract Time. The PPEs for Spanish River reflect Respondent's satisfaction with Petitioner's work. A PPE for Spanish River dated June 30, 2010, assigned 3.5's in all categories. Another PPE dated July 27, 2010, assigned 3.2's for the average score and for scheduling and coordination. The July 31 pay applications for the remaining five schools disclosed the use of DPOs to pay Perfection at these schools, as reflected in Change Order #1 and #2 for all schools but Lighthouse. (Lighthouse's change orders were numbered differently due to the presence of two change orders for additional work not relevant to this case.) On July 27, 2010, Respondent issued PPEs for Watkins and Independence with nearly identical scores. At Watkins, Petitioner earned an average score of 2.9 and a score of 3.0 for scheduling and coordination. At Independence, these respective scores were 3.0 and 2.8. Other PPEs at this time are not included in Respondent Exhibit #67. On August 31, Respondent issued PPEs for Independence, Lighthouse, and Limestone Creek. The average score for Independence was 3.7 with 3.5 for scheduling and coordination. The average score for Lighthouse was 3.3 with 3.0 for scheduling and coordination. The average score for Limestone Creek was 3.4 with 3.3 for scheduling and coordination, 3.5 for project management, and 3.0 for customer sensitivity. The latter scores were improvements on the same scores issued for this school--and all the others--on May 25, 2010, when Petitioner earned a 2.5 for project management and a 2.3 for customer sensitivity. Summer 2010: Meetings Between Petitioner and Respondent As spring wore into summer, Petitioner continued to show little regard for the Contract Times applicable to the Six Schools. Despite the early loss of five weeks' time on jobs whose duration was only 90-120 days, nothing in the record discloses any concerns among Petitioner's representatives about the increasingly likely prospect that they would not achieve timely Substantial Completion and Final Completion for the Six Schools. At a meeting on June 10, 2010, with Mr. Kunard, Mr. Bailey, Ms. Banaszewski, and others apparently from the Facilities Services Department, Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Vlock addressed costs, not time. Mr. Vlock and Mr. Rousseau complained that Respondent was not dealing fairly with Petitioner. Specifically, they claimed that Respondent had allowed Walker to design drainage with a structural engineer, rather than a civil engineer, and they wanted to know if a civil engineer was required by the Building Department. Respondent's representatives logically suggested that Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Vlock take this question to the Building Department, but Mr. Rousseau declined, expressing a fear of reprisal from the Building Department. The Facilities Services Department representatives assured Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Vlock that the Building Department representatives were professionals and would not seek retribution against Petitioner for such inquiries. The Facilities Services Department staff added that the design/build method allowed Design Builders some flexibility in approaching design matters. They noted that Walker had been designing walkway covers for decades and Petitioner was new to the industry, implying that Walker might find the process easier to navigate. Petitioner's representatives countered that their civil engineer cost them $4000 for each job, and this expenditure made them uncompetitive. Petitioner's representatives asked to change its design submittals so it could be competitive. The minutes state that Respondent's representatives replied "that submittals only need to meet minimum requirements." This complaint of unfair treatment is groundless for the reasons stated at the time by Respondent's representatives. Additionally, the claim of competitive harm arising from the employment of a civil engineer is unpersuasive. Much more than $4000 separated each of Petitioner's winning bids from each of Walker's bids, at least for the projects as to which such information is available. For the Group 6 schools--Jupiter Farms, Limestone Creek, Jupiter, Lighthouse, Independence, and Watkins--a bid tabulation appears in Respondent Exhibit #62. For Jupiter Farms, Petitioner's bid of $74,818 was more than $10,000 less than the next lowest bid--Walker's bid of $85,421. For Limestone Creek, Petitioner's bid of $157,410 was almost $8000 less than the next lowest bid--Walker's bid of $165,341. For Lighthouse, Petitioner's bid of $148,427 was more than $30,000 less than the next lowest bid--Pirtle's bid of $179,312--and more than $50,000 less than Walker's bid of $198,650. For Independence, Petitioner's bid of $225,398 was more than $20,000 less than the next lowest bid--Walker's bid of $247,003. For Watkins, Petitioner's bid of $160,087 was more than $9000 less than the next lowest bid--Pirtle's bid of $169,183--and almost $22,000 less than Walker's bid of $181,897. For Jupiter, which is the only one of these six projects for which less than $4000 separated Petitioner's bid ($19,852) from the next lowest bid--Walker's bid of $21,784--the contention that the savings associated with using a structural engineer instead of a civil engineer would have saved 25% of the entire, relatively modest contract price cannot be credited. This claim of unfair treatment, though, dramatically underscores Petitioner's concern with costs, not time. Except for an apparently minor matter involving a possible patent infringement, which may have caused a delay of a "few days," nothing discussed at the June 10 meeting addressed the significant delays that already existed at the start of construction at the Six Schools. Petitioner's proposal that it resubmit its drawings and plans--somehow, to avoid the added cost of a civil engineer--would have thrown all Six Schools further behind schedule. At this point, as noted above, Petitioner had just received a building permit for Spanish River, where it was already 38 days behind schedule. Even if Petitioner could have submitted new drawings and plans on June 10, this submittal would have added another 30 days to this deficit, leaving Petitioner two months behind schedule. For the remaining five schools, for which the drawings had been submitted only two weeks earlier and no permits had yet issued, the additional delay would have been about 16 days and would have resulted in a total of about 50 days behind schedule for each of these projects. For their part, the Facilities Services Department employees do not seem to have seriously entertained the prospect of the resubmittal of plans and drawings, but instead recognized the emerging time issues and tried to spare Petitioner the consequence of its tardiness. As already noted, at this time, Facilities Services Department employees contacted the Building Department and urged expedited processing of the pending permit applications. On July 15, 2010, Mr. Kunard sent a certified letter (and email) to Mr. Rousseau advising that it appeared that Petitioner would not be able to complete on schedule the work at nine schools, including, among the Six Schools, Watkins, Jupiter Farms, Lighthouse, and Limestone Creek. The letter reminds Petitioner of the provisions for liquidated damages in the General Conditions and advises that, if Petitioner feels an extension of time were justified, it should submit the information required by Paragraph 00700.8.3. The letter concludes by requesting an explanation or a submission of a recovery schedule for how Petitioner intended to meet the time requirements of the Contract Documents. On July 15, 2010, Mr. Rousseau submitted a letter to Mr. Kunard acknowledging receipt of his letter. Mr. Rousseau's letter states that, at a June 30 meeting involving the Building and Facilities Services departments, as well as Petitioner, "all questionable design issues were resolved, standardized, and documented." Mr. Rousseau's July 15 letter proceeds with the request for an extension of time. In its entirety, the request states: "At this time we are requesting an extension." The letter invites Mr. Kunard to contact Mr. Rousseau or Mr. Vlock if Mr. Kunard has any questions or requires additional information. The letter discloses that Mr. Rousseau had not bothered to read the provision of the Contract Documents to which Mr. Kunard's email had referred him. The next day, by letter dated July 16, 2010, to Ms. Swan, Mr. Rousseau requested that Respondent place Petitioner on an early-payment program. The program would provide Respondent with a .75% discount for payments of payment applications within five days of receipt, which, as noted above, is six days fewer than the 11 days allowed by the Contract Documents. Respondent appears to have paid ensuing pay applications within this timeframe whenever circumstances permitted. Contrary to Petitioner's later contention, this election by Petitioner did not amend the Contract Documents so as to obligate Respondent to pay with five days of receipt of pay applications. By email dated September 8, 2010, to Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Vlock, Mr. Kunard asked if they had submitted a request for an extension of time with justification, as required by the General Conditions. This letter implicitly informs Mr. Rousseau that his July 15 email was not such a request. Mr. Kunard's email identifies five schools that had been late, including Watkins, Jupiter Farms, Lighthouse, and Limestone Creek, and three more schools, including Spanish River, that were now late. Stop Work Order On August 27, 2010, Building Department plumbing inspector Dwayne Betts inspected the Limestone Creek work site and found that Respondent had installed 3" drainage pipes of 40- 50' in length where its approved drawings had specified 8" drainage pipes. Mr. Betts failed the work for its noncompliance with the approved plans. Mr. Betts expected Petitioner to call for a reinspection, but it did not do so. On September 8, 2010, Mr. Betts revisited the Limestone Creek work site for another inspection and found that Petitioner had not corrected the noncompliant work. Mr. Betts described the situation to his supervisor, Terry Summerell, who is the senior construction inspector in the Building Department. Mr. Summerell advised Mr. Betts to issue a stop work order. No one in the Building Department notified Mr. Kunard that Petitioner's Limestone Creek project was about to receive a stop work order, and Mr. Kunard was initially unaware of its issuance. (Tr. 1490) On September 8, 2010, evidently at the request of Mr. Betts, the Building Department issued a stop work order on the Limestone Creek site. The stop work order states at the top in boldface: "STOP WORK." The next line states: "The work now in progress is in violation of the following code: " Following this language are five boxes. The issued order shows a check in the box beside "plumbing." For corrective action, the issued order advises any interested person to contact Mr. Hogarth. The parties dispute whether the issued order prohibited all work at the Limestone Creek work site or prohibited only further plumbing work at the Limestone Creek work site. Petitioner is correct that the issued order prohibited all further work. The top of the notice states unconditionally to stop work. The explanation for the order is that the work underway violates the plumbing code, but this explanation does not limit the scope of the unconditional command at the top of the notice. Two days later, on September 10, Building Department structural inspector, Adrian Morse, inspected the Limestone Creek work site and noticed that the boots of wet columns varied from the approved drawings. He failed this work too. Although this action would provide additional support for the issuance of the stop work order two days earlier, as noted below, the issue concerning the wet column boots was resolved prior to the issue involving the size of the drain pipe, so the pendency of the dispute concerning the boots never held up work. Also on September 10, Mr. Cooper emailed a letter to Mr. Kunard claiming that Petitioner was entitled to an increase in the Contract Price for Respondent's insistence that Petitioner install 8" pipes and for Respondent's requirement of fluorescent lighting that effectively resulted in the need to mount a light on every column. A meeting took place on September 10, 2010, among Mr. Rousseau, Mr. Vlock, Mr. Mets, Mr. Kunard, Ms. Banaszewski, Mr. Hogarth, Mr. Upson, and other officials. According to the "Background" section of the minutes of this meeting, the main concern of Petitioner was costs, and the sole concern of Respondent was timeliness. Petitioner raised concerns about lighting fixtures and the size of drainage pipes. As for the lighting fixtures, Petitioner noted a conflict between the lighting fixture designated in the Design/Build Criteria and the District Master Specifications. This had been resolved by Mr. Bailey's email of May 25, as noted above. Petitioner complained about the Moghadam Prohibition. As explained above, the inception of this unfortunate specification was mid-April and did not have a significant impact on the timeliness of any of the Six Schools. But Petitioner's complaint was justified to the extent that it contended that the Moghadam Prohibition added unnecessary costs to each project. Relying in part on Mr. Cooper's letter dated September 10, Petitioner also objected to changes to the means by which levels of illumination were calculated. The record permits no means to credit or discredit this lighting complaint. Turning to the size of the drainage pipe, Petitioner estimated a $100,000 cost difference in 8" pipe versus 4" pipe. This complaint, if true, is irrelevant because Petitioner's drawings specified 8" pipe, as did the Contract Documents, as noted above. Petitioner complained that the Building Department only "began enforcing" the 8" requirement recently. The complaint is at least partly correct, although it is not clear that enforcement actually started with Petitioner's project. Mr. Kunard testified that, to some extent, Walker and Pirtle had also installed drainage pipes smaller than 8" in diameter. (Tr. 1998) Interestingly, Mr. Betts testified that he has never learned that any Design Builder had installed drainage pipes smaller than specified on its plans. (Tr. 3725) Mr. Betts' point may have been only that plans for some of the earlier walkway cover projects specified small drainage pipes--not that the Building Department allowed any Design Builders to install smaller pipes than specified in its plans. Mr. Cooper testified that Mr. Rousseau showed him Pirtle's walkway cover plans that depicted 4" pipes for at least one of its walkway cover projects. (Pet. Ex. 233, pp. 58-59) But Mr. Cooper also recalled that Petitioner's plans for one of its early projects were based on 4" pipes. (Id. at p. 58) At this point, it is impossible to determine the size of the drainage pipes specified in the drawings of Walker and Pirtle; it is clear only that all three Design Builders installed pipes smaller than 8" in diameter, and Petitioner was the first whose smaller pipes were discovered in a plumbing inspection. The larger point is that Petitioner did not install the pipes specified in its drawings.13/ This appears to have been a matter of mere neglect. Mr. Cooper testified that he was surprised at this fact and determined that the plumbing subcontractor had deviated from the plans and installed 3" and possibly 4" pipe because that is all that he had in his truck. Likewise, neglect describes various elements of Respondent's contract management efforts. Here, the Building Department either failed to note that Walker and Pirtle had submitted drawings with undersized drainage pipes, or it failed to detect the installation of pipes smaller than specified in their drawings. Given the ineptitude of the Building Department inspectors concerning the boot details on the wet columns, as described below, neither of these alternatives seems especially unlikely. Given the absence of any direct evidence of unfairness directed by the Building Department toward Petitioner, either of these alternatives is likelier than a deliberate attempt to favor Walker or Pirtle over Petitioner. Lastly, the minutes of the September 10 meeting record a concern of Petitioner regarding the above-described September 8 email, in which Mr. Kunard had advised Mr. Rousseau and Mr. Vlock that their July 15 email requesting an extension of time was insufficient, and they had not submitted a request for extension of time that provided justification for an extension in the manner prescribed by the General Conditions. Oddly, though, Petitioner's representatives do not acknowledge specifically that, prior to the issuance of the stop work order, it was late on all Six Schools. The absence of such a specific acknowledgement does not mean that Petitioner's representatives were completely unaware of their untimely performance. According to the minutes of the September 10 meeting, Petitioner's representatives claimed that the above-discussed lighting and drainage changes had slowed production rates, but said that they were still analyzing the issue. The justification of this contention concerning lighting matters, if not drainage, likely accounts for the willingness of Respondent's representatives to agree not to press a claim for liquidated damages until the parties had resolved Petitioner's claim for an extension of time. Once Petitioner's representatives learned that another inspector had failed the boot of a wet column at Limestone Creek, they claimed that the Building Department was treating them unfairly because other Design Builders were installing the identical boots on wet columns.14/ Again, they were right as to the installation of identical boots on wet columns by Walker or Pirtle, according to Mr. Kunard. (Tr. 1999) In this case, the Building Department inspectors had failed to inspect the wet column boots of any of the three Design Builders. Even though all boots served as anchors of the columns to which they were attached, the structural inspector had not inspected wet column boots, thinking that these were drainage details under the jurisdiction of the plumbing inspector. Even though the wet column boots contained important drainage fittings and connections, the plumbing inspector had not inspected these boots, thinking that these were structural details under the jurisdiction of the structural inspector. Again, though, Petitioner's drawings depicted a connection quite different from that installed by Petitioner. In the drawings, Petitioner had proposed to construct, at the base of each wet column, a welded connection between the underground drainage pipe and the conduit running down the column. In reality, Petitioner instead had constructed a connection using duct tape, grout, and concrete, using the tape as a temporary measure to prevent the wet concrete from entering the pipe. At first, it appeared that the parties would resolve the drainage pipe issue more quickly than the wet column boot issue. It seems that Mr. Vlock himself was unpersuaded by his employer's claim as to the drainage pipes. By email dated September 17 to Mr. Hogarth and Mr. Summerell with copies to Mr. Rousseau, Mr. Bailey, and Ms. Banaszewski, Mr. Vlock assured Mr. Hogarth that, as he had said during a telephone call earlier that day, Petitioner was "prepared to install drainage on the above project as per the approved drawings." This meant, of course, 8" pipes. In his response by email also dated September 17, Mr. Hogarth addressed the boot issue by asking for "the answer on the wet column to leader connection" and whether it too will match the approved drawings. On the same date, Mr. Rousseau responded to Mr. Hogarth's email by showing a "universal detail signed & sealed [three days earlier] by the Design Engineer for all current projects in Palm Beach County." In a fourth email dated September 17, Mr. Hogarth told Mr. Rousseau, Mr. Vlock, and Mr. Summerell that he was reluctant to accept the duct tape and grout connection without further thought. He noted that aluminum would be in contact with concrete and thus would require coating. It was unclear whether Petitioner intended to tape the pipe to the aluminum before or after it was coated, but, in either case, Petitioner would rely on the grout to hold the pipe in place tight against the column. The coating would prevent the grout from bonding to the aluminum, but the grout would be expected to leak. Given these circumstances, Mr. Hogarth asked how this boot detail would not leak. Both issues seemed on the verge of resolution in an email dated September 28, 2010, from Mr. Hogarth to Mr. Rousseau. In this email, Mr. Hogarth offered to permit the use of the as-built boot detail on the wet columns, but future projects would have to be built in accordance with the approved drawings. In the same email, Mr. Hogarth offered to release the stop work order, but only if Petitioner replaced the existing noncompliant drainage pipes with the pipes shown in the approved drawings. Another meeting took place on October 4, 2010, among Mr. Vlock, Ms. Rousseau, Mr. Kunard, Mr. Mets, Mr. Hogarth, Ms. Banaszewski, Mr. Sanches, and others. Ms. Rousseau is the vice president of Petitioner. The minutes accurately state the background as the issuance of the stop work order for drain pipe size and, a couple of days later, "wet-column fittings." At the meeting, Petitioner claimed that the Building Department was treating Petitioner differently in reviewing plans and inspecting construction than it was treating other Design Builders. Petitioner's complaint about unfairness in reviewing plans was as untimely as it was groundless. Although the record reveals nothing of how the Building Department reviewed the plans of Walker and Pirtle, as noted above, Petitioner submitted flawed plans, and the Building Department expedited the issuance of the building permits for the Six Schools at the repeated urging of the Facilities Services Department. According to the minutes, Petitioner trotted out its recurrent complaint about the Moghadam Prohibition, even though it had nothing to do with the stop work order. Evidently, Respondent had permitted Pirtle to co-locate lighting fixtures and wet columns. Given the eventual issuance of change orders to reimburse Petitioner for these costs and time lost in complying with the Moghadam Prohibition, it is unnecessary to comb through the existing record to determine if one of the Building Department's inspectors, perhaps more versed in Respondent's longstanding approval of this practice, inspected the handful of projects on which Pirtle was working and failed to enforce the Moghadam Prohibition. Once again, though, the circumstances do not readily suggest a coordinated effort of any sort among the Building Department inspectors, but especially not a coordinated effort focusing on Petitioner. More to the point, Petitioner pointed out that it and Pirtle were using the same aluminum subcontractor and, thus, the same wet column boots, but Pirtle had not been cited for deviating from its drawings. This argument, though, missed a couple of facts. First, the record does not disclose if Pirtle's approved drawings depicted welded pipes, as had Petitioner's approved drawings. Second, if offered to prove unfair treatment, Petitioner's argument fails to account for the fact, noted above, that, until one month earlier, Respondent had no idea what any Design Builder was installing in terms of wet column boots due to the remarkable omission of its inspectors to inspect wet column boots. Turning to Walker, Petitioner complained--again--that it was evidently not using a licensed civil engineer for drainage design. As was the case with the complaint about preferential treatment in plan review by the Building Department, this complaint about whether Walker had had to retain a civil engineer was untimely and groundless for the reasons stated above. At this point, given the pressing matters at hand in terms of late construction, a stop work order, and deviations from approved drawings, Petitioner's reprisal of its earlier complaints about the time it took the Building Department to review plans and whether Walker had been required to retain a civil engineer seem to amount to nothing more than an attempt by Petitioner to distract from the real issues: more immediately, whether it must install fixtures that conform to its drawings and, more generally, whether it would be able to avoid liquidated damages for untimely construction at the Six Schools. A Building Department representative responded that the inspectors are told to inspect according to the approved plans. Evidently without providing specifics, but not entirely implausibly, Petitioner asserted that, although it had not built according to its plans, other Design Builders had done the same thing--without earning stop work orders. Mr. Hogarth promised that the Building Department would investigate these issues. Turning to the more pressing topic of the pending stop work order, Mr. Hogarth stated that the Building Department had issued the previous week a list of changes that Petitioner could undertake to lift the stop work order: essentially, Respondent would accept the duct-taped joint at Limestone Creek only, but would insist on the installation of 8" drainage pipes. Petitioner's representative responded that Petitioner had already agreed to replace the installed 3" pipes with 8" pipes, at its cost, but it objected to the withholding of the use of the duct-taped joint on future projects. In response to unrelated complaints about Petitioner's PPEs, Respondent agreed to remove the offending PPEs from the PPE tracking system. After the meeting, Mr. Hogarth relented on the duct- taped joints. By email dated October 7, 2010, from Mr. Vlock to Mr. Hogarth, Mr. Vlock memorialized a discussion that had taken place between the two representatives after the October 4 meeting: Respondent would lift the stop work order and allow Petitioner to use the duct-taped boot detail on wet columns at all previous and pending projects if Petitioner reinstalled the drainage pipes to comply with the approved drawings. By email later the same day to Mr. Vlock, Mr. Hogarth stated that he would remove the stop work order at Limestone Creek, effective that day, based on the reworking of the installed piping and the submission of revised drawings at Limestone Creek and other projects where Petitioner proposed to use the duct-taped joints in the boots of wet columns. Mr. Hogarth performed his end of the deal by lifting the stop work order on October 7. Evidently, Petitioner submitted the required revisions to its drawings of the boots of the wet columns. But, rather than remove the undersized pipes and install 8" pipes, Petitioner challenged the stop work order by seeking a variance from the approved plans calling for 8" pipes. By email dated December 10, 2010, to Mr. Bailey, Mr. Vlock transmitted a December 8 revision to the Limestone Creek drainage plan--obviously, featuring pipes of diameters smaller than 8". The Facilities Services Department allied itself with Petitioner and against the Building Department on this issue. By email the same date to Mr. Chodora, Mr. Bailey, on behalf of Petitioner, requested a variance from the 8" drainage pipes to allow 4" drainage pipes. Mr. Chodora referred the variance request to a variance committee, which comprises eight employees of Respondent and four outside consultants. By email dated December 10, Mr. Chodora informed the committee members that the issue was whether, at Limestone Creek, Petitioner should receive a variance from the requirement in the District Design Criteria to permit it to use 3" and 4" drainage pipes instead of 8" drainage pipes. The assignment to the committee members called for their recommendations by December 21, 2010, which was later changed to December 14. The responses reflect a range of informed comments. Several persons expressed the reasonable concern that the smaller pipes would clog. Manifesting a spirited independence from his immediate supervisor, Mr. Joyce voted to approve the variance to test a smaller diameter pipe for sidewalk canopies, which drain smaller areas than building roofs. Another member of the committee, who was a project coordinator in Respondent's Department of Program Management, also voted to approve the variance. By the time the votes were tallied, though, five members had voted to deny, three members had voted to approve, and four members had not voted. As Mr. Cooper had warned Mr. Rousseau, there was a "low probability" that Respondent would allow 3" pipes in the place of the 8" pipes shown in the drawings. (Pet. Ex. 233, p. 109) Following the vote, Mr. Sanches was required to review the recommendations of the committee members and make a final decision on the variance request. By this time, Petitioner had buried the drainage pipes. However, on December 22, Mr. Sanches concurred with the majority of the committee and denied the request. By email dated January 3, 2011, to Mr. Rousseau, Mr. Vlock, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Bailey, Mr. Chodora advised that the request for variance was denied. By email dated January 4, 2011, to Mr. Sanches, Mr. Rousseau appealed the denial of the variance request. Notwithstanding Mr. Sanches' role in denying the request, the appeal went to Mr. Sanches. Concerned that the Limestone Creek project was now five months late and still unfinished, Mr. Kunard contacted Mr. Sanches and asked him to grant the variance. After a meeting in his office on January 11, 2011, with Mr. Rousseau and possibly others, Mr. Sanches reversed his earlier decision and granted the variance subject to four conditions set forth in an email dated January 12 to Mr. Rousseau: 1) Petitioner must install approved screening over the canopy inlets leading to the column drains; 2) Petitioner must add a concrete collar for each pipe cleanout and a sidewalk-level cover for each cleanout; 3) Petitioner must extend the already-required warranty of one year to two years for cleanout and pipe breakage; and 4) Petitioner must submit revised plans depicting these changes. Mr. Rousseau cites this resolution as evidence of the unreasonableness of Respondent's initial action in issuing the stop work order. This claim is rejected. Mr. Sanches never believed that Petitioner was justified in installing smaller pipes than had been approved in Petitioner's plans. Mr. Sanches agreed to accept what was already in the ground only to spare the students and staff at Limestone Creek the inconvenience of further delay in a project that Respondent had planned was to have been finished before the start of the 2010-11 school year. Regrettably, the record fails to convey Mr. Hogarth's reaction to the granting of the variance, which effectively enabled Petitioner to escape obligations that it had assumed twice--once in its drawings and once in Mr. Vlock's settlement agreement with Mr. Hogarth. The Superintendent's Letter may constitute the reaction of Mr. Sanches and ultimately even Mr. Kunard to the fact that the granting of the variance did not hasten the completion of construction at Limestone Creek, as discussed below. Construction Activity During Fall and Winter 2010 The general conditions item of pay applications filed through September 1, 2010, indicates the following percentages of construction remaining at each of the Six Schools: Spanish River--0%; Watkins--14%; Independence--29%; Limestone Creek--44%; Lighthouse--57%; and Jupiter Farms (July 31 pay application)--79%. Construction in the fall of 2010 proceeded in accordance with the following pay applications submitted on October 1, November 8 (November 16 for Watkins), and December 1 (except for Spanish River and Independence, for which Petitioner submitted no pay application at that time). School Oct. 1 Nov. 8 Dec. 1 Spanish River General Conditions done done no pay app. Site Drainage done done no pay app. Concrete done done no pay app. Aluminum Walkways $8003--0% done no pay app. Electrical $2608-25% $1862--0% no pay app. Watkins General Conditions $300--10% $0-10% $692-0% Site Drainage done done done Concrete done done done Aluminum Walkways done done done Electrical $0---8% $0-8% $1152--0% Independence General Conditions $1000--13% $1500---3% no pay app. Site Drainage done done no pay app. Concrete $0---7% $3720---0% no pay app. Aluminum Walkways done done no pay app. Electrical $1044--20% $0--20% no pay app. Limestone Creek General Conditions $260--41% $2410--13% $300-10% Site Drainage $0--20% $0-20% $0-20% Concrete $0--13% $0-13% $4000--0% Aluminum Walkways $0--23% $13,200---5% $1893--2% Electrical $3601--40% $2702--25% $0-25% Lighthouse General Conditions Site Drainage $1500--41% done $1700--23% done $100--12% done Concrete $0--50% $9543--10% $2364--0% Aluminum Walkways $6819--15% $0--15% $9406--0% Electrical $2940--45% $1960--35% $0-35% Jupiter Farms General Conditions $0--79% $2160--40% $896--24% Site Drainage $0-100% $0-100% $1500--50% Concrete $0-100% $4785--60% $5982--10% Aluminum Walkways $0--26% $3640--15% $3651---5% Electrical $750--90% $2130--60% $2160--30% This chart reveals that, by early December 2010, Petitioner had completed Spanish River and Watkins and had very little remaining work at Independence. Petitioner was almost 90% done at Limestone Creek and Lighthouse and was about 75% done at Jupiter Farms. On January 7, 2011, Petitioner filed pay applications for three of the four schools at which construction was not yet complete. Limestone Creek was billed $300 of general conditions, $1500 of aluminum walkways, and $3000 of electrical, leaving only 6% of general conditions, 20% of site drainage, and 8% of electrical to be done. Lighthouse was billed $500 of general conditions and $1800 of electrical, as well as additional work, leaving only 7% of general conditions and 26% of electrical to be done. Jupiter Farms was billed $700 of general conditions, $1500 of site drainage, $1196 of concrete, and $1750 of aluminum walkways, leaving only 11% of general conditions and 30% of electrical to be done. Independence was not billed. This left Petitioner at least 90-95% done at the four remaining schools. But Final Completion did not immediately follow, and it is difficult to understand why Petitioner did not prosecute the little work remaining to achieve Final Completion. On January 7, 2011, Wes Christie, the Facilities Management Coordinator for Limestone Creek, issued a PPE with an average score of 2.1 and scores of 1.5 for scheduling and 1.8 for project management. The scheduling score was due to Respondent's failure to give Mr. Christie a schedule of construction. When Mr. Christie asked Mr. Vlock for this schedule, which is required by the Contract Documents, Mr. Vlock replied that any schedule would be a "wild guess." (Tr. 926) This remark is especially startling, given the little work remaining on the job. Disregarding a set of pay applications reflecting change orders discussed in the next section, the next pay application submitted for Limestone Creek was on April 18, 2011. Limestone Creek was billed for $519 of general conditions, $913 of site drainage, and $1502 of electrical, finishing this project. The record is missing the final pay application for Lighthouse, although it was also submitted after the pay application for the change orders discussed in the next section and prior to another pay application on September 2, 2011. The record contains the last pay application for Jupiter Farms, but it is undated. Submitted between February 24 and September 2, 2011, this pay application reflects that Jupiter Farms was billed $644 for general conditions and $2160 for electrical, finishing this project. By this time, it is impossible to presume that Petitioner was even submitting pay applications promptly. But even assuming a close relationship between the work and the pay application, Petitioner did not obtain CCs for a considerable period of time after the pay applications showed the work had been finished. First Round of Change Orders in Fall 2010 and Winter 2010-11 It is possible that Petitioner's failure to prosecute the work after the start of 2011 was linked to its dissatisfaction with Respondent's handling of Petitioner's requests for increases in Contract Prices. In October 2010, Petitioner submitted a number of claims seeking change orders adding to the Contract Prices for extra work not caused by Petitioner. Generally, these claims were insufficient for numerous reasons, including a failure to identify subcontractors or projects and a lack of information as to additional work, such as retrenching. On or about December 15, 2010, Petitioner refiled its claims. These claims bear one or more dates in November and request change orders at 12 schools, including the Six Schools. The 12 schools included all of the Group 2 schools and all of the Groups 5 and 6 schools except Jupiter. The December claims propose a total increase in the Contract Prices of $274,758. The largest component of these claims is $161,000 of electrical. The next two largest components are about $61,000 of general conditions and $47,000 of drainage. Under the Contract Documents, the October and December claims were untimely. Like the October claims, the December claims, although more detailed than the October claims, were also deficient for lack of documentation. However, upon receiving the December claims, Mr. Kunard tried to work with them as best that he could. For example, Mr. Kunard directed the Facilities Management Coordinators for each school to measure the length of each trench that Petitioner had been obligated to dig following the issuance of the Moghadam Prohibition, so as to move light fixtures from wet columns to dry columns on the opposite side of the sidewalk. Even though Petitioner was already months past the deadlines for Substantial and Final Completion for the Six Schools, the Facilities Services Department was favorably predisposed to much of the electrical claim because of the time and money expended by Petitioner in complying with the Moghadam Prohibition. As previously noted, though, the Moghadam Prohibition had not resulted in significant delays in submitting plans, but may have resulted in delays in obtaining suitable light fixtures. The resulting electrical claims applied to all of the 12 schools except Lighthouse, Limestone Creek, and Jupiter Farms, where work evidently was not far enough along for Mr. Kunard to have satisfied himself that the Contract Times for these schools had been unaffected by the Moghadam Prohibition. On January 28, 2011, Mr. Kunard, Mr. Bailey, Ms. Banaszewski, Mr. Rousseau, and Ms. Rousseau met to discuss Petitioner's December claims on the 12 projects. Mr. Rousseau acknowledged that the December claims did not comply with the Contract Documents, but he outlined the elements of their requests for additional compensation. Mr. Rousseau identified five items. First, the Moghadam Prohibition was not an item in dispute as to additional Contract Prices or Contract Time. The Facilities Services Department representatives readily conceded liability on this item, but Petitioner was unprepared to itemize the costs attached to it. Second, Mr. Rousseau complained about faulty lighting calculations that Petitioner had received from a consultant that it had hired. Obviously, this was a matter between Petitioner and its consultant, and the record does not support Petitioner's contention that Respondent in some fashion encouraged or required Petitioner to retain this consultant. At some point, Mr. Rousseau made a related claim that Pirtle had installed lights based on faulty lighting calculations. Respondent later required Pirtle to recalculate its photometrics and determined that Mr. Rousseau's assertion was incorrect. Mr. Rousseau's claim of unfair treatment on this point was thus unfounded. Although Respondent allowed minor deviations from the lighting standards from time to time, it did so for all the Design Builders, and the deviations were insignificant, typically involving small areas of covered sidewalks. Third, Mr. Rousseau complained that Petitioner had been required to install many more lighting fixtures than it had bid on. As noted above, Petitioner's winning bids on the Six Schools were not so much lower than the next lowest bidder as to suggest a major mistake in Petitioner's calculations. If Petitioner had to install many more lighting fixtures than it had bid--a fact not established by the record--this may have been due to any number of reasons, including Petitioner's incompetence, the faulty lighting calculations performed by Petitioner's consultant, and the Moghadam Prohibition. In a related complaint, Mr. Rousseau raised a fourth item, noting that other Design Builders had installed alternate lighting fixtures without obtaining permission from Respondent. In at least one case, this had been true, as noted above, and Respondent had belatedly advised the other Design Builders of the availability of the alternative that it had allowed one Design Builder to install. It is impossible, though, on this record, to determine the extent to which Respondent's handling of alternative lighting fixtures may have cost Petitioner money or time. Fifth, Mr. Rousseau complained that the Building Department was treating Petitioner differently from other Design Builders. From the minutes, this appears to have been a generic complaint without particulars. This recommended order has addressed specific claims of unfair treatment as they emerged. As noted elsewhere, most complaints of differential treatment are unsupported by the record, and the few instances of differential treatment were more likely the product of haphazard contract management practices of some of Respondent's employees, rather than a coordinated--or individual--effort to discriminate against Petitioner. The January 28 meeting closed with Mr. Kunard's offering to recommend to the Projects Control Department additional compensation of about $45,000--provided all issues were resolved. Petitioner countered that it could not accept this small amount and remain in business, but possibly could accept $230,000. Mr. Rousseau contended that his claim was not really about the money, but was about ensuring that other minority businesses were treated better by Respondent. The meeting closed with Mr. Kunard's request for additional information, so that Respondent could prepare a formal offer to Petitioner. As it had tried to help Petitioner to expedite permitting, the Facilities Services Department tried to help Petitioner in presenting these claims. First, the Facilities Services Department overlooked the fact that these claims were not timely submitted. Second, Mr. Kunard worked with Mr. Rousseau to assemble the required supporting paperwork because the claims were initially submitted without the required documentation and itemization. Third, Mr. Kunard himself suggested two additional claim categories involving reproduction; even those these totaled only about $3100, Petitioner had omitted them. Fourth, Mr. Kunard advocated Petitioner's case within Respondent. Fifth, for the first time in the memory of Respondent's principals, Mr. Moore agreed to sever a claim into two parts, so the Facilities Services Department could, in effect, grant part of a claim. Mr. Kunard had already determined, by the end of 2010, that Respondent should pay most of the electrical portion of Petitioner's claims together with association portions of the accompanying costs, such as in recalculating photometrics. Most, if not all, of these sums arose due to the Moghadam Prohibition. Notwithstanding some language to the contrary among the documents, neither Mr. Kunard nor Respondent ever determined that Petitioner was entitled to any--or at least substantial--more money for the size of the drainage pipes, which was a problem that Petitioner had caused by deviating from its approved drawings. Mr. Kunard estimated that no more than $10,000 of the additional cost to which Respondent agreed could be attributed to the stop work order. (Tr 1643) Mr. Kunard also agreed to pay 30 days of staff time for the approval of the boot detail on the wet columns, even though this too was the result of Petitioner's deviation from its approved plans. In determining how much to offer Petitioner in additional Contract Price, Mr. Kunard enlisted the help of Mr. Upson. By email dated February 16, 2011, to Mr. Upson, Mr. Kunard outlined the means by which he had arrived at an offer for Petitioner. The email notes that Mr. Kunard had obtained Mr. Sanches's authorization for the amount of the offer with the "understanding that we would still look at [Petitioner's] data if we could get it." This statement anticipates the approval of a portion of Petitioner's claim and reconsideration of the remainder of the claim upon presentation of supporting data. Mr. Kunard's February 16 email states that he was working "under pressure." He noted that Petitioner's "subs are in arms [and] [Petitioner] is lobbying heavily above me, so I am moving forward with the 12 [change orders] for which I have enough data to act upon." The demands of Petitioner's subcontractors and Mr. Kunard's awareness that Petitioner was pressing its case with higher officials within Respondent created a very unfavorable atmosphere for unfair treatment of Petitioner. In a reply email later that day, Mr. Upson stated that he "believed you have come to a fair settlement based upon the restrictions, timelines and issues you must juggle at this point." The portion of Petitioner's claim to which Respondent rapidly assented totaled $126,124. By Change Orders executed March 1 and 2 (in one case, March 3), the parties agreed to amendments to the Six Schools' Short Form Agreements. All of the dates are confirmed in an email dated April 4, 2011, to Mr. Rousseau from Mr. Kunard.15/ In the following chart, the "Old F.C." is the Final Completion Date stated in the Short Form Agreement. The "New F.C." is the new Final Completion Date as a result of these change orders. This first round of change orders effected the following changes to the Contract Price and Final Completion Date: School Additional Price Old F.C. New F.C. Jupiter Farms $1625 8/12/10 3/28/11 Watkins $14,570 8/14/10 3/25/11 Limestone Creek $1625 8/16/10 3/28/11 Lighthouse $1625 8/16/10 3/28/11 Independence $14,579 8/27/10 4/6/11 Spanish River $20,528 8/29/10 3/18/11 To obtain the additional compensation authorized by these change orders, Petitioner submitted another round of pay applications.16/ The pay application for each school is for the amount set forth above. The pay application for Jupiter Farms is dated February 24, 2011. Although the pay applications for the other five schools are undated, given the dates on which the change orders were executed, the pay applications for the other five schools were probably submitted at the same time as the Jupiter Farms pay application. Respondent paid Petitioner these amounts in late February and early March 2011. Proposed Second Round of Change Orders: Spring 2011 If Mr. Kunard believed that the first round of change orders, like the variance for the drainage pipe, would hasten the completion of construction at the Six Schools, produce progress on the work at the Six Schools, he was again mistaken. With the new deadlines for Final Completion only days away, Mr. and Ms. Rousseau met with Mr. Kunard, Mr. Bailey, and Ms. Banaszewski on March 24, 2011, to discuss documentation to support a second round of change orders. The minutes reflect that Respondent had not received additional documentation from Petitioner before implementing the first round of change orders, which had been based on Respondent's--probably Mr. Kunard's-- "unilateral judgment on what was owed." At this meeting, the principals discussed the grounds for additional change orders, but the minutes disclose little progress. Negotiations over the remainder of Petitioner's claim were never successful. Petitioner asserted entitlement to compensation for items that Respondent did not agree justified compensation. By the end of March, when all of the schools except Independence were to have achieved Final Completion under the first round of change orders, Respondent began to interpose its own claims for liquidated damages. Undeterred, Mr. Kunard continued to seek a settlement that would extend the completion dates and spare Petitioner costly liquidated damages. Toward this end, Mr. Kunard asked Mr. Rousseau to select realistic deadlines for new completion dates. Using the new dates selected by Mr. Rousseau, Mr. Kunard confirmed, by email dated April 4, 2011, to Mr. Rousseau, that a second round of change orders would incorporate the following new Final Completion Dates: April 15, 2011, for Spanish River; April 30, 2011, for Independence; and April 20, 2011, for the remaining four schools of the Six Schools. Although the purpose of the April 4 email was to establish new Final Completion Dates for a second round of change orders that never went into effect, the email notifies Petitioner that it is already untimely on five of the Six Schools. The normal font indicates Mr. Kunard's email; the italicized font indicates Mr. Rousseau's response.17/ In relevant part, these emails state: The following projects are now late or will soon be late again: HL Watkins. Final Date was 3/25/11. Work is complete with the except [sic] of Perfection punch list item and sprinkler head installation. New Final date for HL Watkins is 4/20/2011. Independence MS. Final Date is 4/6/11. 3 lights on back order and grass will be installed on 4/7/2011. New Final date for Independence MS is 4/30/2011. Jupiter Farms ES. Final Date was 3/28/11. New Final date for Jupiter Farms ES is 4/20/2011. Lighthouse ES. Final Date was 3/28/11. New Final date for Lighthouse ES is 4/20/2011. Limestone Creek ES. The Final Date was 3/28/11. New Final date for Limestone Creek ES is 4/20/2011. Spanish River HS. The Final Date was 3/18/11. New Final date for Spanish River HS is 4/16/2011. Mr. Kunard advocated a second round of change orders to the Project Controls Department. Normally, the Project Controls Department requires the contractor to file such a request on its letterhead. In the interest of time, Mr. Kunard forwarded Mr. Rousseau's emails and documentation and, as he had done with the Building Department when issuing the permits, pressed for a favorable decision. Mr. Upson helped Mr. Kunard determine a reasonable amount of additional compensation to include in a second round of change orders. By email dated March 31, 2011, to Mr. Kunard, Mr. Upson advised that he had considered the documentation supporting a proposal of $81,676--evidently, the proposal of Mr. Kunard--but the fair and reasonable costs totaled only $27,638. By email on the following day to Mr. Upson, Mr. Kunard provided additional analysis of retrenching in an obvious attempt to raise Mr. Upson's determination. In reply, Mr. Upson emphasized that he was using the excavation production that Petitioner had proposed. He noted a certain tension in scrutinizing closely one category of expenses--to secure greater compensation for Petitioner--without subjecting all categories to this level of scrutiny. Mr. Upson added: "Keep in mind, we are taking their word on a lot of these changes and have no verification on our side." Rejecting Petitioner's attempt to base its costs on the charges of other contractors, Mr. Upson noted that an excessive excavation rate might be offset by a relatively tight compensation rate for electrical work; he advised that it all evened out. Nevertheless, Mr. Upson advised Mr. Kunard that he had the ability to settle above Mr. Upson's suggestion, if he could state reasons for doing so. In a final email, also dated April 1, Mr. Kunard told Mr. Upson that he would "absorb your input and recommend a settlement amount." Evidently, it did not take Mr. Kunard long to absorb Mr. Upson's input. On April 1, Mr. Kunard prepared a spreadsheet for the 12 schools that were the subject of the change orders, including the Six Schools. In rounded numbers, the spreadsheet itemizes a total offer of $69,331 for the proposed second round of change orders consisting of $52,246 of electrical, $14,565 of general conditions, and $2520 of photometric. All 12 schools were included in each of the these three work categories except that Lighthouse, Limestone Creek, and Jupiter Farms did not bear any electrical costs. In particular, only three of the Six Schools were included for additional electrical costs arising from the Moghadam Prohibition: Spanish River, Watkins, and Independence. In presenting the proposed second round of change orders to Mr. Rousseau, Mr. Kunard stressed that Respondent's offers of $69,331 of additional compensation and additional time for Final Completion of the Six Schools was conditioned on a full settlement of all of Petitioner's claims for additional compensation. Absent Petitioner's release of all future such claims, Respondent would not agree to pay the additional compensation of $69,331 or extend the Final Completion Dates again. If Mr. Rousseau sensed that he was posed with a dilemma, nothing in the record so indicates. By April 6, all of the Final Completion Dates set forth in the first round of change orders for the six schools had arrived, and Petitioner had reached Final Completion on none of them. As was his practice, rather than focus on Contract Time, Mr. Rousseau focused on Contract Price--demanding the additional compensation of $274,758 stated in its December claim--and refusing to forego any additional claims. Final Completion: Summer 2011 As noted above, at the start of 2011, Petitioner had largely completed Spanish River and Watkins and was 90-95% done with Independence, Lighthouse, Limestone Creek, and Jupiter Farms. The following chart lists the Final Completion Dates, as set forth in the first round of change orders, and the dates on which Respondent issued CCs. School F.C. Date Date of CC Days Late Spanish River 3/18/11 5/11/11 54 Watkins 3/25/11 5/13/11 49 Lighthouse 3/28/11 8/9/11 134 Limestone Creek 3/28/11 8/26/11 151 Jupiter Farms 3/28/11 8/26/11 151 Independence 4/6/11 8/12/11 128 By email dated July 13, 2011, to Mr. Rousseau, Mr. Kunard stated that he had learned that Petitioner could obtain the CCs for Spanish River and Watkins "now," if Petitioner would merely file a request for them. This statement appears to be incorrect because the CCs for these schools bear dates of May 11 and 13, 2011,18/ as indicated in the chart immediately above. Preceding the Superintendent's Letter by a day, the July 13, 2011, email adds: Your projects cannot be determined to have achieved Final Completion until you have your CCs. Please do what ever it takes to complete your projects. They are very late. I. Conclusion Substantial deviations from the Contract Times had occurred by the time of the first round of change orders. For the portion of those delays for which no justifiable cause existed, such delays were substantial and remained so after the written notice by letter and email dated July 15, 2010, from Mr. Kunard. The time extensions contained in the first round of change orders corresponded to the portion of these delays attributable to Respondent and much more. The question is whether, without justifiable cause, Petitioner substantially deviated from the Final Completion Dates set forth in the first round of change orders. It did. By the time of the first round of change orders, Petitioner had not been prosecuting the work since the start of 2011. Work rates well within those established during the summer or even fall of 2010 would have achieved timely Final Completion at all Six Schools, if Petitioner had chosen to rededicate itself to these jobs after the first round of change orders. But it did not. Instead, at four schools, Petitioner missed its extended deadlines by periods in excess of the expected durations of the jobs.19/ At the other two schools, Petitioner missed its extended deadlines by periods of nearly two months, or one-half to two-thirds of the expected durations of the jobs. These deviations from the extended time schedules are substantial. Notwithstanding the mass of paper that Respondent has introduced into evidence, only two pieces might serve as Respondent's written notice to Petitioner of its substantial noncompliance with the extended time deadlines contained in the first round of change orders. One piece of paper can be dismissed readily. The July 13, 2011, email from Mr. Kunard to Mr. Rousseau, which is cited at the end of the preceding section of this recommended order, is not notice of anything, coming one day prior to the declaration of default by the Superintendent's Letter. This notice also fails as to Spanish River and Watkins because Petitioner had already obtained CCs for these schools. The other piece of paper is the April 4, 2011, email from Mr. Kunard to Mr. Rousseau. This email applies only to five of the Six Schools because it preceded the extended Final Completion Date for Independence by two days. As to the remaining five schools, this email constitutes the bare minimum required of notice. Although the purpose of the email was to elicit from Mr. Rousseau yet another set of Final Completion Dates for use in a second round of change orders that never was finalized, the email identifies a Final Completion Date for each school and communicates the simple fact that Petitioner has already missed this date for each of the Six Schools except Independence. A determination of the adequacy of Respondent's notice is facilitated by the basic nature of its subject: untimeliness. Reduce to their essentials, the many Contract Documents provide what Petitioner is to build and how much Respondent is to pay--and when each party must perform its respective duties. Petitioner's principals knew this much, if, for no other reason, than the repeated attempts by Respondent's representatives to encourage timely performance of work. And the notice that Petitioner was substantially20/ behind again at five of the Six Schools could not have been news to Mr. Rousseau. By this point, it is not surprising that the sole means by which Respondent satisfies the notice requirement is an email that Mr. Kunard wrote primarily for a different purpose. The serendipity of this email--happily, from Respondent's perspective--fits neatly in the above-described portrait of Respondent's haphazard approach to contract management. Contemplation of this thin reed by which Count II hangs is a suitable preparation for the ultimate findings as to Petitioner's charges of unfair treatment. Many specific instances of neglect, inattention, ignorance, confusion, inexperience, and lack of coordination in Respondent's efforts at contract management have been identified above. Although the Facilities Services Department was far from flawless in its work, Petitioner's complaints of unfair treatment cannot fairly be focused on the efforts of Mr. Kunard and his employees. Repeatedly, Mr. Kunard went to remarkable lengths to rescue Petitioner from its neglect of its contractual undertakings and spare Petitioner the prospect of liquidated damages. As noted in the next section, relatively late in the process, Ms. Swan, vetoed an ill-advised attempt by Mr. Kunard to award Petitioner additional work at Limestone Creek through another change order. But, otherwise, the Purchasing Department has not had any significant role in this case, at least until the very end, as described below. It is thus unlikely that Petitioner's charges of unfair treatment can be directed at Ms. Swan and her employees. The same is true for the Project Controls Department. Mr. Upton's work was relatively limited, and Mr. Rousseau was probably unaware of his involvement. The main, if not sole, target of Petitioner's unfairness complaints is probably the Building Department. However, its issuance of the building permits was above reproach. Petitioner's plans and drawings were flawed as to matters that proved quite material to this case. At the urging of the Facilities Services Department, the Building Department issued building permits on the promise of post-permit filing of necessary revisions to the plans and drawings. The Building Department's issuance of the stop work order was also above reproach. The wet column boot is irrelevant to this issue because resolution of this issue did not extend by one day the stop work order. In any event, Petitioner installed wet column boots and 3" and 4" drainage pipes that did not conform to the drawings that Petitioner had submitted in order to obtain building permits. Petitioner bore the risk that these noncompliant installations would hold up work while Building Department employees considered whether to allow them to remain in place. And there is no showing of delay by the Building Department in this process. Where Petitioner perceives unfair treatment by the Building Department, the record reveals, at worst, an unevenness in the department's discharge of its responsibilities. The ill- fated Moghadam Prohibition emanated from a Building Department employee. The failure of Building Department inspectors to examine the boots of wet columns was unfortunate. The prospect that the plumbing inspector may have missed some undersized drainage pipes on the projects of other Design Builders cannot, regrettably, be attributed to anything but carelessness. These misadventures of the Building Department in this case do not establish bad faith in dealing with Petitioner. There is absolutely no evidence of any intent to disfavor Petitioner, relative to the other Design Builders. The Moghadam Prohibition was announced to Petitioner's civil engineer, but applied to all of the Design Builders. The two inspectors failed to inspect any Design Builder's wet column boots; they discovered their omission only after work had been stopped for the installation of undersized pipes. Only the discovery of the undersized pipes was focused on Petitioner, but, if the inspectors were ever to realize that undersized pipes were being installed on these jobs, the odds were about one in three21/ that the discovery would be made at one of Petitioner's work sites-- and maybe even greater, if the other Design Builders were not behind schedule, as Petitioner was. Significantly, nothing in the record suggests any delays attributable to the Building Department in Petitioner's obtaining CCs for the Six Schools. For reasons not very clear, at the start of 2011,22/ Petitioner stopped prosecuting the little remaining work at the Six Schools. On balance, the Building Department treated Petitioner in a professional manner. Whatever shortcomings existed in the Building Department's discharge of its responsibilities, they were not reflective of bad faith of any sort. Moreover, when the innocent missteps of the Building Department are weighed against the many accommodations provided by the Facilities Services Department, the net result is unearned benefit, not burden, conferred upon Petitioner by Respondent. Ultimately, questions of notice and unfairness are overshadowed by the fact that, for Petitioner, time was never of the essence on the projects for the Six Schools, and, to such a crucial part of the bargain, attention must be paid. For these reasons, Respondent has proved by clear and convincing evidence that, without justifiable cause, Petitioner is guilty of substantial deviations from project time schedules after written notice of such noncompliance with respect to the Six Schools, except Independence. Count III: Nonpayment of Subcontractor and Supplier From July 14 to September 21, 2010, Cemex supplied concrete materials to Respondent on walkway cover job sites. During March, June, July, and September 2010, Perfection performed aluminum subcontracting work on walkway cover job sites. A Cemex representative called Mr. Kunard in December 2010 and stated that Petitioner had not paid Cemex for supplies that it had provided to Petitioner's walkway cover projects. Mr. Kunard immediately called Mr. Rousseau, who promised to take care of this matter. (Tr. 416) At the hearing, counsel for Petitioner stipulated that Petitioner concedes that it did not pay Cemex an unspecified amount that it owed the supplier. (Tr. 453) In late January or early February of 2011, Cemex sought a writ of garnishment against Respondent to secure sums that it claimed that Petitioner owed Cemex. By Final Judgment entered April 4, 2011, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County approved a settlement agreement between Cemex and Petitioner that provided for a judgment of $64,044.85, which amount the court ordered Respondent to pay directly to Cemex. As Mr. Kunard testified, Respondent paid Cemex. (Tr 417-18) Later in April, a Perfection representative called Mr. Kunard and stated that Petitioner had not paid Perfection for work on Petitioner's walkway cover projects. In a hearing involving a legal action brought by Perfection against Petitioner and Respondent, Mr. Rousseau testified, on August 31, 2011, that Petitioner owed Perfection about $48,000. (Resp. Ex. 57) In a deposition of a general manager of Perfection taken in connection with this administrative case, counsel for Petitioner stipulated that "there is no question that [Petitioner] owes Perfection money." (Resp. Ex. 227, p. 34) By Final Judgment of Garnishment entered October 20, 2011, the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County determined that Perfection shall recover $5406.66 from Respondent. By Satisfaction filed December 14, 2011, Perfection advised that Respondent had satisfied this judgment. It is unclear whether Mr. Rousseau blames Respondent for Petitioner's failure to pay Cemex and Perfection. There is no suggestion in the record that Respondent ever failed to pay Petitioner timely on any pay application. Mr. Rousseau complained that Respondent discontinued the DPOs with Perfection. It appears that Respondent did so with one or more schools in the last group of four schools on which Petitioner worked. The timing of the emergence of Perfection's claim and the discontinuation of DPOs suggests that Petitioner had failed to pay Perfection at an earlier point in time. In any event, Petitioner had no contractual right to the use of DPOs. Also, a change order reduced the Contract Prices by the amount of the DPO plus saved sales tax for every school at which DPOs were used. Therefore, the presence or absence of DPOs would have not had a material impact on Petitioner's cash flow and its ability to pay this supplier and subcontractor. The evidence establishes a nonpayment of over $60,000 to Cemex and a nonpayment of nearly $50,000 to Perfection. These constitute substantial nonpayments. Although the record does not reveal how many times Petitioner failed to pay each obligee, even if there were only one nonpayment of each obligee, such nonpayments are repeated. For these reasons, Respondent has proved by clear and convincing evidence that, without justifiable cause, Petitioner is guilty of a substantial or repeated failure to pay a subcontractor after Respondent has paid Petitioner for the work performed by this subcontractor and in accordance with approved requisitions for payment. Count I: Maintenance and Cleanup of Limestone Creek Limestone Creek employees were greatly inconvenienced by the construction at their school. Janitors were required to carry cleaning supplies extensive distances, students and teachers were unable to use a portion of the school grounds, the principal daily had to resecure the job site to ensure that students did not wander into areas that had not been restored, and the entire school community was unable to use the part of the campus where an annual fundraising celebration was held each October. Much of this inconvenience was the result of the excessive duration of construction at Limestone Creek, as discussed in connection with Count II. But the long duration of construction must be distinguished from maintenance and cleanup for the purpose of determining the facts relevant to Count I. Any anecdotal evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, satisfactory PPEs for Limestone Creek preclude findings adverse to Petitioner as to Count I from the start of construction through October 2010. As noted above, Respondent issued Petitioner PPEs for Limestone Creek on May 25, 2010, and August 31, 2010. Their respective scores for project management, customer sensitivity, and safety--which are the only categories on the PPE that might have a bearing on site maintenance and clean up--are 2.5, 2.3, and 3.0 and 3.5, 3.0, and 3.0. As noted above, a "2" is satisfactory, and a "3" is good. These scores indicate that Petitioner's site maintenance was satisfactory through about September 1, 2010. The stop work order prohibited all activity on the Limestone Creek site for almost the entire month of September. On its face, the stop work order is unconditional, so Petitioner's responsibility for site maintenance was interrupted until October 7 when Respondent lifted the stop work order. As noted above, on January 7, 2011, Respondent issued a PPE for Limestone Creek that contained a 1.8 for project management. For customer sensitivity and safety, however, Respondent assigned Petitioner scores of 2.0 and 2.5, respectively. Although more helpful to Respondent's Count I claims than the relevant scores in the two previous PPEs, these scores do not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner's site maintenance and clean up practices were deficient. Turning to site conditions in 2011, by this time, about 96% of the work at Limestone Creek had been done, so site disruption from active construction should have been limited. According to Mr. Kunard, as of January 7, 2011, the Limestone Creek construction site was deficient as to 11 items: lack of grading, lack of sodding, missing light fixtures, missing aluminum conduit covers, cracked concrete sidewalks, colored construction marking on sidewalks, loose rock in graded areas, excessively elevated drain pipe cleanouts, lack of touch up painting, damaged sprinklers, and an unresolved waiver request. However, the overall effect of this items was not so great as to produce a failing PPE on the same date. The evidence most supportive of Count I is an email dated April 13, 2011, to Mr. Rousseau from Mr. Christie. Mr. Rousseau had asked for final payment, less the retainage, for Limestone Creek. Mr. Christie visited the site and found a substantial amount of sod that had not yet been placed, a missing light fixture, spattered concrete on several new columns, colored markings on sidewalks, and cracked sidewalks where construction vehicles accessed part of the site. He declined to authorize final payment. By email dated May 12, 2011, to Mr. Christie with a copy to Mr. Sanches, Principal Gibbs asked when the project would be completed. She noted among the items that were still unfinished as the leveling of the ground, the replacement of all of the sod, and the cleaning up of the sidewalks, which still had construction marking on them. In this email, Principal Gibbs mentioned that Limestone Creek was scheduled for another walkway cover job, and she hoped that Respondent would not use "this incompetent vendor" again. By email dated later in the day, Mr. Christie informed Principal Gibbs that he rechecked the work area earlier that morning and found things about as he had found them a couple of weeks earlier. Mr. Christie noted cracked sidewalks where construction vehicles crossed the walkways, red lead chalk marks, and incomplete and uneven sod. Nonetheless, Principal Gibbs' concern was well- founded. Despite having noted the above-described deficiencies, Mr. Christie advised the principal that Petitioner "will be awarded this addition to their original contract." Mr. Christie added that he thought that Petitioner had requested additional time to complete the project. Declining to comment further on discussions to which he had not been privy, Mr. Christie assured Principal Gibbs that he would "continue to work cooperatively and proactively" with Petitioner "to bring both the current project and the new . . . project to fruition." He added that he shared Principal Gibbs' frustration. Mr. Christie's ability to provide such a facile assurance establishes only that he was unaware of the depth of the principal's frustration--with Petitioner, no doubt, but perhaps with the Facilities Services Department by this time too. At about this time, Mr. Kunard signed a change order to authorize Petitioner to perform a substantial amount of additional walkway construction work at Limestone Creek. Ms. Swan vetoed Mr. Kunard's decision because she refused to sign the purchase order, without which the change order was a nullity. Mr. Kunard was caught by surprise by this action because he had been previously unaware of the ability of the Purchasing Department to withhold approval of a change order. In the face of satisfactory PPEs and a decision by the Facilities Services Department to award Petitioner additional work at Limestone Creek in May 2011, the recitation of unfinished items does not supply clear and convincing evidence of poor site maintenance and cleanup practices. Although he has had considerable experience in contract management, Mr. Kunard tried to explain that he had incorrectly believed that he was required to award this additional work to Petitioner. He did not identify the source of this so-called requirement. This explanation is rejected as implausible. For these reasons, Respondent has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, without justifiable cause, Petitioner is guilty of a substantial or repeated failure to comply with the Contract Documents failing to maintain and clean up the Limestone Creek site after written notice of such noncompliance. Count IV: Return of Keys To enable Petitioner to perform the work, Ms. Banaszewski gave Petitioner's representatives keys to the 17 schools for which Petitioner had won contracts. The keys were of two types: gate keys and master keys. The gate keys unlocked the gates so as to provide access to the school grounds, but not any school buildings. The master keys unlocked the school buildings so as to provide access to every classroom, office, and other secure areas within these buildings. Ms. Banaszewski provided master keys for those schools to which Petitioner required access to electric closets and other utility rooms in order to perform its work. Ms. Banaszewski gave keys to Mr. Rousseau, Ms. Rousseau, Mr. Vlock, and other employees of Petitioner. The employee receiving the keys signed an Assignment of Facilities Keys form that provides: I accept the responsibility for the security of the above referenced keys and on [sic] the event any such keys are lost or stolen. I agree to immediately report the same to my department head or principal. I further agree that I will at no time reproduce or copy the above-referenced keys or keep any unauthorized keys in my possession. The reference to the "my department head or principal" reveals this form is for use when a school assigns keys to its employees, such as teachers. The only other potentially relevant provision of this form states at the bottom: "All keys Returned to Window/Lock Department." These provisions do not impose upon the person receiving a key and signing this form a contractual duty to return the key. By email dated June 21, 2011, to Mr. Rousseau, Ms. Banaszewski identified the keys assigned to Petitioner and the sites at which Petitioner was not conducting work and asked that Petitioner return these keys "as soon as possible." By return email the same day, Mr. Rousseau stated: "I am aware of the keys that need to be returned. All project that has [sic] a CC and no Perfection punch list, will be returned on Monday." In reply, by email on the same day, Ms. Banaszewski asked, "Please return all keys" and suggested that Petitioner obtain keys from individual schools, if Petitioner's employees needed access. Construing these three emails together, Ms. Banaszewski and Mr. Rousseau agreed that Petitioner would return the keys to the schools for which Petitioner had obtained CCs. At the time of these emails, among the schools that are the subject of Count IV, Petitioner had obtained CCs for only the following schools (CC issue date in parentheses): Spanish River (as noted above, May 11, 2011); Atlantic (February 4, 2011); Egret Lake (January 19, 2011), and Grassy Waters (January 19, 2011). Petitioner did not obtain CCs for Lighthouse and Limestone Creek until August 2011--after the Superintendent's charging letter of the previous month. The record does not reveal when Respondent issued the CC for Dwyer. Thus, Respondent has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence in the form of these three emails a clear demand for the return of the keys to Lighthouse, Limestone Creek, and Dwyer. Except for testimony that changing the locks is expensive, the record is otherwise undeveloped as to the keys. Two omissions are particularly important. First, no employee of Petitioner admitted that Petitioner failed to return the keys. Ms. Banaszewski testified only that no one returned the keys to her. (Tr. 831, 840) This does not preclude the reasonable possibility that an employee of Petitioner may have returned keys to school administrators, the Facilities Management Coordinator for the school, or another of Respondent's employees. Second, Ms. Banaszewski admitted that she had never imposed a deadline on Petitioner for the return of the keys (Tr. 834). On July 16, 2012, Mr. Kunard sent Mr. Rousseau a comprehensive demand letter that covered the allegedly unreturned keys, but this letter is one year after the Superintendent's letter of July 2011, which is the charging document. Complementing the above-described failure of proof concerning the keys is a failure of the Contract Documents to require Petitioner to return the keys. Count IV relies instead on provisions of the Contract Documents requiring site security, but, especially where there are no indications of any breaches in site security, such provisions cannot be construed to require Petitioner to return the keys. For these reasons, Respondent has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, without justifiable cause, Petitioner is guilty of a substantial or repeated failure to comply with the Contract Documents by failing to return the keys after written notice of such noncompliance. Aftermath The Superintendent's Letter and School Board's ratification have been detailed in the Preliminary Statement. After the School Board's ratification, but before the time had run for Petitioner to request a formal hearing on the still- preliminary delinquency determination, Ms. Swan advised Petitioner's insurers or sureties, or both, of the action of the School Board, as though it were final action. Ms. Swan admits that she has not worked on a delinquency previously. Unfortunately, even though the final determination of delinquency, subject to judicial review, will not take place until the issuance of a final order following this recommended order, Petitioner's sureties canceled Petitioner's bonds, and an individual who had guaranteed repayment to one or more sureties of $5 million withdrew his guaranty. Ms. Swan did not attempt to rescind her letter, although Mr. Kunard, who had sent a similar letter to a surety, rescinded his. Mr. Rousseau testified that the damage had been done and, specifically, that Petitioner was no longer an active corporation and is out of business. (Tr. 2980) In fact, Petitioner was still an active corporation at the time of the hearing, although it may be out of business. More importantly, the record does not reveal whether Mr. Rousseau exerted reasonable efforts to restore his company's bonding and, if necessary, the $5 million guaranty. Obviously, if Petitioner is out of business, the record does not provide a basis for determining the cause or causes for this development.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order ratifying Count II of the Superintendent's Letter for five of the Six Schools (except Independence Middle School), ratifying Count III of the Superintendent's Letter, declining to ratify Counts I and IV of the Superintendent's Letter, and determining that Petitioner is delinquent for one year from the date of final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 16th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent's proposed award for ITB 09-22 for Building 14B renovation is contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid.
Findings Of Fact The University of North Florida published its Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal in reference to ITB #09-22 entitled "GC's for Building 14B Renovation" on December 19, 2008, with a submission deadline of January 27, 2009. The opening date was eventually extended to January 30, 2009. There were four addendums to the ITB #09-22 Project. The Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal document contained the following provisions: This project consists of the following scope of work: The work includes all labor, supervision, equipment, and materials required to execute the Contract Documents in two phases for the tenant build-out of the existing UNF Building 14-B (approximate square footage 9742). The work includes, but is not limited to, demolition of all interior walls, finishes, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and communication components as well as a new exterior curtain wall system. Exterior construction will include new glazing in aluminum curtain wall. Interior construction will include new gypsum wallboard partitions with metal stud walls, millwork, suspended acoustical and gypsum wallboard ceilings, wood and metal doors in hollow metal frames, coiling overhead grilles, toilet partitions and vanities. Interior finishes include carpeting, resilient tile, ceramic tile, painting, and window treatments. Mechanical work includes installation of new Owner provided HVAC units with ductwork and all necessary connections to the UNF Central Plant chilled water system. Plumbing includes new piping and fixtures for the tenant build-out and renovation of the group male and female restrooms. Electrical work includes new wiring, devices and lighting for the new tenant build-out. Successful bidders must have demonstrable previous experience with the described systems and technical requirements. All bidders must be qualified at the time of the bid opening in accordance with the Bidders Qualification within the ITB 09-22 Bid documents. . . Article I, Section 2 includes a heading in bold stating "Qualification Criteria." This section states: Participants must qualify to bid on this project. UNF will utilize the following criteria to qualify the general contractors within this ITB. The information must be completed on the UNF Qualifications Form provided (page 10-11): Bonding: Demonstrates a bonding capacity of at least $2 million dollars and has an A.M. Best Rating of "A-V" or better. Licenses: Company is licensed to do business in the state of Florida and approved by the US Department of Treasury listing as an acceptable surety. Project references: Company has successfully completed at least 3 commercial construction projects of more than $1 million dollars each in the past three (3) years. List 3 such projects to include project name, client name, completion date, location, project value, role in project. Reference: Project name, owner, owner's representative name/phone number, completion date and construction cost. Years of experience: Company has a minimum five (5) years of GC experience under the current company name. The directions for the General Contractor's Qualification Summary, under Related Experience, reiterated that the bidder was to list "No more than 4 projects of comparable type, size and complexity. (1) Project must be for a college/university)." Addendum I for the Project, issued January 9, 2009, clarified that the requirement for having completed successfully a project of similar size and scope at a Florida University in the last three years is a qualification factor for this project. Addendum II, issued January 12, 2009, removed the requirement for bidders to have completed one project for a college or university. The other two addenda did not address contractor qualifications. Petitioner, Core Construction Company (Core Construction or Petitioner) bid in response to the ITB. Approximately 19 other bidders also responded. Core Construction was the apparent low bidder on the project, with a bid of $1,073,000. There was some concern expressed by the architect reviewing the bids because the bids were all within ten percent of each other for the top bidders, with the bidders 2-10 being within six percent of each other. In an e-mail to Dianna White, the Senior Buyer for UNF purchasing, Mr. Norman stated: Overall there was a 20% range in bid prices which I attribute to a significant difference in the size, quality and abilities of the contractors that bid this project. The apparently low bidder was $60,516 below the second low bidder and $83,000 below the third low bidder. This is a significant concern since there is only $46,484 between the second and fifth low bidders. I suggest the apparent low bidder be contacted and asked if they feel comfortable with their bid, because it appears to me they are missing something significant in their pricing. Purchasing should also carefully review their current financials and current bonding capacity if this is allowed. Project reference checks, price verification against the architect's construction estimate and bonding checks were performed with respect to the four lowest bidding companies: Core Construction, Pooley Contracting, Rivers & Rivers and Warden Construction. Pooley Contracting, the second-lowest bidder, was disqualified as non-responsive because its bid package did not include a bonding letter. Core provided the names of three completed projects that were valued at over one million dollars. Dianna White called each of the references provided, not only for Core but for three of the four lowest bidders. The same questions were asked of each reference for each company: 1) Was the project on time and within budget; 2) Did the project run smoothly; 3) Were project issues handled; and 4) Would you use the contractor again. Calls related to Pooley Contracting were not completed because it was disqualified as non-responsive. While the references for Rivers & Rivers and Warden were consistently good, two of the three references received for Core were not. Ms. White described them as the most "strongly negative" references she had ever received. In particular, the references indicated difficulty in completing jobs within budget and on time, which the Respondent viewed as the basis for determining whether a contractor had successfully completed a project. Two of the references indicated that they would not use the contractor again, or as one put it, "not if there was any way around it." Based on the recommendations received, the Purchasing Office for the University recommended that Core Construction be disqualified for failing to demonstrate successful completion of three projects over one million dollars that were similar in scope. Because Pooley Construction was also disqualified, the Purchasing Department recommended that the Project be awarded to the third-lowest bidder, Rivers & Rivers. The recommendation to award the project to Rivers & Rivers was accepted by the Vice President of Administration and Finance, and on February 18, 2009, a Notice of Award issued identifying Rivers & Rivers as the company receiving the award. On February 19, 2009, Core Construction notified Respondent that it intended to protest the award of the Project to Rivers & Rivers. On February 24, 2009, Core Construction provided a $10,000.00 surety bond and a written protest of the award. The basis of the protest was two-fold. First, Core Construction contended that Rivers & Rivers did not meet the qualification criteria set out in the ITB, because it was did not have a minimum of five years of general contractor experience under the current company name. Second, Core felt that the poor references received should not be a basis for disqualification. Upon receiving the bid protest, Respondent contacted Rivers & Rivers to verify its licensure status. Upon inquiry, it was determined that while the principals of the company had over 30 years of experience, the Rivers & Rivers entity had not been licensed under that name for the requisite five years. While no action has been taken while this bid protest is pending, Respondent indicated its intention to withdraw the award from Rivers & Rivers and award the contract instead to the next lowest bidder. The procedures used by the University in determining the appropriate award were not contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid. It was consistent with University policy to check references for projects of similar scope and size. Therefore, it was appropriate to ask for and check references for projects of over one million dollars. There is no indication that any bidder questioned what the University would consider as successful completion of a project. The time for questioning this issue would have been when the specifications were issued, consistent with Article I, Section 7 of the ITB. Having a project come in on time and within budget is a reasonable measure of successful completion. It is not the same as "substantial completion," which generally refers to a point of time in the construction process, not the final completion of the project.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the President of the University of North Florida, pursuant to his authority under Board of Governor's Regulation 18.002, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's written protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay H. Chung Core Construction Company, Inc. 4940 Emerson Street, Suite 205 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Paul Christopher Wrenn, Esquire University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2100 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224 John A. Delaney, President University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2800 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224
The Issue The sole issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, which he took in June, 1982. Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The architectural examination in Florida is administered in two parts: a written examination given in December of each year, and the design and site planning examination given in June of each year. Canavan met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Canavan took the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1982. This examination consisted of various design and site problems to be resolved in drawings to be completed within 12 hours. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. The examination is prepared and supplied to the Office of Examination Services by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The design and site planning portion of the examination for June of 1982 required the design of a small airport terminal by the applicant to include drawings of the structure on the site, exterior elevations, interior floor plans and cross-sections of the building interior. Canavan, together with the other applicants, was supplied information and a preexamination booklet setting forth generally the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which the applicants would be expected to sketch. At the time of the examination, other information was supplied to the applicants to enable them to more adequately design the structure requested and meet the necessary architectural requirements. The examination of the Petitioner, together with the examinations of the applicants from some 20 states using the NCARB standardized examination, were graded at one time by graders of the NCARB. Each state participating in the examination process provides at least two qualified architects to function as graders. These graders are given specific training by NCARB to standardize their grading approach to the examination. The examinations of all the applicants are divided among the various graders on a blind grading basis in such a manner that the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination he is grading. Graders look at the applicant's overall plan to determine whether the applicant has met or failed to meet the requirements. The grader makes notations of specific areas of weakness based upon the grading criteria and based upon the overall conception of the applicant's submission. Each examination is graded by a minimum of two graders, who grade the examination independently. If the examination receives a failing grade from each of the independent graders, it is graded by a third grader. The Petitioner's examination was graded in accordance with the above process and received a failing grade, indicating that it was graded by three independent graders. The Petitioner was notified of his failure to pass the examination and given notice of his right to a formal hearing. Jeff Hoxie, who was one of the graders on the June 1982 examination and who is an experienced architect licensed in the State of Florida, reviewed the Petitioner's examination in the manner that it would have been assessed by the graders, explaining the process generally and explaining the specific deficiencies which he noted. He used the original grader's comments regarding the deficiencies noted as a point of departure to explain his assessment of the Petitioner's examination. The Petitioner failed to follow specific examination requirements as to the required sizes of specific floor areas, failed to follow building code requirements in his design of the kitchen and restaurant, and failed to properly draw the sketch required of the structural and mechanical elements of the building. While there were other areas of weakness noted, Mr. Hoxie stated that the major failures listed above would justify a failing grade. Petitioner's testimony revealed that he had made a mistake in sketching one plan, and that, because of this mistake and the corrections which Petitioner made, he ran out of time, which resulted in the specific failings noted by the three graders at the national level and confirmed by Mr. Hoxie.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Architecture of the State of Florida fail the Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination taken by Canavan in June, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel T. Canavan 814 Avenida Hermosa West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether a Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan, known as Apoxsee,2 was adopted in 1981. In 1989, the County adopted a revised and updated version of that Plan. The current Plan was adopted in 1997 and is based on an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) approved by the County on February 20, 1996. After a lengthy process which began several years earlier, included input from all segments of the community, and involved thousands of hours of community service, on February 28, 2002, the County submitted to the Department a package of amendments comprised of an overlay system (with associated goals, objectives, and policies) based on fifty- year projections of growth. The amendments were in response to Future Land Use Policy 4.7 which mandated the preparation of a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, which had served as an urban growth boundary in the County since the mid-1970s. Through the overlays, the amendments generally established areas in the County for the location of villages, hamlets, greenways, and conservation subdivisions. On May 10, 2002, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC). In response to the ORC, on July 10, 2002, the County enacted Ordinance No. 2001-76, which included various changes to the earlier amendment package and generally established six geographic overlay areas in the County, called Resource Management Areas (RMAs), with associated goals, objectives, and policies in the Future Land Use Chapter. The RMAs include an Urban/Suburban RMA, an Economic Development RMA, a Rural Heritage/Estate RMA, a Village/Estate/Open Space RMA, a Greenway RMA, and an Agriculture/Reserve RMA. The amendments are more commonly known as Sarasota 2050. The revised amendment package was transmitted to the Department on July 24, 2002. On September 5, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. On September 26, 2002, Manasota-88, Compton, and Ayech (and four large landowners who subsequently voluntarily dismissed their Petitions) filed their Petitions challenging the new amendments. In their Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Manasota-88 and Compton contend that the amendments are not in compliance for the following reasons: vagueness and uncertainties of policies; an inconsistent, absent or flawed population demand and urban capacity allocation methodology; inconsistent planning time frames; overallocation of urban capacity; urban sprawl; failure to coordinate future land uses with planned, adequate and financially feasible facilities and services; failure to protect wetlands, wildlife and other natural resources; failure to meet requirements for multimodal and area-wide concurrency standards; failure to provide affordable housing; land use incompatibility of land uses and conditions; indefinite mixed uses and standards; lack of intergovernmental coordination; and inadequate opportunities for public participation the Amendment is internally inconsistent within itself and with other provisions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, is not supported by appropriate data and analysis and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy [P]lan of the Southwest Regional Planning Council. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ayech has relied on the same grounds as Manasota-88 and Compton (except for the allegation that the amendments lack intergovernmental coordination). In addition, she has added an allegation that the amendments fail to adequately plan "for hurricane evacuation." The Parties The Department is the state planning agency responsible for review and approval of comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. The County adopted the amendments being challenged here. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioners either reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the County, and that they made comments, objections, or recommendations to the County prior to the adoption of the Amendment. These stipulated facts establish that Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to initiate this action. Given the above stipulation, there was no testimony presented by Manasota-88 describing that organization's activities or purpose, or by Compton individually. As to Ayech, however, she is a resident of the County who lives on a 5-acre farm in the "Old Miakka" area east of Interstate 75, zoned OUE, which is designated as a rural classification under the Plan. The activities on her farm are regulated through County zoning ordinances. The Amendment Generally Under the current Plan, the County uses a number of growth management strategies including, but not limited to: an urban services area (USA) boundary; a minimum residential capacity "trigger" mechanism, that is, a minimum dwelling unit capacity of 133 percent of housing demand projected for a ten- year plan period following each EAR, to determine when the USA boundary may need to be moved; a future urban area; and concurrency requirements. Outside the USA, development is generally limited to no greater than one residential unit per five acres in rural designated areas or one unit per two acres in semi-rural areas. The current Plan also includes a Capital Improvement Element incorporating a five-year and a twenty-plus-year planning period. The five-year list of infrastructure projects is costed and prioritized. In the twenty-plus-year list, infrastructure projects are listed in alphabetical order by type of facility and are not costed or prioritized. The construction of infrastructure projects is implemented through an annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with projects generally being moved between the twenty-plus-year time frame and the five-year time frame and then into the CIP. All of the County's future urban capacity outside the USA and the majority of capacity remaining inside the USA are in the southern part of the County (south of Preymore Street extended, and south of Sarasota Square Mall). As the northern part of the County's urban capacity nears buildout, the County has experienced considerable market pressure to create more urban designated land in the northern part of the County and/or to convert undeveloped rural land into large lot, ranchette subdivisions. Because of the foregoing conditions, and the requirement in Future Land Use Policy 4.1.7 that it prepare a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, the County began seeking ways to encourage what it considers to be a "more livable, sustainable form of development." This led to the adoption of Sarasota 2050. As noted above, Sarasota 2050 consists of six geographic overlay areas in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), called RMAs, with associated goals, objectives, and policies. As described in the Plan, the purpose and objective of the Amendment is as follows: The Sarasota County Resource Management Area (RMA) Goal, Objectives and Policies are designed as a supplement to the Future Land Use Chapter of Apoxsee. The RMAs function as an overlay to the adopted Future Land Use Map and do not affect any rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or the Land Development Regulations of Sarasota County or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that Policy TDR 2.2 shall apply to land located within the Rural/Heritage Estate, Village/ Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. To accomplish this purpose and objective, the RMAs and their associated policies are expressly designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities; provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support diverse ages, incomes, and family sizes; preserve environmental systems; direct population growth away from floodplains; avoid urban sprawl; reduce automobile trips; create efficiency in planning and provision of infrastructure; provide County central utilities; conserve water and energy; allocate development costs appropriately; preserve rural character, including opportunities for agriculture; and balance jobs and housing. The Amendment creates an optional, alternative land use policy program in the Plan. To take advantage of the benefits and incentives of this alternative program, a property owner must be bound by the terms and conditions in the goal, objectives, and policies. Policy RMA1.1 explains it this way: The additional development opportunities afforded by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies are provided on the condition that they are implemented and can be enforced as an entire package. For example, the densities and intensities of land use made available by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies may not be approved for use outside the policy framework and implementing regulatory framework set forth herein. Policy RMA1.3 expresses the Amendment’s optional, alternative relationship to the existing Plan as follows: The Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall not affect the existing rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Development Regulations or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that TDR 2.2 [relating to transfer of development rights] shall apply to land located within the Rural Heritage/ Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. Therefore, if a landowner chooses to pursue the alternative development opportunities, he essentially forfeits his current development rights and accepts the terms and conditions of Sarasota 2050. The RMAs The RMAs were drawn in a series of overlays to the FLUM based on the unique characteristics of different areas of the County, and they result in apportioning the entire County into six RMAs. They are designed to identify, maintain, and enhance the diversity of urban and rural land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Urban/Suburban RMA is an overlay of the USA and is comparable to the growth and development pattern defined by the Plan. Policies for this RMA call for neighborhood planning, providing resources for infrastructure, and encouraging development (or urban infill) in a portion of the Future USA identified in the Amendment as the Settlement Area. The Economic Development RMA consists of land inside the USA that is located along existing commercial corridors and at the interchanges of Interstate 75. In this RMA, the policies in the Amendment provide for facilitating economic development and redevelopment by preparing critical area plans, encouraging mixed uses, providing for multi-modal transportation opportunities, creating land development regulations to encourage economic development, and providing more innovative level of service standards that are in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Greenway RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are of special environmental value or are important for environmental connectivity. Generally, the Greenway RMA is comprised of public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, existing preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands adjacent to the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow- ways and wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Priority Protection Program (ESLPPP), and lands deemed to be of high ecological value. This RMA is accompanied by a map depicting the general location of the features sought to be protected. The Rural/Heritage Estate Resource Management RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are presently rural and very low density residential in character and development and are planned to remain in that form. In other words, the RMA's focus is on protecting the existing rural character of this area. To accomplish this objective, and to discourage inefficient use of land in the area, the Amendment contains policies that will create and implement neighborhood plans focusing on strategies and measures to preserve the historic rural character of the RMA. It also provides incentives to encourage the protection of agricultural uses and natural resources through measures such as the creation of land development regulations for a Conservation Subdivision form of use and development in the area. The Agricultural Reserve RMA is made up of the existing agricultural areas in the eastern and southeastern portions of the County. The Amendment contains policies that call for the amendment of the County’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations to support, preserve, protect, and encourage agricultural and ranching uses and activities in the area. Finally, the Village/Open Space RMA is the centerpiece of the RMA program. It consists of land outside the USA that is planned to be the location of mixed-use developments called Villages and Hamlets. The Village/Open Space RMA is primarily the area where the increment of growth and development associated with the longer, 2050 planning horizon will be accommodated. Villages and Hamlets are form-specific, using connected neighborhoods as basic structural units that form compact, mixed-use, master-planned communities. Neighborhoods provide for a broad range and variety of housing types to accommodate a wide range of family sizes and incomes. Neighborhoods are characterized by a fully connected system of streets and roads that encourage alternative means of transportation such as walking, bicycle, or transit. Permanently dedicated open space is also an important element of the neighborhood form. Neighborhoods are to be designed so that a majority of the housing units are within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center and are collectively served by Village Centers. Village Centers are characterized by being internally designed to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide mixed uses. They are designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental use and service needs of the residents of the Village. Densities and intensities in Village Centers are higher than in neighborhoods to achieve a critical mass capable of serving as the economic nucleus of the Village. Villages must be surrounded by large expanses of open space to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide a noticeable separation between Villages and rural areas. Hamlets are intended to be designed as collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around crossroads that may include small-scale commercial developments with up to 20,000 square feet of space, as well as civic buildings or shared amenities. Each Hamlet is required to have a public/civic focal point, such as a public park. By clustering and focusing development and population in the Village and Hamlet forms, less land is needed to accommodate the projected population and more land is devoted to open space. The Village/Open Space RMA is an overlay and includes FLUM designations. According to the Amendment, the designations become effective if and when a development master plan for a Village or Hamlet is approved for the property. The Urban/Suburban, Agricultural Reserve, Rural Heritage/Estate, Greenway, and Economic Development RMAs are overlays only and do not include or affect FLUM designations. For these five RMAs, the FLUM designation controls land use, and any changes in use that could be made by using the overlay policies of the Amendment that are not consistent with the land's future land use designation would require a land use redesignation amendment to the Plan before such use could be allowed. Data and analysis in support of the amendment The County did an extensive collection and review of data in connection with the Amendment. In addition to its own data, data on wetlands, soils, habitats, water supplies, and drainage with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) were reviewed. Data from the BEBR were used in deriving population and housing demand forecasts for the 2050 planning period. Transportation system modeling was performed using data from the local Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA). The MPA uses the Florida State Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS), which is commonly used throughout the State for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Expert technical assistance was also provided by various consulting firms, including the Urban Land Institute, Analytica, Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., Urban Strategies, Inc., Duany-Plater-Zyberk, Glatting Jackson, Fishkind & Associates, Stansbury Resolutions by Design, and Kumpe & Associates. In addition, the Urban Land Institute prepared a comprehensive report on the benefits of moving towards new urbanist and smart growth forms east of Interstate 75 and a build-out 2050 planning horizon. Finally, topical reports were prepared on each of the RMAs, as well as on public participation, financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality, market analysis, and infrastructure analysis. In sum, the data gathered, analyzed, and used by the County were the best available data; the analyses were done in a professionally acceptable manner; and for reasons more fully explained below, the County reacted appropriately to such data. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners have raised a wide range of objections to the Amendment, including a lack of data and analyses to support many parts of the Amendment; flawed or professionally unacceptable population and housing projections; a lack of need; the encouragement of urban sprawl; a lack of coordination between the future land uses associated with the Amendment and the availability of capital facilities; a flawed transportation model; a lack of meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines; internal inconsistency; a failure to protect natural resources; a lack of economic feasibility and fiscal neutrality; and inadequate public participation and intergovernmental coordination. Use of a 50-year planning horizon Petitioners first contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because it has a fifty-year planning time frame rather than a five or ten-year time frame, and because it does not have the same time frame as the Plan itself. Section 163.3177(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan must 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." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(4). However, nothing in the statute or rule prohibits a plan from containing more than two planning horizons, or for an amendment to add an additional fifty-year planning period. Therefore, the objection is without merit. Population and housing need projections For a fifty-year plan, the County had to undertake an independent analysis and projection of future population in the County. In doing so, the County extrapolated from BEBR medium range 2030 projections and calculated a need for 82,000 new homes over the 2050 period. Examining building permit trends over the prior ten years, the County calculated a high- end projection of 110,000 new homes. The County developed two sets of estimates since it is reasonable and appropriate to use more than one approach to produce a range of future projections. The County based its planning on the lower number, but also assessed water needs relative to the higher number. The data and sources used by the County in making the population and housing need projections are data and sources commonly used by local governments in making such projections. The County's expert demographer, Dr. Fishkind, independently evaluated the methodologies used by the County and pointed out that the projections came from the BEBR mid- range population projections for the County and that, over the years, these projections have been shown to be reliably accurate. The projections were then extended by linear extrapolation and converted to a housing demand in a series of steps which conformed with good planning practices. The projections were also double-checked by looking at the projected levels of building permits based on historical trends in the previous ten years' time. These two sets of calculations were fairly consistent given the lengthy time frame and the inherent difficulty in making long-range forecasts. Dr. Fishkind also found the extrapolation from 2030 to 2050 using a linear approach to be appropriate. This is because medium-term population projections are linear, and extrapolation under this approach is both reasonable and proper. Likewise, Dr. Fishkind concluded that comparing the projections to the projected level of building permits based on historical trends is also a reasonable and acceptable methodology and offers another perspective. Manasota-88's and Compton's expert demographer, Dr. Smith, disagreed that the County’s methodology was professionally acceptable and opined instead that the mid- range 2050 housing need was 76,800 units. He evidently accepted the BEBR mid-range extrapolation done by the County for the year-round resident population of the County through 2050, but disagreed on the number of people associated with the functional population of the County. To calculate the actual number of persons in the County and the number of homes necessary to accommodate those persons, it is necessary to add the persons who reside in the County year-round (the "resident population") to the number of people who live in the County for only a portion of the year (the "seasonal population"). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e)("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") The BEBR projections are based on only the resident population. The County’s demographer assigned a 20 percent multiplier to the resident population to account for the seasonal population. This multiplier has been in the Plan for many years, and it has been used by the County (with the Department's approval) in calculating seasonal population for comprehensive planning purposes since at least 1982. Rather than use a 20 percent multiplier, Dr. Smith extrapolated the seasonal population trend between the 1990 census and the 2000 census and arrived at a different number for total county housing demand. Even so, based on the fifty- year time frame of the Amendment, the 2050 housing demand number estimated by Dr. Smith (76,800 units) is for all practical purposes identical to the number projected by the County (82,000). Indeed, Dr. Fishkind opined that there is no statistically significant difference between the County's and Dr. Smith's projections. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area." The "need" issue is also a factor to be considered in an urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The County's evidence established that the allocation ratio of housing supply to housing need associated with the best-case scenario, that is, a buildout of existing areas and the maximum possible number of units being approved in the Villages, was nearly 1:1. Adding the total number of remaining potential dwelling units in the County at the time of the Amendment, the total amount of potential supply for the 2050 period was 82,500 units. This ratio is more conservative than the ratios found in other comprehensive plans determined to be in compliance by the Department. In those plans, the ratios tend to be much greater than 1:1. Petitioners objected to the amount of allocation, but offered no independent allocation ratio that should have been followed. Instead, Manasota-88's and Compton's expert undertook an independent calculation of potential units which resulted in a number of units in excess of 100,000 for the next twenty years. However, the witness was not capable of recalling, defending, or explaining these calculations on cross-examination, and therefore they have been given very little weight. Moreover, the witness clearly did not factor the transfer of density units or the limitations associated with the transfer of such units required by the policies in the Amendment for assembling units in the Villages. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that Sarasota 2050 is based on relevant and appropriate population and housing need projections that were prepared in a professionally acceptable manner using professionally acceptable methodologies. Land use suitability Petitioners next contend that the identification of the RMAs is not based on adequate data and analyses of land use suitability. In this regard, Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that future land use plans be based, in part, on surveys, studies, and data regarding "the character of undeveloped land." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2), which sets forth the factors that are to be evaluated when formulating future land use designations. The Amendment was based upon a land use suitability analysis which considered soils, wetlands, vegetation, and archeological sites. There is appropriate data and analyses in the record related to such topics as "vegetation and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The data were collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner, and the identification of the RMAs reacts appropriately to that data and analyses. The County's evidence demonstrated that the locations chosen for the particular RMAs are appropriate both as to location and suitability for development. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment is supported by adequate data and analyses establishing land use suitability. Urban sprawl and need Petitioners further contend that the Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), and that it is not supported by an appropriate demonstration of need. Need is, of course, a component of the overall goal of planning to avoid urban sprawl. The emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County tends toward large-lot development. Here, the RMA concept offers a mixture of uses and requires an overall residential density range of three to six units per net developable Village acre, whereas most of the same residential areas of the County presently appear to have residential densities of one unit per five acres or one unit per ten acres. If the Villages (and Hamlets) are developed according to Plan, they will be a more desirable and useful tool to fight this large-lot land use pattern of current development and constitute an effective anti-urban sprawl alternative. Petitioners also allege that the Amendment will allow urban sprawl for essentially three reasons: first, there is no "need" for the RMA plan; second, there are insufficient guarantees that any future Village or Hamlet will actually be built as a Village or similar new urbanist-type development; and third, the Amendment will result in accelerated and unchecked growth in the County. The more persuasive evidence showed that none of these concerns are justified, or that the concerns are beyond fair debate. The Amendment is crafted with a level of detail to ensure that a specific new urbanist form of development occurs on land designated as Village/Open Space land use. (The "new urbanistic form" of development is characterized by walkable neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing for a range of ages and family sizes; provide civic, commercial, and office opportunities; and facilitate open space and conservation of natural environments.) The compact, mixed-use land use pattern of the Villages and Hamlets is regarded as Urban Villages, a development form designed and recognized as a tool to combat urban sprawl. "New town" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) as follows: "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. . The Village/Open Space RMA is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, that is, the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development. Urban Villages referenced in the Rule are also a category and development form expressly recognized to combat urban sprawl. The Village/Open Space RMA policies include the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, and the density or intensity of each use. Villages must include a mix of uses, as well as a range of housing types capable of accommodating a broad range of family sizes and incomes. The non-residential uses in the Village, such as commercial, office, public/civic, educational, and recreational uses, must be capable of providing for most of the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental needs of the residents, and must be phased concurrently with the residential development of the Village. The policies set the minimum and maximum size for any Village development. Other policies establish standards for the minimum open space outside the developed area in the Village. The minimum density of a Village is three dwelling units per acre, the maximum density is six dwelling units per acre, and the target density is five dwelling units per acre. An adequate mix of non-residential uses must be phased with each phase or subphase of development. The maximum amount of commercial space in Neighborhood Centers is 20,000 square feet. Village Centers can be no more than 100 acres, the maximum amount of commercial space is 300,000 square feet, and the minimum size is 50,000 square feet. The Town Center may have between 150,000 and 425,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Villages must have sufficient amounts of non-residential space to satisfy the daily and weekly needs of the residents for such uses. Percentage minimums and maximums for the land area associated with uses in Village Centers and the Town Center are also expressed in the policies. Hamlets have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre and a minimum density of .4 dwelling unit per acre. The maximum amount of commercial space allowed in a Hamlet is 10,000 square feet. The number of potential dwelling units in the Village/Open Space RMA is limited to the total number of acres of land in the Village/Open Space and Greenway RMAs that are capable of transferring development rights. Calculations in the data and analyses submitted to the Department, as well as testimony at the hearing, set this number at 47,000-47,500 units once lands designated for public acquisition under the County’s ESLPPP are properly subtracted. To take advantage of the Village option and the allowable densities associated with Villages, property owners in the Village/Open Space RMA must assemble units above those allowed by the Plan's FLUM designation by acquiring and transferring development rights from the open space, the associated greenbelt and Greenway, the Village Master Plan, and other properties outside the Village. The means and strategy by which transfer sending and receiving areas are identified and density credits are acquired are specified in the Amendment. There are three village areas (South, Central, and North) in the Village/Open Space RMA, and the amendment limits the number of Villages that may be approved in each of the areas. In the South and Central Village areas, a second village cannot be approved for fifteen years after the first village is approved. The amount of village development in the South Village must also be phased to the construction of an interchange at Interstate 75 and Central Sarasota Parkway. In the North Village area, only one village may be approved. In addition, to further limit the amount and rate of approvals and development of Villages, village rezonings and master plans cannot be approved if the approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban residential development within the unincorporated county to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period. To evaluate the housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period, among other things, Policy VOS2.1(a)2. sets forth the following items to be considered in determining housing demand: Housing demand shall be calculated by the County and shall consider the medium range population projections of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Sarasota County, projected growth in the Municipalities and residential building permit activity in the Municipalities and unincorporated County. Petitioners contend that Policy VOS2.1 is an illegal population methodology. However, the County established that the Policy merely sets forth factors to be considered and does not express a specific methodology. The County’s position is consistent with the language in the policy. Petitioners also contend that the policy is vague and ambiguous because the outcome of the application of the factors is not ordained (since weights are not assigned to each factor), and because building permit activity is not a valid or proper factor to consider in making housing demand projections. The evidence establishes, however, that the factors are all proper criteria to consider in making housing projections, and that a fixed assignment of weights for each item would be inappropriate. In fact, even though Manasota- 88's and Compton's demographer stated that building permit activity is not an appropriate factor to consider, he has written articles that state just the opposite. The County also established that Sumter County (in central Florida) had examined and used building permit activity in projecting population in connection with their comprehensive plan, and had done so after consulting with BEBR and receiving confirmation that this factor was appropriate. That building permit activity demonstrated that population projections and housing demand were higher in Sumter County than BEBR was projecting at the time, and that Sumter County’s own projections were more accurate than BEBR's projections. Petitioners essentially claim that the County should only use BEBR's medium range projections in calculating future housing needs. However, the evidence does not support this contention. Future housing need is determined by dividing future population by average household size. Because BEBR's medium population projections for a county include all municipalities in the county, they must always be modified to reflect the unincorporated county. Moreover, BEBR's projections are the result of a methodology that first extrapolates for counties, but then adjusts upward or downward to match the state population projection. A projection based on this medium range projection, but adjusted by local data, local information, and local trends, is a more accurate indicator of population, and therefore housing need, than simply the BEBR county-wide medium range projection. At the same time, future conditions are fluid rather than static, and the clear objective of Policy VOS2.1 is to project housing demand as accurately as possible. Assigning fixed weights to each factor would not account for changing conditions and data at particular points in time and would be more likely to lead to inaccurate projections. As specified in Policy VOS2.1, the factors can properly serve as checks or balances on the accuracy of the projections. Given that the clear intent of Policy VOS2.1 is to limit housing capacity and supply, accurately determining the housing demand is the object of the policy, and it is evident that the factors should be flexibly applied rather than fixed as to value, weight, or significance. There is also persuasive evidence that the RMA amendments can be reasonably expected to improve the Plan by providing an anti-sprawl alternative. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) directly addresses this situation in the following manner: If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. (emphasis added) Petitioners did not offer persuasive evidence to refute the fact that the RMAs would improve the existing development pattern in the County. While Petitioners alleged that the Amendment allows for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development, the evidence shows, for example, that the County's current development pattern in the USA has an overall residential density between two and three units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate and Agricultural Reserve RMAs may maintain or reduce the existing density found in the Plan by the transfer of development rights. The three to six dwelling units per net developable residential acre required for Village development in the Village/Open Space RMA, coupled with the Amendment's specific policies directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl land use form. They also provide a density of focused development that diminishes, rather than exacerbates, the existing potential for sprawl found in the Plan. In reaching his opinions on urban sprawl, Manasota- 88's and Compton's expert indicated that he only assessed the question of sprawl in light of the thirteen primary indicators of sprawl identified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g). Unlike that limited analysis, the County's and the Department's witnesses considered the sprawl question under all of the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and concluded that the Amendment did not violate the urban sprawl prohibition. As they correctly observed, there are other portions of the law that are critically relevant to the analysis of sprawl in the context of this Amendment. Urban villages described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(80) are a category and development form expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) recognizes urban villages and new towns as two "innovative and flexible" ways in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the Village form contained in the Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. The types and mix of land uses in the amendment are consistent with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the County and serves to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. It is also beyond fair debate that the Amendment describes an innovative and flexible planning and development strategy that is expressly encouraged and recognized by Section 163.3177(11), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as a means to avoid and prevent sprawl. Natural resource protection and wetlands impacts Petitioners next allege that the Amendment fails to protect natural resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. and 9J-5.013(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (b). At a minimum, by providing for a Greenway area, clustering of development, large open space requirements, wildlife crossings, floodplain preservation and protection, greenbelts and buffers, transfers of development rights placing higher value on natural resources, best management practices, and the encouragement of development in the RMA pattern, the RMA plan creates a level of natural resource protection greater than the County’s existing Plan. Though Petitioners disagreed with the extent and breadth of the protections afforded by the Amendment, they could only point to one area where protections may not be as significant as in the Plan: wetland impacts in Villages where the Village Center is involved. On this issue, Policy VOS1.5 provides that: The County recognizes that prevention of urban sprawl and the creation of compact, mixed-use development support an important public purpose. Therefore, the approval of a Master Development Plan for a Village may permit impacts to wetlands within the Village Center itself only when it is determined that the proposed wetland impact is unavoidable to achieve this public purpose and only the minimum wetland impact is proposed. Such approval does not eliminate the need to comply with the other wetland mitigation requirements of the Environmental Technical Manual of the Land Development Regulations, including the requirement for suitable mitigation. The Board of County Commissioners will review such proposals on a case-by-case basis as part of the Master Development Plan review process. Contrary to Petitioners' claims, the Policy does not encourage wetland destruction. Impacts to wetlands with appropriate mitigation are allowed under this policy only when the impact is "unavoidable" and "the minimum impact is proposed." The term "unavoidable impact" is not an ambiguous term in the area of wetland regulation. It is not unbridled in the context of the policy, nor is it ambiguous when properly viewed in the context of the overriding concern of the amendment to "preserve environmental systems." The term "unavoidable impact" is used and has application and meaning in other wetland regulatory programs, such as the federal Clean Water Act and the regulations implementing that law. Regulations based on "unavoidable impacts," both in this policy as well as in the state and federal regulations, can be applied in a lawfully meaningful way. Considering the policies regarding environmental systems, habitats, wildlife, and their protection, especially when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan, the Amendment as a whole reacts appropriately to the data and can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The Greenway RMA was based on data and analyses that generated a series of environmental resource overlays, that when completed, comprised the Greenway RMA. The overlays layered public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands associated with the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow-ways, wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s ESLPPP, lands deemed to be of high ecological value, and appropriate connections. The evidence establishes that the staff and consultants reviewed and consulted a wide range of professionally appropriate resources in analyzing and designating the Greenway RMA. Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Greenway RMA is inadequate in the sense that the RMA does not include all appropriate areas of the County. This claim was based on testimony that the Greenway did not include certain areas west and south of Interstate 75 in the Urban/Suburban and Economic Development RMAs, as well as a few conservation habitats (preserve areas) set aside by Development of Regional Impacts or restricted by conservation easements. However, the preserve areas and conservation easement properties will be preserved and maintained in the same fashion as the Greenway, so for all practical purposes their non-inclusion in the Greenway is not significant. The area located south of Interstate 75 was found to be the Myakka State Forest, which is in the planning jurisdiction of the City of North Port. Manasota-88's and Compton's witness (an employee of the FFWCC) also advocated a slightly different greenway plan for fish and wildlife resources, which he considered to be a better alternative than the one selected by the County. The witness conceded, however, that his alternative was only one of several alternative plans that the County could properly consider. In this regard, the County’s Greenway RMA reacts to data on a number of factors, only one of which is fish and wildlife. One important factor disregarded by the witness was the influence of private property rights on the designation of areas as greenway. While the FFWCC does not factor the rights of property owners in its identification of greenways, it is certainly reasonable and prudent for the County to do so. This is because the County’s regulatory actions may be the subject of takings claims and damages, and its planning actions are expected to avoid such occurrences. See § 163.3161(9), Fla. Stat. Petitioners also alleged that the lack of specific inclusion of the term "A-E Flood Zone" in the Greenway designation criteria of Policy GS1.1 does not properly react to the data and analyses provided in the Greenway Final Support Document. (That policy enumerates the component parts of the Greenway RMA.) Any such omission is insignificant, however, because in the Greenway RMA areas, the A-E Flood Zone and the areas associated with the other criteria already in Policy GS1.1 are 90 percent coterminous. In addition, when an application for a master plan for a Village is filed, the master plan must specifically identify and protect flood plain areas. At the same time, through fine tuning, the development review process, the open space requirements, and the negotiation of the planned unit development master plan, the remaining 10 percent of the A-E Flood Zone will be protected like a greenway. Greenway crossings The Greenway RMA is designed in part to provide habitat and corridors for movement of wildlife. In the initial drafts of the Amendment, future road crossings of the Greenway were located to minimize the amount of Greenway traversed by roads. After further review by the County, and consultation with a FFWCC representative, the number of crossings was reduced to eleven. The road crossings in the Amendment are not great in length, nor do they bisect wide expanses of the Greenway. All of the proposed crossings traverse the Greenway in areas where the Greenway is relatively narrow. Of the eleven crossings in the Greenway, three crossings presently exist, and these crossings will gain greater protection for wildlife through the design requirements of Policy GS2.4 than they would under the current Plan. Petitioners also expressed concerns with the wording of Policy GS2.4 and contended that the policy was not specific enough with regard to how wildlife would be protected at the crossings. The policy provides that Crossings of the Greenway RMA by roads or utilities are discouraged. When necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry, however, transportation corridors within the Greenway RMA shall be designed as limited access facilities that include multi-use trails and prohibit non- emergency stopping except at designated scenic viewpoints. Roadway and associated utility corridors shall be designed to have minimal adverse impacts to the environment, including provisions for wildlife crossings based on accepted standards and including consideration of appropriate speed limits. Accordingly, under the policy, wildlife crossings must be designed to facilitate minimal adverse impacts on wildlife, and such designs must be "based on accepted standards." While Petitioners contended that what is required by "accepted standards" is vague and ambiguous, the County established that this language, taken individually or in the context of the policies of the Amendment, is specific and clear enough to establish that a crossing must be properly and professionally designed for the target species that can be expected to cross the Greenway at the particular location. It was also appropriate to design the crossing at the time of the construction of the crossing to best react to the species that will be expected to cross. Although Petitioners disagreed that the policy was acceptable, their witness agreed that it is essential to know what species are inhabiting a particular area before one can design a wildlife crossing that will protect the wildlife using the crossing. He further acknowledged that he typically designs crossings for the largest traveling species that his data indicates will cross the roadway. In deciding where to locate roads, as well as how they should be designed, crossings for wildlife are not the only matter with which the local government must be concerned. Indeed, if it were, presumably there would likely be no roads, or certainly far fewer places where automobiles could travel. To reflect legitimate planning, and to reasonably react to the data gathered by the local government, the County’s road network should reflect recognition of the data and an effort to balance the need for roads with the impacts of them on wildlife. The Amendment achieves this purpose. In summary, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the crossings of the Greenway do not react appropriately to the data and analyses, or that the policies of the crossings are so inadequate as to violate the statute or rule. Transportation planning Manasota-88 and Compton next contend that the data and analyses for the transportation planning omit trips, overstate the potential intensity and density of land uses, and understate trips captured in the Villages. The transportation plan was based on use of the FSUTMS, a model recommended by the State and widely used by transportation planners for trip generation and modeling for comprehensive plan purposes. In developing the transportation plan, the County relied upon resources from the Highway Capacity Manual, the Transportation Research Board, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It also reviewed the data and analyses based on the modeling performed in September 2001 in the Infrastructure Corridor Plan, an earlier transportation plan used by the County. To ensure that the 2001 model was still appropriate for the Amendment, the County conducted further review and analyses and determined that the modeling was reasonable for use in connection with the Amendment even though the intensity of development eventually provided for in the Villages was less than had been analyzed in the model. The evidence supports a finding that the data was the best available, and that they were evaluated in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence further shows that the Amendment identifies transportation system needs, and that the Amendment provides for transportation capital facilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. Transportation network modeling was performed for the County both with and without the 2050 Amendment. Based on the modeling, a table of road improvements needed to support the Amendment was made a part of the Amendment as Table RMA-1. Because the modeling factored more residential and non- residential development than was ultimately authorized by the Amendment, the identification of the level of transportation impacts was conservative, as were the improvements that would be needed. Manasota-88 and Compton correctly point out that the improvements contained in the Amendment are not funded for construction. Even so, this is not a defect in the Amendment because the improvements are not needed unless property owners choose to avail themselves of the 2050 options; if they do, they will be required to build the improvements themselves under the fiscal neutrality provisions of the Amendment. Further, the County’s CIP process moves improvements from the five-to-fifteen year horizon to the five-year CIP as the need arises. Thus, as development proposals for Villages or Hamlets are received and approved in the areas east of I-75, specific improvements would be identified and provided for in the development order, or could be placed in the County’s appropriate CIPs, as needed. The improvements necessary under the Amendment can be accommodated in the County’s normal capital improvements planning, and the transportation system associated with the Amendment can be coordinated with development under the Amendment in a manner that will assure that the impacts of development on the transportation system are addressed. It is noted that the Amendment requires additional transportation impact and improvement analysis at the time of master plan submittal and prior to approval of that plan. Accordingly, the Amendment satisfies the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 for transportation planning. The County used the best available data and reacted to that data in a professionally appropriate way and to the extent necessary as indicated by the data. As noted above, the transportation impacts and needs were conservatively projected, and the County was likely planning for more facilities than would be needed. It is beyond fair debate that the Amendment is supported by data and analyses. Utilities Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because the policies relating to capital facilities are not supported by data and analyses, and that there is a lack of available capital facilities to meet the demand. The County analyzed data on water supplies and demands and central wastewater facilities needs under the Amendment. The data on water supplies and demands were the best available data and included the District water supply plan as well as the County's water supply master plan. The data were analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner and the conclusions reached and incorporated into the Amendment are supported by the analyses. The utilities system for water and wastewater has been coordinated in the Amendment with the County’s CIP in a manner that will ensure that impacts on the utilities are addressed. The County established that there are more than adequate permittable sources of potable water to serve the needs associated with the Amendment, and that the needed capital facilities for water and wastewater can reasonably be provided through the policies of the Amendment. The evidence showed that the Amendment provides for capital facilities for utilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. The total water needs for the County through the year 2050 cannot be permitted at this time because the District, which is the permitting state agency, does not issue permits for periods greater than twenty years. Also, there must be a demonstrated demand for the resources within a 20- year time frame before a permit will issue. Nonetheless, the County is part of a multi-jurisdictional alliance that is planning for long-term water supplies and permitting well into the future. It has also merged its stormwater, utilities, and natural resources activities to integrate their goals, policies, and objectives for long-term water supply and conservation purposes. No specific CIP for water or wastewater supplies and facilities was adopted in the Amendment. The County currently has water and wastewater plans in its Capital Improvement Element that will accommodate growth and development under the land use policies of the Plan. From the list contained in the Capital Improvement Element an improvement schedule is developed, as well as a more specific five-year CIP. Only the latter, five-year program identifies funding and construction of projects, and the only projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element are projects that the County must fund and construct. Because of the optional nature of the Amendment, supplies and facilities needed for its implementation will only be capable of being defined if and when development under the Amendment is requested. At that time, the specific capital facility needs for the development can be assessed and provided for, and they can be made a part of the County’s normal capital facilities planning under the Plan's Capital Facilities Chapter and its related policies. Policy VOS 2.1 conditions approval of Village development on demonstrating the availability and permitability of water and other public facilities and services to serve the development. Further, the Amendment provides for timing and phasing of both Villages and development in Villages to assure that capital facilities planning, permitting, and construction are gradual and can be accommodated in the County's typical capital improvement plan programs. Most importantly, the fiscal neutrality policies of the Amendment assure that the County will not bear financial responsibility for the provision of water or the construction of water and wastewater capital facilities in the Village/Open Space RMA. Supplies and facilities are the responsibility of the developers of the Villages and Hamlets that will be served. Additionally, Policy VOS3.6 requires that all irrigation in the Village/Open Space RMA (which therefore would include Villages and Hamlets) cannot be by wells or potable water sources and shall be by non-potable water sources such as stormwater and reuse water. The supplies and improvements that will be associated with the optional development allowed by the Amendment have been coordinated with the Plan and can be accommodated in the County's normal capital improvement planning. Through the policies in the Amendment, the water and wastewater facility impacts of the Amendment are addressed. Indeed, due to the fiscal neutrality policies in the Amendment, the County now has a financial tool that will make it easier to fund and provide water and wastewater facilities than it currently has under the Plan. Finally, to ensure that capital facilities are properly programmed and planned, the Amendment also contains Policy VOS2.2, which provides in pertinent part: To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including development within the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to APOXSEE in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. It is beyond fair debate that the capital facilities provisions within the Amendment are supported by adequate data and analyses, and that they are otherwise in compliance. Financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality The Capital Improvement Element identifies facilities for which a local government has financial responsibility, and for which adopted levels of service are required, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. Manasota-88 and Compton challenge the "financial feasibility" of the Amendment. As noted above, there is significant data and analyses of existing and future public facility needs. The data collection and analyses were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence shows that as part of its analyses, the County conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Village development and determined that Village and Hamlet development can be fiscally neutral and financially feasible. Dr. Fishkind also opined that, based upon his review of the Amendment, it is financially feasible as required by the Act. Policy VOS2.9 of the Amendment provides in part: Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets. Policies VOS2.1, VOS2.4, and VOS2.9 provide that facility capacity and fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated, and that a Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality must be approved at the time of the master plan and again for each phase of development. In addition, under Policy VOS2.9, an applicant's fiscal neutrality analysis and plan must be reviewed and approved by independent economic advisors retained by the County. Monitoring of fiscal neutrality is also provided for in Policy VOS2.2. Finally, Policy VOS2.10 identifies community development districts as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs associated with Villages and Hamlets. The evidence establishes beyond fair debate that the policies in the Amendment will result in a system of regulations that will ensure that fiscal neutrality will be accomplished. Internal inconsistencies Manasota-88 and Compton further contend that there are inconsistencies between certain policies of the Amendment and other provisions in the Plan. If the policies do not conflict with other provisions of the Plan, they are considered to be coordinated, related, and consistent. Conflict between the Amendment and the Plan is avoided by inclusion of the following language in Policy RMA1.3: If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. As to this Policy, Manasota-88's and Compton's claim is really nothing more than a preference that the Plan policies should also have been amended at the same time to expressly state that where there was a conflict between themselves and the new Amendment policies, the new Amendment would apply. Such a stylistic difference does not amount to the Amendment's not being in compliance. Therefore, it is fairly debatable that the Amendment is internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Public participation and intergovernmental coordination Petitioners next contend that there was inadequate public participation during the adoption of the Amendment as well as a lack of coordination with other governmental bodies. Ayech also asserted that there were inadequate procedures adopted by the County which resulted in less than full participation by the public. However, public participation is not a proper consideration in an in-compliance determination. In addition, the County has adopted all required procedures to ensure public participation in the amendment process. The County had numerous meetings with the municipalities in the County, the Council of Governments (of which the County is a member), and meetings and correspondence by and between the respective professional staffs of those local governments. The County also met with the Hospital Board and the School Board. The evidence is overwhelming that the County provided an adequate level of intergovernmental coordination. Regional and state comprehensive plans Petitioners have alleged violations of the state and regional policy plans. On this issue, Michael D. McDaniel, State Initiatives Administrator for the Department, established that the Amendment was not in inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. His testimony was not impeached or refuted. Petitioners' claim that the Amendment is not consistent with the regional policy plan is based only on a report prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) at the Amendment’s transmittal stage. There was no evidence (by SWFRPC representatives or others) that the report raised actual inconsistencies with the SWFRPC regional policy plan, nor was any evidence presented that the SWFRPC has found the amendment, as adopted, to be inconsistent with its regional plan. There was no persuasive evidence that the Amendment is either in conflict with, or fails to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies in, either the state or regional policy plan. Other objections Finally, all other objections raised by Petitioners and not specifically discussed herein have been considered and found to be without merit. County's Request for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions On April 5, 2004, the County filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions Pursuant to F.S. § 120.595 (Motion). The Motion is directed primarily against Ayech and contends that her "claims and evidence were without foundation or relevance," and that her "participation in the proceeding was 'primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose.'" The Motion also alleges that Manasota-88 and Compton "participated in this proceeding with an intent to harass and delay the Amendment from taking effect." Replies in opposition to the Motion were filed by Petitioners on April 12, 2004. The record shows that Ayech aligned herself (in terms of issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation) with Manasota-88 and Compton. While her evidentiary presentation was remarkably short (in contrast to the other Petitioners and the County), virtually all of the issues identified in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation were addressed in some fashion or another by one of Petitioners' witnesses, or through Petitioners' cross-examination of opposing witnesses. Even though every issue has been resolved in favor of Respondents (and therefore found to be either fairly debatable or beyond fair debate), the undersigned cannot find from the record that the issues were so irrelevant or without some evidentiary foundation as to fall to the level of constituting frivolous claims. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner's application for a Type-A site plan should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dan Gilbertson, has owned and operated Potbelly's restaurant, a student-oriented eating/drinking establishment, located at 459 West College Avenue, since 1994. Petitioner also operates a similar establishment known as The Painted Lady located directly adjacent and to the east of Potbelly's. Potbelly's and The Painted Lady are within the Institutional, Cultural, and University Transitional (DI) Zoning District. Surrounding uses to Petitioner's property include a Florida State University parking lot across Macomb Street to the west of the site, a privately owned parking lot across College Avenue to the north, a fraternity house to the east, and an apartment complex to the south. The existing Potbelly's and Painted Lady structures were constructed prior to the adoption of a 25-foot minimum building setback from Macomb Street codified in Section 10.3.O.2.d.3, Tallahassee Code. The Potbelly's building is partially within the 25-foot setback and is considered a pre- existing, nonconforming structure. Potbelly's is licensed to operate a full service kitchen while The Painted Lady is authorized to serve previously prepared food. Both parties agree that Potbelly's and The Painted Lady are licensed to serve alcohol within the premises identified in Respondent's supplemental exhibit. Respondent, The Tallahassee-Leon Planning Commission, is the legal entity responsible for reviewing and approving or denying applications for site plans. In September 2002, Petitioner submitted a site-plan application seeking to add a deck, handicap ramp, and bathrooms in the southwest area of the Potbelly's property and a deck behind The Painted Lady. The site plan application for the additional deck, restrooms, and handicap ramp behind Potbelly's seeks a deviation from the 25-foot setback requirement. In its application, Petitioner included architectural drawings of the premises but did not attach engineering drawings. Petitioner also enclosed a copy of a previously issued order dated June 14, 2001, from the Tallahassee-Leon County Board of Adjustment and Appeals granting a variance to the setback requirement for an existing deck on the west side of Potbelly's. Pursuant to Section 23.1, Tallahassee Code, Respondent may grant the deviation request to development standards only if it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and creates no adverse impact on the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. Petitioner's site plan application addresses less than 60,000 square feet and is subject to Type-A site plan review. Accordingly, Petitioner's application was reviewed by City staff including members from the Growth Management Department, Planning Department, Fire Department, Police Department, Utilities Department, and Public Works Department including Solid Waste and Traffic Engineering. Upon review, in October 2002, the Department advised Petitioner that his application had been denied. Petitioner timely appealed the decision. Code Deviation Criteria Pursuant to Section 23.3, Tallahassee Code, a request for deviation from the existing development standards is generally not favored and may only be granted upon a showing by the applicant that seven specific criteria have been met by a preponderance of the evidence. First, the applicant must demonstrate that the deviation will not be detrimental to the public good or to the surrounding properties. The evidence in this case demonstrated that, although the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) reported that it received approximately 17 complaints over a two-year period for noise, physical disturbances, underage alcohol consumption, and other offenses, approximately 1 every 50 days, the frequency and severity of complaints has significantly declined. Further, Petitioner employs significant private security to curtail adverse incidents and has routinely attempted to hire off-duty TPD officers, but to no avail. There has been inadequate showing that a reasonable increase in the size and occupancy of Petitioner's premises will be detrimental to the public good or to the surrounding properties. Second, Petitioner must demonstrate that the requested deviation is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Respondent admits that "the intent of the DI zoning district is to provide a transition between downtown and the two universities, and to encourage pedestrian friendly or pedestrian oriented activities and development." Respondent further acknowledges that the intent of the 25-foot setback from Macomb Street and the 35-foot setback from College Avenue is to provide a transition for pedestrian activities along the roadways, a reduced scale of buildings along the pedestrian accesses and room for landscaping for enhancement of pedestrian activities. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner's adjacent restaurant/bars primarily target and attract college students in the area and are pedestrian friendly. While the structures preceded the setback requirements, Petitioner has comported with the intent of the Tallahassee Code and Comprehensive Plan by enhancing vehicular and pedestrian access to the premises and improving their visual aesthetics. Third, Petitioner must demonstrate that the requested deviation is the minimum deviation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. While the restaurant/bars maintain consistent business, additional patrons and/or a diversified, multi-use eating/drinking establishment, given the area, is a reasonable use of the land. Petitioner's deviation request is the minimum deviation necessary to garner the additional and diversified business. Fourth, Petitioner must demonstrate that strict application of the zoning requirements would constitute a substantial hardship that is not self-created or imposed. Strict application and unreasonable adherence to the 25-foot setback requirement, given the minimal external expansion requested and the fact that the existing structures currently extend into the setback, create a substantial and unnecessary hardship upon Petitioner's expanding business. Fifth, Petitioner must demonstrate whether there are any exceptional topographic, soil, or other environmental conditions unique to the property. The parties stipulate that there are no such environmental features on the site and the criterion is not relevant to Petitioner's application. Sixth, Petitioner must demonstrate that the requested deviation would provide a creative or innovative design alternative to substantive standards and criteria. Petitioner has shown that he intends to moderately expand the student- oriented, pedestrian friendly, eating/drinking establishment in the college campus area utilizing a consistent, creative, and attractive design alternative to the setback requirement. Finally, Petitioner must demonstrate that the impacts associated with the deviation will be adequately mitigated through alternative measures. Any impacts associated with the deviation are de minimus, however, Petitioner has agreed to adequately mitigate such impacts. First, Petitioner has constructed noise insulators on the south fence of the property to filter out excess sound to the apartment dwellers. Petitioner has also agreed to provide additional security when necessary and plans to significantly improve the visual aesthetics on the southwest side of the building. Respondent argues that Section 14.6 of the Zoning Code requires one loading berth for any site up to 8,000 square feet receiving goods and merchandise via motorized vehicle. The evidence demonstrates that Petitioner's property contains two parking spaces, identified as a loading berth, located directly in front of Potbelly's. Respondent, however, persuasively argues that the existing dumpster on the Potbelly's site does not comply with the City's Solid Waste requirements. Solid Waste and the Tallahassee Code require each site to provide sufficient space for a dump truck to enter the site, collect the refuse, and exit the site without backing into traffic. Although Waste Management empties the refuse at approximately 3:00 a.m., the current location of the dumpster presents a significant safety hazard which Petitioner must eliminate. Respondent argues that it cannot determine whether Petitioner's proposal meets the Floor Area Ratio requirements for the DI zoning district. The evidence presented during the hearing demonstrates that Petitioner's proposal satisfies the requirements. While the Tallahassee-Leon County Board of Adjustments and Appeals of Petitioner's previous approval of the existing deck variance is interesting, it is not relevant to this case. The formal proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge was properly noticed in the Tallahassee Democrat on November 24, 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission enter a final order approving Petitioner's Type-A site plan and requested deviation contingent upon Petitioner's safe and acceptable relocation of the dumpster. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Sylvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dan Gilbertson 459 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda R. Hurst, Esquire City Attorney's Office 300 South Adams Street City Hall, Box A-5 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731 Jean Gregory, Clerk Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David A. Mancino, was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and Site Planning Examination administered on June 14 through 16, 1982, by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture. He is a 1979 graduate of the University of Texas and is presently employed by an architectural firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 10, 1982, Petitioner was advised by Respondent that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After reviewing his examination with the Executive Director of the Board in December, 1982, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade. That request prompted the instant proceeding. The professional architectural examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. The former part is known as the Site Planning and Design portion of the examination and requires a candidate to draw a solution to a problem involving (a) site plans, (b) floor plans, (c) building sections, (d) two significant building elevations, (e) diagrams of structural systems, (f) diagrams of environmental control systems, and (g) a typical wall section. Part A is blind-graded by at least three examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to prescribed evaluation criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades are awarded by each examiner ranging from 1 through 4 depending on the quality of the work. An applicant must have a minimal average of 3 in order to pass this part of the examination. On the June, 1982 examination all candidates were required to design a small municipal airport terminal building in a midwestern location. The problem required a site plan, ground level plan/north elevation, second level plan, and a cross-section of the facility. Petitioner's solution has been received as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner received scores of 2, 2 and 2 on Part A of the examination. Generally, his solution was found to be weak in the following broad areas: (a) site planning and site location, (b) building planning and design, and (c) technical aspects. Specifically, the solution was weak as to the following aspects of site planning and site design: handicapped parking location/access from parking area across traffic lanes, service area location and traffic circulation, service drive curb cut, and site aesthetics, including trees, walls and pedestrian crosswalks. In building planning and design Petitioner's solution was less than acceptable in appropriate positioning and indication of ancillary elements, logical pedestrian circulation in relation to services, vertical circulation, conformance to program area requirements, conformance to life safety requirements, and building aesthetics in response to surrounding area, activities and owner goals. Finally, the technical aspects of the solution were weak in terms of the use of appropriate materials and construction methods, and vertical loads (roofs, columns and walls) All such deficiencies were confirmed by the Department's expert witness who reviewed and analyzed the examination, and who would have assigned a grade of 2 to the examination had he been an examiner. Petitioner generally disagreed with the noted weaknesses, and contended his solutions were satisfactory. He also questioned whether the problem was "fair", since the typical architect would probably never be called upon to design an airport terminal building during his or her career. Other than his own testimony, he offered no other evidence to contradict the examiners' conclusions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of David A. Mancino be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David A. Mancino 2791 Northeast 57th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Christopher T. Mancino, Esquire Suite 2200 One Financial Plaza Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
