The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Sarasota County's comprehensive plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-64 (Plan Amendments), as amended by remedial plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-33 (Remedial Plan Amendments), are in compliance, as provided by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, with respect to: 1) whether the county's designation of several segments of University Parkway as Level of Service (LOS) D for concurrency review, on the basis of a claim that the road is "constrained," is supported by data and analysis; 2) whether the supporting traffic analysis was conducted in a professionally acceptable manner; and 3) whether the identified transportation facilities are financially feasible.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner owns the Westfield Sarasota Square Mall in Sarasota County. The mall is located at U.S. Route 41 and Beneva Road. Petitioner timely submitted written and oral comments to the Plan Amendments and Remedial Plan Amendments. Having purchased the property in July 2002, Intervenors are the developers of Sarasota Interstate Park of Commerce (SIPOC) in Sarasota County. The development is located at the southwest quadrant of the interchange of I-75 and University Parkway. The boundary between Sarasota and Manatee counties is somewhere within the right-of-way of University Parkway between I-75 on the east (or a point just east of I-75) and U.S. Route 301 on the west. University Parkway is an east-west arterial, multilane road that extends to the east of I-75 past a large multiuse development in Manatee County known as Lakewood Ranches. To the west, University Parkway extends past the Sarasota airport to its terminus at U.S. Route 41 in the vicinity of New College. Honore Avenue is a north-south road (at least it is in the vicinity of University Parkway) and is the first road west of SIPOC. The first road south of SIPOC, DeSoto Road is an east-west road terminating just west of I-75 on the east and a short distance west of Honore Avenue on the west. Cattlemen Road is a major north-south road that runs just west of I-75 and crosses two roads with I-75 interchanges to the south of the University Parkway interchange: Fruitville Road and Bee Ridge Road. Until SIPOC, the northern end of Cattlemen Road was south of University Parkway. However, Intervenors are constructing North Cattlemen Road from University Parkway to the north (directly across from the point at which Cooper Creek Boulevard terminates at University Parkway), past DeSoto Road, to Richardson Road, which is the northern terminus of Cattlemen Road at present. Richardson Road is just north of Fruitville Road. On July 27, 1993, Sarasota County issued a development order (DO) for a development of regional impact for SIPOC. Pursuant to the DO, the approved use for SIPOC Phase I was 633,888 square feet of retail, and the approved uses for SIPOC Phase II were 215,210 square feet of retail, 547,488 square feet of light industrial, 240,982 square feet of office, 500 hotel rooms, and 750 multifamily dwelling units. Phase I of SIPOC is substantially complete and has resulted in the construction of a SuperTarget at the site. This case involves the development that will constitute Phase II of the SIPOC. On July 10, 2007, at the request of Intervenors, Sarasota County adopted two ordinances concerning SIPOC: Ordinance No. 2006[sic]-80 and Ordinance No. 2007-64. Ordinance No. 2006-80 amends the SIPOC DO to approve the following uses: 1,680,000 square feet of retail, 220,000 square feet of office, 500 hotel rooms, and 1750 multifamily dwelling units (Amended DO). The Amended DO, which was never challenged, is effective on the date that the Plan Amendments described in Ordinance No. 2007-64 are found in compliance. The buildout date of the Amended DO is December 31, 2009. For Phase II, the traffic impact intensities may not exceed 6405 gross p.m. peak hour trip ends or 3795 net new p.m. peak hour trip ends. Amended DO, p. B-6. The Master Development Plan depicts the proposed development, which fronts onto University Parkway, as divided into eastern and western sections by proposed North Cattlemen Road (and a 330-wide FPL transmission easement alongside the east side of North Cattlemen Road). From north to south, on the west side of the road and transmission line are commercial/office, commercial/residential, residential, and a conservation easement in the back of the parcel. On the east side of the road and transmission line are commercial/residential/office, residential, and a large stormwater management easement in the back of the parcel. Amended DO Condition H addresses transportation. Condition H.1 identifies the transportation improvements that must be accepted by Sarasota County prior to the approval of Phase I or II construction plans or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Amended DO Condition H.1 states: No Construction Plan approval shall be issued for any SIPOC Phase I or II development until such time as contracts for construction of the following improvements have been executed, and no Certificate of Occupancy nor temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until such time as these improvements have been accepted by Sarasota County. Construction of the University Parkway at North Cattlemen Road intersection, including the following turn lane additions: One eastbound right turn lane for a total of one; One westbound left turn lane for a total of two; Two northbound left turn lanes for a total of two; Two northbound through lanes for a total of two; and Two northbound right turn lanes for a total of two. Construction of a northbound right turn lane at the Honore Avenue/DeSoto Road intersection. Construction of DeSoto Road as a divided two lane arterial from Honore Avenue to North Cattlemen Road. Construction of North Cattlemen Road as a divided four lane roadway from University Parkway to DeSoto Road. These improvements have been identified as being required in order to provide adequate traffic circulation. Nothing herein shall be interpreted in such a way as to require that Sarasota County construct these road improvements, except the County shall assist in the acquisition of required right-of-way not under the ownership or control of the Applicant, provided that the Applicant shall be responsible for the expense thereof (except as otherwise set forth in agreements between the County and the Applicant). Amended DO, p. B-19. Amended DO Condition H.2 identifies the transportation improvements that must be accepted by Sarasota County prior to the approval of Phase II construction plans or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Amended DO Condition H.2 states: Construction Plan approvals shall not be issued for any SIPOC Phase II development until such time as contracts for the construction of the following improvements have been executed, and no certificate of occupancy nor temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued until such time as these improvements have been accepted by Sarasota County. Construction of the University Parkway at Honore Avenue intersection including the following turn additions: one northbound left turn lane for a total of two; one westbound left turn lane for a total of two; one northbound through lane for a total of two; and one northbound right turn lane for a total of one, prior to 40 percent of the DRI buildout (1518 net new p.m. peak hour trips). Construction of the University Parkway at Cooper Creek Boulevard/North Cattlemen Road intersection including the following lane additions and/or modifications: reconfiguration of the inside northbound through lane to a left turn lane for a total of three; one southbound through lane for a total of one; one southbound right turn lane for a total of one prior to 60 percent of the DRI buildout (2277 net new p.m. peak hour trips). Construction of a northbound left turn lane at the University Parkway at I-75 East Ramps intersection for a total of three prior to 50 percent of the DRI buildout or 1898 net new p.m. peak hour trips. Signalization of Honore Avenue at DeSoto Road intersection when signal warrants are met. Construction of a roundabout at the North Cattlemen Road at DeSoto Road intersection. Construction of North Cattlemen Road as a divided four lane roadway from DeSoto Road to Richardson Road. Construction of Fruitville Road at Cattlemen Road intersection including the following lane additions: one northbound through lane for a total of two; one northbound left turn lane for a total of two; one southbound through lane for a total of two; one eastbound left turn lane for a total of two; one eastbound through lane for a total of four; and one westbound left lane for a total of two. Construction of Cattlemen Road at the North Access Driveway intersection including the following traffic control type and lane additions: Signalization of the intersection; One northbound left turn lane for a total of one; Two northbound through lanes for a total of two; One northbound through/right turn lane for a total of one; Two southbound left turn lanes for a total of two; Two southbound through lanes for a total of two; One southbound right turn lane for a total of one; Two eastbound left turn lane [sic] for a total of two; One eastbound through/right lane for a total of one; Two westbound left turn lane [sic] for a total of two; One westbound through lane for a total of one and; Two westbound right turn lanes for a total of two. Construction of a roundabout at the intersection of North Cattlemen Road and the Access Driveway approximately 0.36 miles south of University Parkway. Construction of a roundabout at the intersection of North Cattlemen Road and the Access Driveway approximately 0.36 miles south of University Parkway. These improvements have been identified as required in order to provide adequate traffic circulation. Nothing herein shall be interpreted in such a way as to require that Sarasota County construct these road improvements. Amended DO, pp. B-19 to B-21. Amended DO Condition H.4 states: Sarasota County acknowledges that with the construction of the improvements listed in Transportation Conditions H.1 and H.2, a sufficient amount of road facility capacity is projected to be available to accommodate development at or above the adopted [LOS] for the transportation facilities needed to accommodate SIPOC Phase II development as follows development generating up to 3795 net new pm peak hour trips ends through 2009. Therefore, Sarasota County shall reserve for SIPOC that amount of p.m. peak- hour road capacity necessary to accommodate the equivalent of 6405 p.m. peak-hour external vehicle trips, of which 3795 represent net new pm, peak-hour external vehicle trips, through expiration of the Facility Reservation Period, provided that: If a planned programmed road or intersection improvement is not constructed in accordance with the time frame such construction was assumed to occur in [Intervenors'] traffic impact analysis, the extent of such capacity reservation shall be reassessed and revised, as necessary, as part of the next annual monitoring report (required pursuant to Condition H.5); If the findings of the annual monitoring program indicate that the [LOS] on any road, intersection, or intersection approach in the traffic impact area falls below or is projected to fall below the adopted [LOS] for that facility, no further construction plan approval shall be issued unless Funding Commitments for the improvement(s) required to maintain the adopted [LOS] have been provided by the [Intervenors], another private person, or a responsible entity. In the event the annual monitoring report indicates that any road facility will fall below the adequate [LOS] for that facility, SIPOC development will be permitted to develop up to but not beyond that point where the road facility is projected to fall below the adopted [LOS] for the facility. If the findings of the annual monitoring program indicate that road and intersection capacity is available (consistent with adopted [LOS]) in excess of that reserved for SIPOC development, Sarasota County may issue Final Development Orders for other development but only to the extent of the excess capacity. Sarasota County acknowledges that with construction of the improvements listed in Transportation Conditions H.1 and H.2, a sufficient amount of road facility capacity is projected to be available to accommodate development at or above the adopted [LOS] for the transportation facilities needed to accommodate SIPOC Phase II development as follows development generating up to 3795 net new pm peak hour trips ends through 2009. Therefore, Sarasota County shall reserve for SIPOC that amount of p.m. peak- hour road capacity necessary to accommodate the equivalent of 6405 p.m. peak-hour external vehicle trips, of which 3795 represent net new p.m. peak-hour external vehicle trips, through expiration of the Facility Reservation Period, provided that: If a planned programmed road or intersection improvement is not constructed in accordance with the time frame such construction was assumed to occur in the [Intervenors'] traffic impact analysis, the extent of such capacity reservation shall be reassessed and revised, as necessary, as part of the next annual monitoring report (required pursuant to Condition H.5); If the findings of the annual monitoring program indicate that the [LOS] on any road, intersection, or intersection approach in the traffic impact area falls below or is projected to fall below the adopted [LOS] for that facility, no further construction plan approval shall be issued unless the Funding Commitments for the improvement(s) required to maintain the adopted [LOS](s) have been provided by the [Intervenors], another private person, or a responsible entity. In the event the annual monitoring report indicates that any road facility will fall below the adequate [LOS] for that facility, SIPOC development will be permitted to develop up to but not beyond that point where the road facility is projected to fall below the adopted [LOS] for the facility. If the findings of the annual monitoring program indicate that road and intersection capacity is available (consistent with adopted [LOSs]) in excess of that reserved for SIPOC development, Sarasota County may issue Final Development Orders for other development but only to the extent of the excess capacity. Amended DO, pp. B-22 to B-23. Amended DO Condition H.4.c identifies 21 intersections and one road segment (I-75 southbound from University Parkway to Fruitville Road) that shall be monitored during the capacity reservation period. Condition H.4.c provides: If in the Annual Traffic Monitoring Report, the [LOS] on any of the intersections or intersection approaches fall [sic] below the adopted [LOS], no further site and development plan approval shall be issued unless the required improvement(s) are made by the [Intervenors], or Funding Commitments for the improvement(s) have been provided by the [Intervenors], another private person, or a responsible entity. . . . Amended DO Condition H.4.c identifies, by road segment, the number of equivalent p.m. peak hour trips to be reserved during that period. The Amended DO defines the capacity reservation period as the period commencing with the effective date of the Amended DO and ending with the earlier of December 31, 2009, or the point at which cumulative SIPOC development, for which development orders have been issued, generates more than 6405 gross p.m. peak hour trip ends or more than 3795 net new p.m. peak hour trip ends. Amended DO Condition H.5 requires Intervenors to establish an annual traffic monitoring program, which is "to monitor the cumulative impacts of the development on the roadways, intersections, and intersection approaches in the traffic impact area." This report is also used for traffic impact and concurrency evaluation purposes for any SIPOC development submitted to Sarasota County after the expiration of the Facility Reservation Period. Amended DO, p. B-26. Amended DO Condition H.6 provides: Development Order applications, including Final Development Order applications, for any portion of the development submitted during the annual concurrency evaluation period in effect for a given monitoring report, shall not be approved if the annual concurrency evaluation contained in that report indicates that traffic resulting from the approval of said Development Order will impact any road, intersection, or intersection approach in the traffic impact area that is operating (or projected to operate) below the adopted [LOS] for that facility. Notwithstanding the above, a Development Order application may be approved if one of the following mitigative actions, or both in combination, are committed to by the [Intervenors] (as a condition of approval for that Development Order), or, by another responsible entity: Other traffic impact reduction measures are implemented, including but not limited to transportation system management (TSM) strategies, intended to eliminate the impact of the SIPOC development traffic on the deficiently operating facility(ies) . . . [or] Funding Commitments, as defined in Conditions A.11.a.i-iii, are provided for the improvement(s) necessary to eliminate the [LOS] deficiency on the road(s) and/or intersection(s) by the SIPOC DRI development. Amended DO, p. B-27. Amended DO Condition A.11 defines "Funding Commitments" as follows: "Funding Commitments" shall mean the fulfillment of an action necessary to ensure the completion of any road or intersection improvement required by this [Amended DO] or identified in any subsequent Annual Traffic Monitoring Report prior to the time the impacts from the development occur. These actions include one or any combination of the following: The provision of a binding commitment by a private person or responsible entity . . . for the design, engineering, and actual construction of the improvement to be completed when the improvement is identified as being necessary in the approved Annual Traffic Monitoring Report as required in this [Amended DO]; or A commitment for actual construction and completion of the improvement pursuant to an approved Developer Agreement; or For the purpose of reviewing a "Final Development Order," as that term is defined in Sarasota County's Concurrency Management Regulations . . .: The placement of the construction phase for an improvement in the current i.e., first year of Sarasota County's adopted Capital Improvement Program for roads and intersections under the jurisdiction of Sarasota County; or The placement of the construction phase for an improvement in the current i.e., first year of Manatee County's adopted Capital Improvement Program, and, where construction of the improvement is subject of a binding executed contract for roads and intersections under the jurisdiction of Manatee County; or The placement of the construction phase for an improvement in the current i.e., first year of the [DOT]'s adopted 5-Year Work Program, and, where construction of the improvement is subject of a binding executed contract for roads and intersections under the jurisdiction of [DOT]. Amended DO, p. B-3. Funding Amended DO Condition A.11.IV.iv adds: For the purposes of reviewing a development order that is not a "Final Development Order," as that term is defined in Sarasota County's Concurrency Management Regulations . . .: The placement of the construction phase for an improvement within the first five years of Sarasota County's adopted Capital Improvement Program for roads and intersections under the jurisdiction of Sarasota County; or, The placement of the construction phase for an improvement within the first five years of Manatee County's adopted Capital Improvement Program for roads and intersections under the jurisdiction of Manatee County; or, The placement of the construction phase for an improvement within the first five years of the Florida Department of Transportation's . . . adopted 5-Year Work Program for roads and intersections under the jurisdiction of [the Florida Department of Transportation]. Amended DO, pp. B-3 to B-4. By Ordinance No. 2007-64, Sarasota County adopted the Plan Amendments changing the FLUM designations on SIPOC. After DCA found the Plan Amendments not in compliance, by Ordinance No. 2008-33, Sarasota County adopted the Remedial Plan Amendments. The procedural history of the Plan Amendments and Remedial Plan Amendments is set forth in the Preliminary Statement and incorporated by reference. It is important to note that the Cumulative Plan Amendments apply exclusively to SIPOC. The Remedial Plan Amendments add a new paragraph to the Transportation chapter of the Sarasota County comprehensive plan. With the existing, unchanged language in the first paragraph and the new language in the second paragraph, this part of the Transportation chapter now reads: Although the [LOS] standard . . . provides an overall goal toward which the County can strive, the adoption of a[n LOS] as high as "C" peak hour, based on a 100th highest hour design criteria, for constrained and backlogged roadways would not be environmentally or financially feasible. Constrained County roadways are defined as exhibiting a[n LOS] lower than the adopted standard and not being able to attain the adopted standard because prohibitive costs or environmental limitations prevent the construction of at least two additional through lanes. Backlogged County roadways are defined as roadways operating below the adopted standard which do not have prohibitive financial or environmental constraints but are not scheduled for major capacity improvement in the County's Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Thus, the LOS for constrained roadways, i.e. prohibited due to physical or other policy limitations or backlogged roadways, i.e. currently un-funded in the 5-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, is to maintain the current [LOS] with minimum degradation. Between U.S. 301 and I-75, University Parkway lies along the Manatee/Sarasota County line. The generalized [LOS] data of Table 6-2 shows University Parkway between U.S. 301 and I-75 to have been operating at . . . LOS D in 2003. University Parkway has been constructed as a six-lane divided arterial roadway and is not planned to be widened to include additional general purpose lanes. Also, University Parkway has an adopted LOS "D" for purpose of evaluating transportation concurrency in Manatee County and absent any indication to the contrary would have an adopted LOS "C" for Sarasota County concurrency purposes. To resolve this discrepancy, to acknowledge current operating conditions, and based on the interlocal agreement with Manatee County regarding access control and maintenance responsibilities for University Parkway, Sarasota County considers the adopted LOS on University Parkway to be "D" for evaluating transportation concurrency. Therefore, University Parkway has been included in "Table 6-5: Designated Backlogged and Constrained Roadways in Sarasota County" as constrained at LOS D. Ordinance No. 2008-33, Section 2. Presumably, the "current conditions" on University Parkway to which the above-cited language refers is to 2008 because, as noted in the following section, the 2006 directional peak hour volumes of the University Parkway segments west of I-75 were all LOS B, except for five such segments at LOS C. In any event, the Remedial Plan Amendments add seven segments of University Parkway from I-75 to a point west of the SIPOC, but east of U.S. Route 301, as "constrained" with an LOS D. Ordinance No. 2008-33, Section 3. The Remedial Plan Amendments provide that the SIPOC is in Special Planning Area #1--a new FLUM designation. They add: The [SIPOC DRI] Substantial Deviation Application for Development Approval (ADA) serves as supporting data and analysis for the area identified on the . . . FLUM as the SIPOC DRI--Special Planning Area 1. As required, the SIPOC DRI ADA is a comprehensive analysis of the suitability of the area for the development as well as the proposed impacts of the project. This DRI analysis can be used by Sarasota County to guide the timing, location, type and amount of future development. Thus, the Application for Development Approval, sufficiency responses and [Amended DO] provide supporting data and analysis for the land use designation on the FLUM. Ordinance No. 2008-33, Section 4. The Remedial Plan Amendments amend the future land use element of the Sarasota County comprehensive plan to incorporate the above-described density and intensity limits, as well as hotel rooms and dwelling units, identified above in the Amended DO. Ordinance No. 2008-33, Section 6. The Remedial Plan Amendments identify a new Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, Table 10-3, which is obviously limited to SIPOC. For traffic circulation, the new capital improvement schedule provides (all costs are in millions'): Project Pre-2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 Future Total Add DeSoto Rd. 2.27 2.5 0.27 0.27 0.15 0 5.5 Add N. Cattle man Rd.- 5.0 Richardson Rd. 0 5.0 21.0 6.3 2.5 39.0 Add University Pkwy./Honore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ave. Inter- section Add University Pkwy. Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Off-ramp [to I-75] Ordinance No. 2008-33, Section 9. The Remedial Plan Amendments further identify Special Planning Area 1 as follows: Special Planning Area 1 is the . . . SIPOC DRI. The Substantial Deviation Application for Development Approval (ADA) provides data and analysis regarding its significant and adverse impacts to local and regional roadways. [Intervenors], in coordination with Sarasota County, ha[ve] committed to provide funding and right-of-way as needed from the DRI property to mitigate for the improvements required to maintain the adopted [LOS] on area roadways . . . resulting from the impacts of the SIPOC DRI. The required improvements to the roadway system . . . are provided in the [Amended DO] and summarized as follows: Improvements to the roadway included in the County's Five-Year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) are as follows: North Cattlemen Road from Richardson Road to University Parkway. This project has been programmed in the CIP in the amount of $39,907,103 . . .. DeSoto Road from Harold Avenue to North Cattlemen Road. This project has been programmed in the CIP in the amount of $5,462,227 . . .. Improvements to the intersection of University Parkway and Honore Avenue. This project will be funded by [Intervenors]. The current construction estimate is $2,250,000 . . .. Improvements to the northbound exit ramp of I-75. This project will be funded by [Intervenors]. The current construction estimate is $2,000,000 . . .. A public transit transfer facility station will be designed, permitted and constructed by [Intervenors] and will be designed to accommodate a minimum of four buses and will be constructed at such time as Sarasota County Area Transit establishes service to the development. The estimated cost is $300,000 . . .. Ordinance No. 2008-33, Section 10. The Remedial Plan Amendments become effective when DCA enters a final order finding them to be in compliance. Ordinance No. 2008-33, Section 14. Whether Adoption of LOS D for University Parkway Is Supported by Data and Analysis The present record is devoid of evidence that any of these segments of University Parkway are constrained. Nothing in the record suggests that the constraints of prohibitive costs or significant natural resources preclude the widening of University Parkway. By definition, these segments of University Parkway were backlogged, prior to the reduction in their LOS standard to D, as they were operating below their adopted LOS standard of C and were omitted from the five-year capital improvement schedule for capacity enhancement sufficient to restore a C LOS standard. Backlogged segments remain deficient and are to be maintained so as to minimize further degradation. Of course, by reducing the LOS standard to the actual LOS--D--Sarasota County relieves these University Parkway segments of their backlogged status. Instead, the clear intent of the county was to reduce the LOS standard of these segments, not to treat them and their failure to attain LOS C as special cases. The second of the cited paragraphs above essentially designates these segments of University Parkway as LOS D, not because they are constrained or were (prior to the new designation) backlogged, but because: 1) Manatee County designates the same segments as LOS D, 2) the segments are operating at LOS D, and 3) Manatee County is unlikely to share the cost of enhancing the capacity of these segments when they are operating at their (Manatee-County) adopted LOS standard. Sarasota County's proposed recommended order, at paragraph 19, candidly concedes these points. Without regard to Sarasota County's confusing attempt to designate the University Parkway segments as constrained or backlogged, the three cited reasons for lowering the LOS standard to D for these segments of University Parkway are data and analysis supporting the action taken by Sarasota County. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of the affected University Parkway segments as LOS D is not consistent with the criterion of supporting data and analysis. Whether Supporting Traffic Data Are Appropriate and Traffic Data Were Collected and Applied in a Professionally Acceptable Manner Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., (KH) performed the traffic analysis in connection with the Amended DO and Cumulative Plan Amendments. In November 2005, KH prepared a Transportation Methodology Statement (TMS) for use in conjunction with the SIPOC Phase II DRI Substantial Deviation (from the DO). The TMS briefly describes Phase II of the SIPOC development. The TMS slightly overstates, by percentage, retail uses by 120,000 square feet (using 1,800,000 square feet, rather than 1,680,000 square feet) and substantially understates, by percentage, office uses by 120,000 square feet (using 100,000 square feet, rather than 220,000 square feet), but, obviously, the total of the two uses is the same as the total stated in the Amended DO. The TMS states that KH will use the trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. The TMS notes that hotel trips require a different source due to their exclusion from Trip Generation. The TMS states that KH will determine trip "general trip distribution of project traffic" by "application of the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure" (FSUTMS), which is a transportation planning model. The TMS states that KH will use FSUTMS for "project distribution" and "general assignment of project traffic to the roadway network." Trips are first distributed between attractor land uses and producer land uses and then are assigned to specific facilities. Thus, it is necessary to distribute trips between SIPOC and various offsite locations and, using this information, to assign traffic to the roadway network in the vicinity of the attractors. The TMS adds: In addition to [FSUTMS], existing traffic patterns adjacent to the project site, including the location of production- and attraction-based land uses, will be used as supplement data to estimate project traffic assignment. A copy of the distribution and electronic files of the input files to be used in this model will be provided in the analysis report to the appropriate review agencies. The TMS states that, in distributing project traffic, KH will use the existing roadway network plus committed improvements in the first three years of Manatee County's current capital improvement program, Sarasota County's current capital improvement program, and Florida Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Work Program. The TMS states that KH will obtain the necessary socio-economic projections for the buildout year of 2009 from the Sarasota/Manatee Area Transportation Study and will supplement these data to include certain other approved DRIs, which are listed. The TMS states that the analysis report will summarize the socio-economic adjustments. The TMS states that KH will estimate internal capture and pass-by capture of project traffic based on the review of FSUTMS in Trip Generation, 2nd Edition, June 2004--as well as other ITE-related documents and engineering judgment applied to the characteristics of SIPOC, Phase II. Internal capture is a function of mixed-use developments, such as SIPOC, in which persons using the retail, office, or residential components of the single development remain within the development, rather than enter the roadways surrounding the development. Pass-by capture describes the function of a development interrupting a trip on the surrounding roadway system and later releasing the trip back onto the surrounding roadway system. The TMS adds that the total pass-by capture trips will be estimated for the retail part of SIPOC, Phase II, and will be limited to 10 percent of the future background traffic estimates adjacent to the project site. The TMS adds that KH will document all assumptions and applied procedures in the analysis report. The resulting reduction in internal capture and pass-by capture trips will, according to the TMS, produce net, new trips, which KH will use to identify the transportation impact study area. The TMS states that KH will review the impacts of project traffic on the adjacent roadway network following the requirements of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-2.045, which are consistent with the rules of DCA. Relying on the procedures used in the Phase I transportation analysis, which had been recently approved, KH will then identify the study area as "all roadway segments for which SIPOC net, new project traffic will consume 5.0 percent or greater of the . . . LOS C directional, peak-hour service volume of each affected roadway link located within Sarasota County, including University Parkway and I-75." For roadways in Manatee County, excluding I-75, the LOS will be D. The TMS states that peak-hour service volumes will be estimated based on the most recent information available from DOT and the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition. In particular, the TMS notes that KH will use four- lane, divided capacity for North Cattlemen Road from University Parkway to DeSoto Road and two-lane, divided capacity for North Cattlemen Road from DeSoto Road to Richardson Road and DeSoto Road from Honore Avenue to North Cattlemen Road. The TMS adds that KH will use six-lane, divided capacity for University Parkway from I-75 to Lakewood Ranch Boulevard to the east and the proposed ramp improvements to the University Parkway/I-75 interchange. The TMS identifies the LOS standards of various road segments surrounding SIPOC, including LOS D for University Parkway from U.S. Route 301 to Lakewood Ranch Boulevard. (University Parkway east of I-75 is entirely in Manatee County.) The TMS identifies the analysis period as the p.m., peak season, peak hour for both existing and future conditions. For the existing condition, Intervenors shall obtain recent traffic count data. The TMS notes that KH will forecast future nondevelopment (background) traffic for the buildout year of 2009, using the results of the FSUTMS model, forecasted traffic projections from public agencies, and actual historical traffic counts from the study area. Comparing the FSUTMS outputs for 2005 and 2009, KH will determine the appropriate growth rates for specific roadways within the study area. By applying those growth rates to the existing traffic data, KH will determine future background traffic volumes. The TMS states that the analysis report will contain complete documentation of all assumptions and applied procedures. The TMS states that KH will perform roadway link capacity analysis for all regionally significant roadways and any subregional roadways in the study network that provide primary access to SIPOC. The TMS identifies the sources of procedures for this analysis and assures that the analysis report will contain electronic files with the results of the roadway link capacity analysis. The TMS states that KH will assess project traffic for potential improvements where it contributes at least five percent of the appropriate LOS peak hour directional service volume of a regional roadway in the transportation impact study area. KH will identify improvements only when the roadway is expected to operate below its adopted LOS peak hour service volume. The analysis report will identify improvements attributed to SIPOC only if project traffic consumes at least five percent of the adopted LOS peak hour service volume or the "critical movements of the intersections located at the endpoints of an impacted roadway segment." The TMS states that KH will perform similar analyses of intersections in terms of their LOSs and need for improvements when operating below their adopted LOS standards. KH circulated the TMS among various agencies, including Sarasota County, DOT, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (RPC). None of these agencies offered any criticism of the proposed methodology. As part of their application for development approval that led to the Amended DO, Intervenors filed a Substantial Deviation from the SIPOC DRI. Part V of this document is Public Facilities, and Section A of Part V is Transportation. This Transportation Substantial Deviation document shall be referred to as the "TSD." At the time of the preparation of the TSD, Phase I of SIPOC was under construction, so KH combined the land uses and their associated traffic for both phases for the analysis contained in the TSD. KH based its analysis on 2009 projections because that is the year of buildout of Phase II. The TSD states that KH used current policies of Sarasota County and RPC to identify the transportation study area, which comprises the regionally significant roadway links, intersections, and interchanges on which Phases I and II project trips associated with SIPOC consume at least five percent of the adopted LOS. The TSD identifies the adopted LOS as C for each affected roadway link in Sarasota County, including University Parkway west of I-75 and I-75 in Sarasota and Manatee counties, and D for roadways in Manatee County. Evidently, at the time of the preparation of this part of the TSD, Sarasota County had not yet identified the need to lower the LOS for University Parkway to D. However, TSD Table 5.A.2 reports that the University Parkway segments west of I-75 have an adopted LOS D. University Parkway would obviously be in the transportation study area regardless whether KH has used a LOS standard of C or D for its segments west of I-75. The TSD states that KH used the existing roadways plus roadway improvements funded for construction for the first three years in the capital improvement programs of Sarasota and Manatee counties and the DOT Work Program, except that KH used five years of the DOT Work Program for construction of I-75 improvements. The TSD states that KH used ITE's, Trip Generation, 7th Edition (2003) to determine that SIPOC, through Phase II, would generate 68,894 daily trip ends and 6405 trip ends in the p.m., peak hour, consisting of 3148 inbound and 3257 outbound, as well as 2158 trip ends in the a.m. peak hour, consisting of 1143 inbound and 1015 outbound. The TSD states that KH used an internal capture rate of 33 percent and a pass-by capture rate of less than 10 percent of future background traffic. Subtracting the internal capture and pass-by capture rates from the total gross trips, TSD Table 5.A.5 reports that the total, net, new external project trips is 38,120 daily, including 1708 in and 1817 out during p.m. peak hour and 713 in and 585 out during a.m. peak hour. The TSD describes the process by which KH calculated 2009 total traffic, which consists of SIPOC traffic plus background (i.e., nonSIPOC) traffic. KH inputted into FSUTMS socioeconomic data provided by the Sarasota/Manatee County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), supplemented by data from other approved DRIs in the area. The TSD details the process by which KH isolated the effects of SIPOC in projecting background traffic. For project traffic, the TSD states that KH used FSUTMS output to distribute trips and, with "minor refinements based upon existing and proposed attractive-type land uses near the project site," to develop roadway assignment percentages. TSD, p. 12. TSD Table 5.A.1 reports the LOS service volumes for road segments in the vicinity of SIPOC, the projected traffic assignment (expressed as a percentage of the LOS service volume) assigned to each road segment, and an indication whether the five-percent threshold has been met, so as to require the inclusion of the road segment in the transportation study area. The TSD states that KH also applied the percentages to the trip generation estimates, with an adjustment for background traffic, to determine projected traffic volumes through Phase II. A revised version of this table is in the Third Sufficiency Response. TSD Table 5.A.2 shows service volumes for existing roadways based on their adopted LOSs. For instance, all depicted University Parkway segments west of I-75 bear an LOS D, which produces a service volume of 2790. The service volume of 2790 is for peak hour conditions. Using p.m. peak hour traffic counts conducted by KH, Table 5.A.3 indicates the actual p.m. peak hour roadway volumes for 2006, divided by direction. For the University Parkway segments west of I-75, the existing volumes are all at least 400 trips below 2790, so as to earn LOS Bs for all segments, except five, which are at LOS C. In general, Table 5.A.3 reports that all road segments in the study area were within their adopted LOS standards for 2006, and Table 5.A.4 reports that all intersections in the study area were within their adopted LOS standards for 2006, as well. In projecting 2009 traffic volumes, the TSD describes the process undertaken by KH to determine the volume of Honore Avenue traffic that would be diverted to North Cattlemen Road, once the latter facility is constructed. KH also assigned a minimal amount of traffic to DeSoto Road between Honore Avenue and North Cattlemen Road to account for the use of this new facility by background traffic. For project traffic, KH made "minor adjustments," of the type noted above, in assigning traffic to road segments in the study area. Projecting 2009 conditions, TSD Table 5.A.6 shows the directional p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the project, background, and total. For instance, eastbound and westbound, the University Parkway segment from North Cattlemen Road/Copper Creek Boulevard west to Honore Avenue will have project volumes of 436 and 463 trips, background volumes of 2725 and 2672 trips, and total volumes of 3161 and 3135 trips, which would exceed the LOS D volume of 2790 trips reported above in TSD Table 5.A.2. TSD Table 5.A.7 reports, by road segment, the ratio of project traffic to total traffic. On the segment discussed immediately above, the project will constitute about 14 percent of peak hour total traffic in both directions. On other segments, such as the North Cattlemen Road and DeSoto Road segments that will primarily serve SIPOC, peak hour project traffic will be about 80-90 percent of peak hour total traffic. The TSD states that KH identified a road segment as critical and in need of further analysis if the 2009 projections revealed that it was operating below its adopted LOS standard and project traffic consumed at least five percent of its adopted peak-hour directional LOS volume TSD Table 5.A.8 reports the result of the roadway analysis, which, with "detailed arterial analysis," finds all segments, including the above-mentioned Honore/Cooper Creek segment of University Parkway, to be operating in 2009 at their adopted LOS or better. However, despite the application of "detailed arterial analysis," Table 5.A.8 designates five of the University Parkway segments, including the Honore/Cooper Creek segment, and three segments of Honore Avenue as critical links. Each of these eight segments was designated a critical link in both directions. TSD Table 5.A.9 identifies the intersections in the study area and projects that five of them will, by 2009, fall below their adopted LOS standard. Table 5.A.9 includes recommended improvements to restore LOSs to adopted levels or better. For the intersections at Honore Avenue and DeSoto Road and North Cattlemen Road and DeSoto Road, the improvement is to add signals. For the intersections at University Parkway and Honore Avenue and University Parkway and North Cattlemen/Cooper Creek, the improvements are to add two new turn lanes at each intersection. For the intersection at University Parkway and the I-75 east ramps, the improvement is to construct a new turn or ramp lane. In connection with the DRI-approval process, Sarasota County and DOT issued comments and questions, which prompted Intervenors' engineering firm to file at least three sufficiency reports. In the First Sufficiency Report, the RPC noted that a four-year planning horizon (2005-09) was a relatively short timeframe for using FSUTMS, so KH needed to check outputs for "reasonableness." In the Second Sufficiency Report, KH had to justify to Sarasota County KH's detailed assumptions and conclusions, such as its internal capture rate of 33 percent for am peak hour and its refusal to use an annual growth rate in traffic on University Parkway east of I-75 of 15 percent (as suggested by the FSUTMS output). KH also had to respond to DOT comments by adding to a map trip distribution percentages to certain road segments and correcting some LOS levels used in certain of the TSD tables. In the Third Sufficiency Response Table 1, KH identified the recommended transportation improvements to be funded by Intervenors as follows: Roadway Improvement Timeframe Honore Ave. & Construct north- Phase I DeSoto Rd. bound (NB) right- turn lane. University Pkwy. Construct EB right- Phase I & W. Project Drive turn lane. University Pkwy. Construct 2 NB left- Phase I & N. Cattlemen Rd. turn lanes, 2 NB through lanes, 2 NB right-turn lanes, 1 EB right-turn lane, and 2 WB left-turn lanes. N. Cattlemen Rd. Construct 4-lane Phase I divided road from University Pkwy to DeSoto Rd. DeSoto Rd. Construct 2-lane Phase I divided road from Honore Ave. to N. Cattlemen Rd. University Pkwy. Construct 2nd NB left- Phase II & Honore Ave. turn lane and 2nd WB left-turn lane. Con- vert NB right-turn lane to through lane and construct new NB right-turn lane. University Pkwy. & Convert SB right-turn Phase II Cooper Creek Blvd./ lane to through lane N. Cattlemen Rd. and construct new SB right-turn lane. University Pkwy. Construct 3rd NB Phase II & I-75 E ramps left-turn lane. Honore Ave. Signalize when Phase II & DeSoto Rd. warranted. N. Cattlemen Rd. Signalize when Phase II & DeSoto Rd. warranted. N. Cattlemen Rd. Construct 2-lane Phase II divided or possibly 4-lane divided from DeSoto Rd. to Richardson Rd. The reviewing agencies ultimately approved the KH transportation analysis, but Petitioner claims that the transportation analysis was not professionally acceptable. Even Petitioner's witnesses offered no objection to the capture rates and traffic volumes used by KH. The thrust of Petitioner's objections to the traffic analysis is not to the inputs or model, but to the manual adjustments that KH made to the model outputs when assigning traffic to specific road segments. Some of these adjustments resulted in the removal of certain road segments from the transportation study area and thus from further analysis of the adverse impacts from SIPOC. The KH employee responsible for this project, Robert Agrusa, has 23 years' experience performing traffic studies and 20 years' experience using FSUTMS. Mr. Agrusa has worked in the Sarasota area nearly exclusively for over 15 years and has worked on the traffic impacts of DRIs. FSUTMS is a model whose original purpose was to assist long-range transportation planning, thus the comment by the RPC reviewer for the need to use care in using FSUTMS for the relatively short timeframe involved in this exercise. The model's sensitivity is limited as to attractive land uses near the subject project. For instance, the model fails to differentiate between a convenience store and a regional shopping mall; both are simply retail land uses. The engineer using FSUTMS for the purpose for which it was used in this planning exercise must examine the outputs carefully, compare them to existing and future land uses, and adjust the model- generated trip assignments based on his or her professional judgment. According to a Sarasota County transportation engineer, adjustments to FSUTMS output are more common in the I-75 corridor where the model's traffic analysis zones are less precise. Other authorities likewise support manual adjustments to model outputs. Among the manual adjustments described by Mr. Agrusa was an increase in the number of trips absorbed by large residential areas west of SIPOC, both north and south of University Parkway. These areas include 3000-4000 dwelling units that, in his professional judgment, were inadequately weighed by FSUTMS in distributing trips. For similar reasons, Mr. Agrusa made a similar adjustment in assignments in the area south of University Parkway and north of Fruitville Road, where even more dwelling units are located. Another manual adjustment described by Mr. Agrusa illustrates well the issue raised by Petitioner. Mr. Agrusa increased the trips on I-75, north and south of University Parkway, to reflect the regional draw of SIPOC, especially its retail uses. No transportation engineer in this case disagrees that SIPOC is a regional draw. An increase in I-75 trips means a corresponding decrease of trips on University Parkway, Honore Avenue, and North Cattlemen Road. However, the magnitude of such changes was typically limited to 2-3 percentage points, and each percentage point of net new trips is only 40 two-way trips or 80 one-way trips. As Petitioner contends, small changes can result in large effects. Mr. Agrusa raised the percentage of project trips on I-75 south of University Parkway from nine percent to 12 percent. As already noted, this would lighten the projected traffic on other segments, especially North Cattlemen Road and Honore Avenue. By raising the percentage only to 12, though, Mr. Agrusa did not cause the burdened interstate segment to have to be included in the study area because, at 12 percent, the project contributed 4.99 percent of this segment's volume. Had Mr. Agrusa raised the percentage to 12.5 percent, the five percent threshold would have been met, and this segment of I-75 would have had to have been included in the study area. But Mr. Agrusa testified that he did not restrict this increase to lower the volumes on road segments already in the study area and raise it as far as possible without adding the increasingly burdened segment to the study area; absent evidence of some impropriety in this adjustment, it is impossible to find that it was not professionally acceptable, especially in the absence of objection from DOT as to exclusion of I-75 from the study area. All transportation engineers, including Petitioner's witness, agreed that a manual adjustment was indicated to increase the assignment of trips to I-75; they disagreed only as to the extent of the increase. Projecting traffic volumes even for just four years is necessarily a rough-hewn process, which, in this case, did not even assign an input to the cost of fuel and its effect on traffic volumes. The magnitude of the changes for which Petitioner contends would introduce into this process more precision than the process can support. The projection is for only four years, so, with or without manual adjustments to model outputs, the potential for error is reduced when compared to longer planning horizons. Given the detailed methodology and analytic exercise described above, the multiple-agency review, and the absence of affirmative evidence of bad faith, KH collected appropriate data in a professionally acceptable manner and applied the data, in a professionally acceptable manner, to identify the study area, the impacted road segments and intersections, and the improvements necessary to maintain adopted LOS standards on these segments and intersections. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the data and analysis regarding the Cumulative Amendments are inconsistent with the criteria that the date be appropriate to the plan provisions and that the data be collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. Whether the Identified Transportation Facilities Are Financially Feasible and Properly Scheduled in the Capital Improvement Program As of the date of the final hearing, Intervenors had already constructed all of the Phase I transportation improvements (Amended DO Conditions H.1.a-d) and the following Phase II transportation improvements: the roundabout at North Cattlemen Road and DeSoto Road (Amended DO Condition H.2.e), the roundabout at North Cattlemen Road and northern Access Drive (Amended DO Condition H.2.i), and the roundabout at North Cattlemen Road and the southern Access Drive (Amended DO Condition H.2.j). As of the date of the final hearing, Intervenors had almost completed construction of the signalization of Honore Avenue and DeSoto Road (Amended DO Condition H.2.d). As of the date of the final hearing, a third party had completed construction of intersection improvements at Fruitville Road and Cattlemen Road (Amended DO Condition H.2.g). As of the date of the final hearing, Intervenors had delivered to Sarasota County a letter of credit or performance bond of $33 million--sufficient to pay for the construction of North Cattlemen Road from DeSoto Road to Richardson (Amended DO Condition H.2.f) and the North Access Drive (Amended DO Condition H.2.h), for which the combined cost is estimated to be $29,517,244, and the construction of the intersection improvements at University Parkway at Cooper Creek/North Cattlemen (Amended DO Condition H.2.b), for which the cost is estimated to be $3,100,000. This leaves only two transportation projects from the Amended DO Condition H for Intervenors to complete: construction of the intersection improvements at University Parkway and Honore Avenue (Amended DO Condition H.2.a), for which the cost is estimated to be $2,250,000, and construction of the east ramp improvements at I-75 and University Parkway (Amended DO Condition H.2.c), for which the cost is estimated to be $2,000,000. Intervenors secured its undertaking to pay for these remaining transportation improvements by providing Sarasota County with financial assurance--in the form of new capital contribution agreements--adequate for these two improvements plus the construction of the transit station, but Intervenors entered into these agreements after the adoption of the Cumulative Plan Amendments. Based on the KH traffic analysis, which has not been shown to have been unreliable or unprofessional, these transportation improvements will offset the impacts of SIPOC, Phases I and II, sufficient to avoid a violation of any adopted LOS standard for any road segment or intersection. If, for some reason, the improvements were not to be adequate, the monitoring program in the Amended DO will ensure that development orders will be suspended, pursuant to the conditions contained in the Amended DO, the reference in the Remedial Plan Amendments to Intervenors' financial undertakings in the Amended DO (thus incorporating them into the comprehensive plan), and concurrency provisions in the Sarasota County comprehensive plan, unless and until these traffic impacts are offset by transportation improvements sufficient to restore service volumes to the adopted LOS standards. Additionally, the Remedial Plan Amendments contain a five-year schedule of capital improvements that adequately describes the relevant transportation improvements and the years of funding. The KH traffic analysis drives the finding that the transportation improvements already completed and to be undertaken by Intervenors will prevent any road segment or intersection from falling below the adopted LOS standard due to impacts from SIPOC traffic. As a backup, the Amended DO provides for monitoring of traffic volumes and suspends development if and when SIPOC traffic causes any road segment or intersection to fall below its adopted LOS standard. In turn, these findings inform findings as to the consistency of the undertaken capital improvements with the criteria of financial feasibility and scheduling capital improvements. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Cumulative Plan Amendments are not consistent with the criteria of financial feasibility and scheduling capital improvements.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the Cumulative Plan Amendments to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynette Norr Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Christopher Torres Greenberg Traurig, PA 625 East Twiggs Street, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stephen E. Demarsh Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, 2nd Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Alan W. Roddy Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 Martha Harrell Chumbler Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Shaw Stiller, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2160 Thomas Pelham, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1) (C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA 10-GM-288 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished by U.S. Mail to each of the persons listed below on this gcll day ot Ta nuasty 20 // e SA Av. Paula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 By Electronic Mail Linda Shelley, Esquire Fowler White Boggs PA PO Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3240 lshelley@fowlerwhite.com Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire 1001 Avenida Del Circo PO Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284-1596 jboone@boone-law.com Lynette Norr Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Lynette.norr@dca.state.fl.us
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A. |
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and Dye copies have been ished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this day o: 2010. \ Paula Ford . Agency Clerk Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 U. S. Mail: Bram D.E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Fred A. Morrison, Esq. McLin, Burnsed, Morrison, Johnson, Newman and Roy, P.A. P.O. Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749 Hand Delivery: L. Mary Thomas, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 FINAL ORDER NO. DCA10-GM-112 Karen A. Brodeen, Esq. Linda L. Shelley, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. P.O. Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gary P. Sams, Esq. David L. Powell, Esq. Douglas M. Smith, Esq. Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
The Issue Whether Amendment 95-2 to the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan, as originally adopted by Ordinance 68-93 on October 3, 1995, and amended by Ordinance 13-96 on March 19, 1996, is “in compliance” as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners are all political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Petitioner, Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County (hereinafter referred to as “Palm Beach County”), is a county located on the southeast coast of Florida. Petitioner, Martin County, is a county located adjacent to, and north of, Palm Beach County. Part of Martin County’s boundary is located adjacent to the Town of Jupiter. Petitioner, the Village of Tequesta (hereinafter referred to as “Tequesta”), is a municipality located in Palm Beach County. Tequesta’s western boundary abuts the eastern boundary of the Town of Jupiter. Respondent, the Town of Jupiter (hereinafter referred to as “Jupiter”) is a municipality located in Palm Beach County. The plan amendment at issue in this proceeding was adopted by Jupiter. Jupiter has a population of approximately 39,000 people. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of, among other things, implementing Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Local Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Intervenor, the Shores of Jupiter Homeowners’ Association, Inc., is a not-for-profit Florida corporation. Intervenor represents the interest of the Shores of Jupiter residential development. The Shores of Jupiter is located in Jupiter. The Geographic Area at Issue. The boundary of northeastern Palm Beach County which abuts the southwestern boundary of Martin County extends westerly from the Atlantic ocean for a couple of miles. The boundary then turns south for less than a mile before returning to the west. The area at issue in this proceeding consists of an area within the jurisdiction of four different local governments: Palm Beach County, Martin County, Jupiter and Tequesta. Jupiter and Tequesta are located in the northeast corner of Palm Beach County. See Palm Beach County exhibit 39. Tequesta is located in the extreme northeast corner of Palm Beach County. Part of the northern border of Tequesta abuts the southern boundary of Martin County. Jupiter is located primarily to the south of Tequesta. Most of Jupiter and Tequesta are separated by the Loxahatchee River (hereinafter referred to as the “River”). The River also has two branches separating Jupiter and Tequesta. See Palm Beach County exhibit 39. The northernmost portion of Jupiter abuts the Martin County-Palm Beach County boundary where the boundary turns to the south and then back to west. Most of the area at issue is comprised of residential subdivisions. Jupiter’s current and projected land uses are primarily residential. Land uses in Jupiter in 1995 and projected for 2000 in the Data and Analysis for the Jupiter Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”), suggest that residential uses and projected residential land uses of vacant land to be developed by the year 2000 will predominate in Jupiter. There is a relatively large tract of undeveloped land, referred to as “Section 28” during the formal hearing, which is not now used for residential purposes. Section 28 is located in the west, north-west portion of Jupiter. Section 28 abuts Martin County where the boundary of Palm Beach County and Martin County turn back to an east-west direction after the north-south turn. Section 28 is located to the east of Interstate 95 and the Sunshine Parkway, west of the River, north of Indiantown Road and south of the Martin County line. Existing Transportation Corridors. The roads that are at issue in this proceeding are depicted on Palm Beach County exhibit 1. The road identified in red as Roosevelt Street is conceptual only. The depicted connection of Island Way and Northfork Drive is also conceptual. To the western boundary of Jupiter and the area at issue in this proceeding is located Interstate 95 and the Sunshine Parkway. Both roads begin a turn from a northerly direction to the northwest. The main corridor along the eastern portion of Jupiter located to the west of the North Fork of the River is Loxahatchee River Road. Loxahatchee River Road runs to the north from the intersection with Center Street and then follows the northwestern route of the North Fork of the River to the boundary of Martin County. The road continues into Martin County and connects with Island Way. Loxahatchee River Road functions as a county collector road. This means that it carries a high volume of traffic and is intended to connect and lead traffic from one set of local street connections to another. Loxahatchee River Road is bordered by unincorporated subdivisions, including Whispering Trails, Imperial Woods, Fox Run and Eagle’s Nest. Loxahatchee River Road is a two-lane road. It has been used for a number of years as a traffic corridor between Palm Beach and Martin Counties. It is poorly designed for this purpose. Its design pre-dates contemporary transportation planning. Houses face onto the road and have direct driveway access to the road. These houses are not protected from the road by a buffer. To the west of Loxahatchee River Road and to the east of I-95, the main north-south road corridor is made up of Longshore Drive and Northfork Drive (hereinafter referred to as the “Northfork/Longshore Corridor”). The Northfork/Longshore Corridor is a two-lane road. Longshore Drive runs in a generally northern direction from Central Boulevard until it connects with Northfork Drive. Northfork Drive continues in a generally northern direction. It parallels a portion of the boundary of Martin and Palm Beach Counties which runs north-south. The Northfork/Longshore Corridor is bordered by residential subdivisions, including the Shores of Jupiter, Northfork, The Preserve and Cypress Cove. All of these subdivisions were annexed by Jupiter in March, 1993. Northfork Drive was designed to accommodate a thoroughfare. Residents are buffered from the road and face away from it. Traffic from residents along Northfork Drive is directed to limited access roads to Northfork Drive. Northfork Drive terminates about a quarter of a mile south of the portion of the boundary of Martin and Palm Beach Counties that runs east to the Atlantic Ocean and where the boundary turns to the south. Approximately a quarter of a mile north of the termination point of Northfork Drive is the southern termination point of Island Way. Island Way is located in Martin County. An unpaved right-of-way separates the southern terminus of Island Way and the northern terminus of the Northfork/Longshore Corridor. In the south, the main east-west corridor is Indiantown Road and Center Street. Indiantown Road is a primary commercial area for residents of the area at issue. Residents in the area use the Northfork/Longshore Corridor and Loxahatchee River Road to access these commercial areas. The road system of the area at issue is dominated by the River and its tributaries. The River creates a physical barrier to travel by the residents of the area. Due to this barrier, Central Boulevard, Church Street and Roebuck Road, which all connect with the Northfork/Longshore Corridor and Loxahactchee River Road, provide the primary routes for residents of the area to access Indiantown Road. Transportation Planning for the Area. A number of factors have caused difficulties in planning for the traffic needs of the area at issue in this proceeding. The area is constricted by the River, the area is under the jurisdiction of four local governments, all of which are involved in this proceeding, and the north-south jog in the boundary of Palm Beach and Martin Counties has the potential to create greater traffic impacts between the two counties. The fact that the area is primarily residential and largely existing development also contributes to the problem. Most motor vehicle trips generated in the area involve travel to and from residents in the area to destinations outside the area. The fact that the development already exists makes it difficult to establish a comprehensive internal grid street system with a continuous and unfragmented regional road network. Future planned developed will only add to this problem. The projected development of Section 28 could significantly add to the traffic problems of the area. Section 28 is bounded on the west by I-95 and the turnpike. Traffic generated in the area will have to travel north into Martin County or south and east through Jupiter. Roads required for travel into Martin County from Section 28 do not exist. Prior to 1993 the Northfork/Longshore Corridor was located in unincorporated Palm Beach County. In 1986 Palm Beach County undertook a transportation study for northern Palm Beach County. Public meetings were conducted and studies were undertaken to evaluate roadway corridors for the area necessary to accommodate existing and future traffic. The evaluation included a consideration of the needs of traffic moving between Palm Beach and Martin Counties. As a result of Palm Beach County’s study, it was ultimately concluded that three intercounty thoroughfares were needed for the area: (a) Loxahatchee River Road; (b) Longshore Drive(connected to Northfork Drive, connected to Island Way); and (c) a new corridor, the “Western Corridor”. Loxahatchee River Road and the Northfork/Longshore Corridor were added to the Palm Beach County Thoroughfare Identification Map. Loxahatchee River Road was already being utilized as an intercounty traffic corridor despite design limitations for such use. Hearings were conducted by Palm Beach County in November, 1987, at which the use of Longshore Drive was considered as a possible second corridor. The Jupiter transportation planner at the time presented a report comparing possible thoroughfare alignments, including the suggestion that Longshore Drive be connected to a thoroughfare to be constructed through the area where Northfork Drive was ultimately constructed and that the thoroughfare be connected with Island Way. Palm Beach County accepted this suggestion. The Western Corridor, if constructed, would run through Section 28 and probably connect Indiantown Road with Island Way. The exact route for such a corridor has not been decided. Nor has right-of-way for the corridor be acquired or funding for the corridor been set aside. The Loxahatchee River Road and the Northfork/Longshore Corridor were added to Palm Beach County’s Thoroughfare Right-of- Way Identification Map (hereinafter referred to as the “TIM”). Although the TIM is not used to identify capital improvements, it is used by Palm Beach County in the Traffic Circulation Element of Palm Beach County’s comprehensive plan as a land use planning tool. Annexation of the Shores of Jupiter. Palm Beach County suggested in 1989 that the various municipalities in the county should look at areas which could be annexed into the municipality while promoting the efficient delivery of urban services. Jupiter looked at unincorporated areas surrounding it as possible areas to annex, consistent with Palm Beach County’s suggestion. Jupiter looked at areas which might be annexed also in order to comply with its own Plan, which was adopted in 1990. As part of its consideration of areas which it considered desirable to annex, Jupiter routinely sent letters to communities explaining the benefits of annexation by Jupiter. Jupiter also addressed concerns expressed about annexation by businesses and residents of areas it was considering. Since 1990, Jupiter annexed approximately 50 different properties. Among the areas considered for annexation by Jupiter were subdivisions located along Northfork Drive, including the Shores of Jupiter. Discussions between Intervenor and Jupiter about annexation of the Shores of Jupiter began in 1992. Intervenor made it clear to Jupiter that it would consider supporting annexation only in Jupiter supported its efforts to avoid the connection of the Northfork/Longshore Corridor to Island Way. Counsel for Jupiter informed the then Town Manager of Intervenor’s position in a memorandum dated July 23, 1992: The Shores does not want a through road or “T” intersection at the northern boundary of the Northfork subdivision . . ., which allows Longshore Drive to be extended into Martin County. The Shores is intractable on this issue. Anything less than the Town’s vigorous support of the Shores in this regard will doom the annexation unless the Town supports to the fullest extent the prevention of Longshore Drive’s extension into Martin County. Consequently, if there is to be another corridor in northern Palm Beach County, The Shores would only support the “western corridor.” . . . See Palm Beach County exhibit 28. As a solution to Intervenor’s concerns, Jupiter’s attorney suggested the following solution: The proper vehicle for the Town to address the concerns of The Shores is through the Town’s comprehensive plan. Of course, the Town’s comprehensive plan can only be applied to The Shores, Northfork, Shorewood and Cypress Cove subdivisions and the Longshore Drive corridor, if these areas are within the municipal jurisdiction of the Town. Nevertheless, the Town Council can publicly describe its intention to adopt appropriate goals, objectives and policies it proposes to adopt as part of amendments to its comprehensive plan to address the concerns of The Shores. It may also be appropriate for the Town to address corridor planning issues, in particular, appropriate alignments, if any, of a “western corridor” in the Transportation Element Plan. Finally, the Town should consider including the alignment of a “western corridor” as part of its western interchange planning study. In a letter dated February 16, 1993, the Mayor of Jupiter, the Honorable Karen J. Golonka, informed residents of the Shores of Jupiter of a special referendum election on the issue of annexation of the Shores of Jupiter into Jupiter. Mayor Golonka suggested that residents vote “Yes” on the referendum and gave the “top three reasons” why Jupiter believed annexation would be in the best interest of residents of the Shores of Jupiter. In addition to the improved law enforcement protection and the protection of property values, Mayor Golonka informed residents that, while members of the Palm Beach County commission were supporting the connection of the Northfork/Longshore Corridor to Island Way, Jupiter was opposed to the connection. Mayor Golonka indicated that Jupiter had adopted Resolution 47-92 expressing the following: the Town’s opposition to making Longshore Drive a major arterial, and the Town’s intention, if the annexation is successful, is to amend our Comprehensive Plan to ensure that Longshore Drive remains the treelined collector street seen today. Palm Beach County exhibit 7. Resolution 47-92 had been adopted by Jupiter in September of 1992 because Intervenor had asked Jupiter to take a formal position on the question of the Northfork/Longshore Corridor connection with Island Way. In March, 1993, a dual referendum was conducted concerning the annexation of certain areas, including the Shores of Jupiter. The Shores of Jupiter was subsequently annexed by Jupiter. While the position taken by Jupiter with the Intervenor prior to the adoption of the amendment at issue in this proceeding does not conclusively prove that the amendment is not “in compliance” with the Act due to the lack of adequate data and analysis to support the amendment, the evidence did prove that Jupiter had already decided to take a position similar to the position established in the amendment without determining whether adequate data and analysis for that position existed. The Challenged Amendment Adopted Through Ordinance 68-93. Subsequent to the annexation of the Shores of Jupiter, Jupiter proposed an amendment to its Plan which included, among other things, a proposed Policy 1.4.4 providing, in part, that “[t]he Town will discourage any connections of Northfork Drive to Island Way or any other road or roadway corridor located in Martin County.” The plan amendment proposed by Jupiter (hereinafter referred to as the “Original Plan Amendment”) was not transmitted to the Department until September of 1994. Following its review of the Original Plan Amendment in October, 1994, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comment Report (hereinafter referred to as the “First ORC”). The Department raised several objections to the Original Plan Amendment. Among other things, the Department objected on the basis of the lack of supporting data and analysis, lack of specificity of the proposed policies, lack of intergovernmental coordination and the creation of internal inconsistencies in Jupiter’s Plan. Jupiter responded to the First ORC on October 9, 1995. In response to the objections raised by the Department with regard to Policy 1.4.4, Jupiter responded that it intended to change the policy to provide that the policy to discourage the connection of Northfork Drive would only apply in the absence of a “demonstrated need “for the connection. See Palm Beach County exhibit 33. Jupiter also informed the Department that the data and analysis that supported Policy 1.4.4 consisted of a 1994 traffic planning study, the Joint Local Government Traffic Engineering Study (hereinafter referred to as the “Joint Traffic Study”), and Jupiter’s analysis of the Joint Traffic Study. While Jupiter suggested that it relied upon other “data and analysis”, the response to the Department’s First ORC only indicates that Jupiter relied upon the Joint Traffic Study. On October 3, 1995, following a public hearing, Jupiter adopted Ordinance 68-93 and the Original Plan Amendment therein. On December 1, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Find Not in Compliance Jupiter’s Original Plan Amendment. A Statement of Intent describing numerous inconsistencies found by the Department between the Original Plan Amendment and the Act was entered with the notice. Petition for Formal Hearing, Settlement Negotiations and Adoption of the Remedial Amendment. On or about December 6, 1995, a petition challenging Jupiter’s Original Plan Amendment was filed by the Department with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The matter was designated case number 95-5930GM and was assigned to the undersigned. Palm Beach County and the Shores of Jupiter Homeowners’ Association, Inc., were allowed to intervene in case number 95- 5930GM by Order entered January 8, 1996. Tequesta was allowed to intervene in case number 95-5930GM by Order entered March 22, 1996. The formal hearing of case number 95-5930GM was abated to give the parties an opportunity to settle their dispute. The Department, Jupiter and the Shores of Jupiter ultimately reached a stipulated settlement. Palm Beach County and Tequesta did not, however, enter into the settlement. Upon the filing of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the abeyance of case number 95-5930GM was extended. Pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Jupiter modified Amendment 95-2 by Ordinance 13-96 on March 15 and 19, 1996. On or about April 20, 1996, the Department of Community Affairs caused a Notice of Intent to find Amendment 95-2 (hereinafter referred to as the “Remedial Amendment”), in compliance to be published. On or about May 2, 1996, Martin County filed a petition in response to the April 20, 1996 Notice of Intent to find the Remedial Amendment in compliance. The Petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearing on May 23, 1996. Martin County’s petition was designated case number 96-2563GM. Palm Beach County and Tequesta filed amended petitions in response to the Remedial Amendment. The amended petitions were accepted by Order entered June 5, 1996. By Order dated July 9, 1996, the parties in case number 95-5930GM were realigned, the two cases were consolidated, the stay was lifted and Martin County was allowed to intervene in case number 95-5930GM. The Remedial Amendment. The Remedial Amendment adopted by Jupiter and found in compliance by the Department includes an addition to the Traffic Circulation Element of Jupiter’s Plan. The Remedial Amendment adds Goal 4, Objective 4.1 and eight policies to implement the Goal and Objective to the Traffic Circulation Element of the Plan. The Remedial Amendment adopted by Jupiter provides the following, with modifications to the Original Plan Amendment noted: Neighborhood Protection The Town of Jupiter recognizes the need for a traffic circulation system that serves the needs of its residents, provides roadways with the least amount of congestion, promotes business and economic development of the community, and protects existing and proposed residential neighborhoods. The construction of new roads or expansion of existing roads should be accomplished in a manner that minimizes any impacts on the Town’s residential neighborhoods. The Town can minimize the impacts of road construction or expansion through such means as : diverting the flow of through traffic away from streets that serve existing neighborhoods, discouraging future thoroughfare or traffic circulation plans which encourage nonresidential or non- resident use of neighborhood streets, requiring that the functional classification of local roadways may not be changed without amending the Comprehensive Plan, and coordinating/cooperating with all appropriate governmental agencies to ensure new or expanded roadways will not adversely affect the Town’s residential areas. With respect to intergovernmental coordination/cooperation, the Town should work closely with both Palm Beach County and Martin County adjacent local governments and any other appropriate governmental entities to ensure that future transportation planning, roadway construction, and development approvals are supportive of efforts to protect and enhance existing and proposed residential neighborhoods. GOAL 4: To accommodate a variety of regional, intercounty, intracounty, and local travel demands in ways that minimize traffic congestion; encourage pedestrians; reduce the overall amount of travel for daily goods and services; and protect the integrity of existing neighborhoods. Objective 4.1: The Town of Jupiter will continue to study and evaluate whether or not an additional intercounty or intracounty transportation corridor for the area west of Loxahatchee River Road, east of I-95, and north of Indiantown Road is desired or needed in this geographic area; and assuming such a corridor is necessary, shall coordinate/cooperate with adjacent local governments and any other appropriate and governmental entities to identify the appropriate thoroughfare route of that corridor. Policy 4.1.1 The Town of Jupiter, in coordination/cooperation with Palm Beach County, Martin County, the Village of Tequesta, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and other appropriate governmental agencies, shall encourage and participate in long range transportation planning efforts that protect existing or proposed residential neighborhoods by locating new or expanded roadways in a manner that does not adversely affect such neighborhoods. Policy 4.1.2 The Town of Jupiter, to the extent possible, shall encourage the construction of new roads and the expansion of existing roads in a manner that protects existing or proposed residential neighborhoods by diverting or eliminating the flow of non-resident or through traffic, and requiring that the functional classification of local roadways may not be changed without amending the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 4.1.3 The Town Shall rReview planning and other data generated by the Town’s western interchange study and other appropriate sources to determine whether or not the County’s western corridor should be aligned with Island Way or other right-of- way in Martin County west of The Shores. Policy 4.1.4 The Town shall coordinate/cooperate with adjacent local governments and affected neighborhoods to further the Town’s policy to discourage any connection of Northfork Drive to Island Way or to any other road or roadway corridor located in Martin County that cannot be justified based on demonstrated need. ‘Demonstrated need’ is determined by coordinated analysis of the existing and planned road network with and without the connection, maintenance of level of service standards over the planning timeframe, and consideration of other traffic, roadway and land use alternatives, balanced along with the Town’s policy to protect residential neighborhoods. Coordination/cooperation may include mediation. Policy 4.1.5 In the event an additional intercounty or intracounty roadway serving Palm Beach County and Martin County via Island Way or other right-of- way is necessary, this corridor’s route shall be aligned to a north-south route west of the present Jupiter Community Park. Policy 4.1.6 If an additional intercounty or intracounty corridor is constructed, the Town shall coordinate/cooperate with adjacent local governments to not align the corridor so as to not adversely impact existing residential neighborhoods. Policy 4.1.7 The Town shall coordinate/cooperate with Palm Beach County, Martin County, the Village of Tequesta, and any other affected governmental agencies to establish an overall vehicular circulation plan, including any additional north-south transportation corridors needed to alleviate existing or anticipated traffic congestion. Policy 4.1.8 The Town shall coordinate/cooperate with Martin County, Palm Beach County, the Village of Tequesta, and any other affected governmental agencies to discourage the creation of intercounty or intracounty traffic circulation patterns that provide ingress and egress to residential or nonresidential developments in Martin County solely through the Town of Jupiter and Palm Beach County. [Additions indicated by underlined words and eliminated words struck through]. Pursuant to the Remedial Amendment, Jupiter essentially modified the Original Plan Amendment, found to be not in compliance by the Department, by: Changing the term “cooperate” to “coordinate/cooperate”; Indicating that Jupiter will involve “adjacent local governments and any other appropriate governmental entities” in its efforts; and Modifying Policy 4.1.4 (formerly numbered Policy 1.4.4) as follows: The Town shall coordinate/cooperate with adjacent local governments and affected neighborhoods to further the Town’s policy to discourage any connection of Northfork Drive to Island Way or to any other road or roadway corridor located in Martin County that cannot be justified with respect to based on demonstrated need. ‘Demonstrated need’ is determined by coordinated analysis of the existing and planned road network with and without the connection, maintenance of level of service standards over the planning timeframe, and consideration of other traffic, roadway and land use alternatives, balanced along with the Town’s policy to protect residential neighborhoods. Coordination/cooperation may include mediation. [Additions indicated by underlined words and eliminated words struck through]. The Adequacy of Data and Analysis. The data and analysis submitted by Jupiter in support of the Original Plan Amendment and found to be inadequate by the Department consisted of the Joint Traffic Study and Jupiter’s analysis thereof. No additional data and analysis has been provided by Jupiter. The Department, while disagreeing with Jupiter and Intervenor as to the relevancy and adequacy of the Joint Traffic Study, suggested at hearing that the Remedial Amendment is supported by data contained in the Plan. In particular, the Land Use Intergovernmental Coordination and Traffic Circulation Elements. The stated purpose of the Joint Traffic Study was to: . . . determine existing traffic patterns crossing the Martin/Palm Beach Count Line in the vicinity of Jupiter and Tequesta for todays travel and to make a reasonable projection of probable future traffic patterns when the area reaches build-out that the engineering professionals of the affected jurisdictions could agree upon. Elected officials would then be able to look at regional roadway issues and needs required to meet the projected levels of traffic. Joint Exhibit 7 The Joint Traffic Study was a collaborative effort of the local governments involved in these proceedings. In order to understand whether the Joint Traffic Study provides data and analysis which can be relied upon to support the Remedial Amendment, it must be understood what portion of the Remedial Amendment is at issue. The Remedial Amendment reflects several policy choices of Jupiter. For example, the Remedial Amendment reflects the policy of Jupiter of protecting the character of its neighborhoods. See, e.g., Objective 4.1. The data of the Plan is sufficient to support this broad, general policy. Policy 4.1.4 of the Remedial Amendment also reflects a policy choice of Jupiter that the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way, or any similar connection, should be discouraged. This policy choice reflects a conclusion that such a connection is not necessary or, if necessary, the detriments to the surrounding neighborhoods of the Northfork/Longshore Corridor will outweigh the need for the connection. Neither the Plan nor the Joint Traffic Study support these conclusions. Policy 4.1.5 and 4.1.8 also go beyond establishing a general policy of protecting neighborhoods. Policy 4.1.5 reflects a policy of Jupiter that if there is a need to connect Island Way with a corridor in Palm Beach County it should be accomplished through construction of a Western Corridor. Policy 4.1.8 reflects a policy that no ingress and egress should be allowed through any neighborhood in Jupiter. While a general policy of protecting neighborhoods may be supported by the Plan, the application of Policies 4.1.4, 4.1.5 and 4.1.8 requires more than a mere assumption that the connection of Northfork Drive to Island Way will result in detriments that outweigh any benefits of the connection, that the Western Corridor is THE method of connection between Martin and County and Palm Beach County which should be pursued, and that under no circumstances should ingress and egress be allowed through any neighborhood. Such conclusions require more. Jupiter has recognized that plan provisions which control land use and development activities and those addressing specified minimum criterion of the law must be supported by the highest level of data and analysis. Jupiter suggests, however, that the Remedial Amendment is merely an “aspirational provision, one which projects more subjective community-desired-outcomes and is not intended to satisfy one of the mandated minimum criteria areas”. Jupiter argues, therefore, that the Remedial Amendment “demands a less rigorous foundation in data and analysis.” While Jupiter may be correct that the policy choice of the Remedial Amendment concerning general neighborhood protection is aspirational, it is not correct as to the other policy choices concerning the need for the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way, the need for the Western Corridor or the need to prevent all ingress and egress road in Jupiter. Those policy choices directly reflect land use and development activities as they relate to transportation. Simply assuming that the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way and that ANY road providing ingress and egress through a Jupiter neighborhood will be harmful to the neighborhoods that border the Northfork/Longshore Corridor ignores the possibility that the connection could be beneficial to other areas of Jupiter due to reductions in traffic in those areas. It also ignores the possibility that steps can be taken to minimize any detrimental impacts. It also ignores the possibility that there may be an insignificant increase in traffic as a result of the connection and/or that the impacts of any increase in traffic may be eliminated through design modifications of the Corridor. Likewise, Jupiter’s assumption that the only way of resolving the need for north-south connector roads between Martin and Palm Beach Counties or within north Palm Beach County should only be accomplished by a Western Corridor ignores other solutions that will better serve the residents of the areas involved. Jupiter’s assumption or intuition also fails to take into account the impact of its policy choices on other governments. For example, the impact on the residents surrounding Church Street if the connection is not made is reflected in the Joint Traffic Study. Jupiter’s assumption allows it to ignore this possible impact. The Joint Traffic Study is deficient for a number of reasons. First, the Joint Traffic Study does not reflect current conditions in the area studied. At the time the Original Plan Amendment was submitted, Jupiter also submitted a land use change for a 183 acre tract of land known as the Weiser Tract. The submittal reflected a change of 158 acres from industrial use to residential use. The Joint Traffic Study had been prepared a year and a half prior to this proposed change and, therefore, does not take this significant modification into account. The modification of the land use of the Weiser Tract could have a significant impact on traffic and, therefore, the conclusions and information contained in the Joint Traffic Study. Because of the land use modification not reflected in the Joint Traffic Study, the Joint Traffic Study cannot be said to constitute the best available data to support the Remedial Amendment. The Joint Traffic Study purports to project or forecast traffic volumes in the area as a result of the build-out of land uses reflected in the comprehensive plans of the local governments involved in the study. In fact, however, the data gathered for the study was data on development and zoning, not projected plan build-out. The evidence failed to prove that development and zoning reflects projected plan build-out. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the data contained in the Joint Traffic Study was collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. The methodology utilized for the Joint Traffic Study also does not support its use as data and analysis to support Jupiter’s policy choice concerning the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way. The Joint Traffic Study was not intended to provide a formal transportation analysis of alternatives from which one of the local governments involved would elect one alternative. While the Joint Traffic Study may utilize a methodology used by traffic planning engineers on an everyday basis, the evidence failed to prove that traffic planning engineers would use it for the purpose that Jupiter has used it. For Jupiter to rely on the Joint Traffic Study to conclude that the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way is not necessary and that the policies reflected in Policies 4.1.5 and 4.1.8 are necessary, it would be necessary for the Joint Traffic Study to include an alternative analysis or the data to perform such an analysis. It does not. Such an analysis should compare construction costs and environmental impacts of alternative traffic alignments. Such a study should also include short and long-range projections for traffic conditions, land use data, level-of-service standards and functional classifications for area roads, or existing level-of- service standards. Jupiter’s analysis of the Joint Traffic Study is also inadequate. The Joint Traffic Study discusses four different scenarios. Jupiter, however, elected to only utilize two of those scenarios. As to the existing Plan, the portions of the Plan relied upon by Jupiter and the Department, while recognizing the importance of the coordination of issues related to roads and traffic safety, do not support the specific objective of the Remedial Amendment to discourage the connection of specific roads, the location of the Western Corridor or the prevention of roads of ingress and egress in Jupiter. Nor do the provisions of Plan which provide an inventory of pertinent agencies and provide that the agencies should be contacted and worked with on common problems. While data and analysis support the other provisions of the Remedial Amendment, data and analysis does not support Policies 4.1.4, 4.1.5 and 4.1.8. Conditional Policy or Self-Amending Policy. Policy 4.1.4 provides that the general policy of Jupiter is (in cooperation/coordination with other agencies) to discourage the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way UNLESS there is a “demonstrated need” for the connection. It has been suggested by Petitioners that this provision creates a self- amending policy--a policy that may change without the need to follow the amendment procedures required in the Act. In support of this position Petitioners have argued that if demonstrated need is found by Jupiter to have been shown, the policy to discourage automatically ceases to be the policy of Jupiter even though the amendment process of the Act has not been fulfilled--that the policy of discouragement becomes “inoperative”. A self-amending policy is one which changes as the result of an event that is unknown and unspecified at the time the policy is adopted. Typically, a self-amending policy is one that provides that certain things will occur if some other event, such as the amendment of a law by another jurisdiction, takes place. For example, if the policy is “X” unless law “Z” is modified, then the policy will be whatever law “Z” requires even though law “Z” may be amended in the future. Because it cannot be known how law “Z” may be amended in the future, policy “X’s” reliance on law “Z” is self-amending.. Obviously, that is not the type of policy at issue in this proceedings. A conditional policy, which Jupiter suggests Policy contains, is one which may change if certain clear contingencies or alternatives, described at the time of adoption of the Policy, are provided. For example, a policy that allows a general residential density but provides that, if land is to be used for affordable housing, a different density will be allowed, is an example of a conditional policy. The policy at issue in this proceeding is not a self- amending policy. It sets out a clear general policy: to discourage the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way. And it sets out specific conditions for changing that policy: the showing of demonstrated need, which is further defined by the policy. The evidence failed to prove that Policy 4.1.4 is a self-amending policy. Unbridled Discretion? Petitioners have suggested that Policy 4.1.4, in particular, the portion of the Policy providing for the determination of whether there is a “demonstrated need” for a connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way, vests unbridled discretion in Jupiter. In support of this position, Petitioners have pointed to the failure of Policy 4.1.4 to specify the following: a) the specific office or person that will make the determination; and (b) the specific time(s) when the determination will be made. Petitioners have also argued that the Policy fails to specify sufficient objective criteria to be considered in determining whether there has been a showing of demonstrated need and argue that Jupiter is not capable of performing the balancing of need against its policy to protect its neighborhoods. As to the lack of specificity as to which office or person will perform the needs analysis, a reading of the Plan, with the Remedial Amendment, makes it clear that the ultimate responsibility rests with Jupiter and its governing body. Whether the alleged need is raised from within or without Jupiter need not be specified. The Act does not require more than that Jupiter be ultimately responsible. As to when the analysis will or may be performed, the lack of specificity would not be fatal in and of itself if the policy to discourage were supported by data and analysis. If the general policy to discourage the connection were supported by data and analysis, then the needs analysis could be performed at any time. Having failed to provide data and analysis to support the general policy, the lack of specificity as to when an initial determination of need will take place is contrary to the Act. The evidence also failed to prove that the definition of “demonstrated need” is inadequate. The “demonstrated needs” analysis specified by the Policy is similar to the type of analysis that would be required for Jupiter to make the policy choices concerning the lack of need for the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way. Had it performed such an analysis before adopting the Remedial Amendment, there might have been sufficient data and analysis to support its policy choices. Finally, the question of whether Jupiter is capable of carrying out the balancing of demonstrated need and its neighborhood protection policy involves the application of the Policy. This is not an issue of whether the language of the Policy is “in compliance” with the Act. The Use of the Term “Discourage”. Evidence was presented by Petitioners to suggest that the term “discourage” as used in Policy 4.1.4 is vague and, therefore, violative of the Act. The term “discourage” is not a technical term. Therefore, it should be given its plain ordinary dictionary meaning. Whether the term, as defined in its ordinary sense, is so vague as to be violative of the Act must be determined in the context of the policy in which it is used. In this matter, the lack of specificity as to what specific actions Jupiter will take to “discourage” the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way does not render Policy 4.1.4 so vague as to be violative of the Act. What is violative of the Act is the policy choice of Jupiter to “discourage” the connection without first adequately considering whether this particular connection should be discouraged. Inconsistency with Palm Beach County’s Thoroughfare Identification Map. Palm Beach County’s charter gives it control over the levels of service allowable on certain collector and arterial roads within the county, even if they are within the boundary of municipalities. This provision allows Palm Beach County to comprehensively plan a countywide transportation network. Palm Beach County’s responsibility for a comprehensive countywide transportation network is reflected in its comprehensive plan. In particular the plan includes a concurrency management system and a thoroughfare identification map (hereinafter referred to as the “TIM”). The TIM reflects the collector and arterial roads over which Palm Beach County exercises transportation authority. The purpose of the TIM is to identify right-of-way required to carry out Palm Beach County’s provision of a countywide transportation network. The TIM has reflected the connection of Northfork Drive and Island Way as part of the countywide transportation network since 1989. Jupiter suggests that the use of the word “discourage” rather than the more absolute language contained in the Original Plan Amendment, eliminates any inconsistency with the TIM. Jupiter has also suggested that all the TIM does is identify right-of-way and the Remedial Amendment does nothing to eliminate that right-of-way. Jupiter’s position concerning the TIM is rejected. The use of the term “discourage” does not eliminate the fact that Jupiter is taking the position in its Plan that Northfork Drive and Island Way should not be connected. Until demonstrated otherwise, this is the stated policy of Jupiter. The TIM on the other hand reflects a decision of Palm Beach County that the connection may be necessary for the benefit of the countywide transportation network. The narrow view of the purpose of the TIM, that it only is intended to protect right-of-way, ignores the broader purpose for which right-of-way is being protected: to insure that Palm Beach County can carry out its countywide transportation network plans. Policy 4.1.4 is inconsistent with that purpose. Impact of the Remedial Amendment on Petitioners. The Petitioners are all local governments that adjoin Jupiter. Palm Beach County has responsibility in the area at issue to insure that the road system in Palm Beach County is in place to accommodate growth as it occurs, to have an appropriately planned system that will handle growth and to maintain the system once it is in place. The Remedial Amendment eliminates one of the possible corridors which Palm Beach County has identified as necessary to carry out its responsibility. It also specifies the location of the Western Corridor as a means of solving north-south corridor needs and eliminates alternatives involving ingress and egress to Jupiter. The use of the Northfork/Longshore Corridor connected to Island Way could be accomplished at a cost of approximately $200,000.00 plus the cost of acquiring the right-of-way. The cost of constructing the Western Corridor, which has been suggested as an alternative to the connection with Island Way of Northfork Drive would be 6 to 7 million dollars. There would be other costs that may be incurred to raise the levels of service on other roads if Northfork Drive is connected with Island Way. The impact of the Remedial Amendment on Palm Beach County could result in delays in its ability to meet its responsibility to meet the needs for improvements in the road system of the area due to increased growth. The Remedial Amendment could also eliminate consideration of the connection and cause the need to pursue more costly alternative road corridors necessary to meet growth in the area. The Remedial Amendment could have the same impact on Martin County and Tequesta. Without the connection the area involved will have an additional traffic burden what will fall on the roads of Martin County, Palm Beach County and Tequesta, requiring the improvement of facilities in those jurisdiction. The evidence, while not proving the specific costs, does suggest that there will be a need for the road system of the area to handle greater and greater amounts of traffic due to increased growth in the future. The road system of the area will have to be improved to meet that increased traffic. The Remedial Amendment eliminates an alternative method of handling the increased traffic and, therefore, requires that the increased traffic be handled by infrastructure which will have to be provided by one or more of the Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order finding Policies 4.1.4, 4.1.5 and 4.1.8 not in compliance with the Act. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 24th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Bradshaw, Esquire Bryant, Miller & Olive 201 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara Alterman Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County Attorney’s Office Post Office Box 1989 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Scott G. Hawkins, Esquire Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Gary K. Oldehoff Assistant County Attorney Martin County 2401 S.E. Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 33408 Sherry A. Spiers Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas J. Baird, Esquire 11891 U. S. Highway 1 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Thomas G. Pelham, Esquire David Russ, Esquire APGAR & PELHAM 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bob Bradley Executive Office of the Governor Administration Commission 1601 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning Administration Commission 2105 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Gregory Smith, Esquire Administration Commission 209 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
