Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/02/2005 R June 2, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NAPLES, FLORIDA JUNE 2, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Kenneth Abernathy Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer Robert Murray Mark Strain Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Don Scott, Transportation Planning Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney George Varnadoe, Esq., Counsel for New Town Development Page 1 _.- ,---"",._,_._<. ----.-..-^ "..,- June 2, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'd like to call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Good morning. We'll call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order. And first I would ask you to rise with me for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was united in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. We'll start with our roll call. Miss Caron. MS. CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Bud is here. Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Here. Mr. Chairman, if you get tech to -- our screens are not on over here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And Mr.Murray. MR. MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And if someone from the Information Technology Department could help Mr. Schiffer's screen, Mr. Murray's screen. Mr. Schiffer's screen is not on. MR. STRAIN: Push that button, does that work? MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, but it puts you into stuff where you need passwords. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Someone from IT will help us out here. Moving on to addenda to the agenda. Planning commissioners, Page 2 __._"."_.M~ - -"""'-"'--~~'--~" June 2, 2005 we are starting in our -- thank you, sir. Our agenda is starting out with the New Town Development. A development of regional impact that should be quite extensive and time consuming. I would first like to suggest that we begin with the end in mind, and we consider that sometime around 4:30 we look at the next logical break in time and shoot for a 5:00 p.m. recess, ifnecessary, to be continued at another time. In other words, I don't want to start this morning expecting that we're going to be going until 10:00 or midnight, or something foolish like that. Do we have a consensus with that, that shooting towards a 5 :00 recess and move on at that point, should it become necessary? MR. ADELSTEIN: So moved. MR. STRAIN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Strain. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Further, I think that it might be appropriate to consider items subsequent to the town of Ave Maria, that is items C, D, E, F and G, that we should consider continuing those items to our next regularly scheduled agenda. And rather than a hardship on those petitioners, I'm really proposing that as a favor to Page 3 .-.-- June 2, 2005 them, because I really don't think it's very good of us to beat those people up and make them stay here all day, a day-and-a-half -- who knows how long -- for some indeterminate amount of time. And then I would also project that the Planning Commission would not be in its most alert and congenial state of mind to do justice to those petitioners. Is there a thought of consideration that that would be the appropriate thing to ask those petitioners to continue to our next regularly scheduled meeting? MR. ABERNATHY: What about tomorrow? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, I think we still will be on Ave Maria tomorrow. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, that's a good reason why not. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So, is there a thought or consideration that that's something we should do, or do we want those petitioners to just hang out for a day or two or three until we get to them? MR. SCHIFFER I thought they were coming in at 12: 00 today, aren't they? CHAIRMAN BUDD: And they might be here -- my point is, they could be here 12:00 tomorrow still. And I think it would be reasonable for them, if we would give them a time certain, because I have no idea -- as we all know, the Ave Maria town is the largest most complex and impactful project, come to my knowledge, in over 10 years before Planning Commission, and it's going to be a big deal. It's going to take a lot of time. And I don't think we're going to be in a state of mind to do subsequent petitioners justice. MR. MURRA Y: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. MR. ADELSTEIN: Why don't we wait with the idea of, at noon we could check in and we find out exactly what the situation is. They could come back until 1: 00, or whether we want to start sooner. Let's determine how long it's going to take after we've had a couple of hours of this. MR. ABERNATHY: The disadvantage of that is, you have Page 4 -_.'--"~- June 2, 2005 people sitting around here waiting for that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White. Perhaps the commission could consider, since it seems quite likely that you will be continuing today's efforts until tomorrow, that you continue all of those subsequent matters to tomorrow at a time certain. Let's say, for example, 1 :00 p.m. That should give you sufficient time today and tomorrow morning, if you need it. The only other alternative, of course, would be to have them be at a time certain, let's say, for example, 11 :00 a.m. And that way you minimize your down time, if there would be any. I just think all that we need to have, both for the staff and the applicants, is some type of certainty as to when next they'll have their opportunity to be heard. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think that's a good point. And my suggestion would be that that certainty be provided on Thursday, June 16th at 8:30 a.m. MR. ABERNATHY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further discussion. Hold on. I think it would be appropriate before we take action on that motion, are there any petitioners here today on Items C, D, E, F and G that have any objection to their item being continued to time and date certain June 16th, 8:30 a.m, regular Planning Commission meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: I see none. So without objection from those petitioners, we'll call the question. MR. STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, if they aren't here because at our last meeting we told them they wouldn't be heard before 1 :00, that's the only caveat we may have, is that someone may show up between now and one. I don't know how that affects the process. MR. WHITE: You may want to poll all of those petitioners at this point in time and see if they are present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Will everybody who is not here please Page 5 ,.-. June 2, 2005 stand up. I think it's reasonable. I think it's fair. I'd like to call the question on the motion. We're doing it to their benefit, and we can second-guess ourselves forever. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bellows, could you see that some notice is posted on the door for those people that may come late and don't know that their item has been continued to June 16th? Thank you. Another suggestion I have for consideration in our agenda this morning, it is our habit, and not a legal requirement, but it is our habit to first hear from the petitioner, and the petitioner's team, then followed by the staff and relevant staff, department presentations, interspersed with questions, and then after both presentations are complete, extensive questions. And then before closing the public hearing, members of the public are asked to speak. I'm expecting that members of the public won't have their opportunity at the microphone until late this afternoon or tomorrow, and there's a lot of people from the public that deserve and need to be heard. And I would suggest that we move the public speakers portion, which is a habit, not a legal requirement, but we move that portion up earlier into the agenda. Perhaps I'm considering after the petitioner's presentation, prior to the Page 6 -----' .-- June 2, 2005 staff presentation, just to allow those people to have their say and then to go on about their lives and move on. MR. ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I think that's well within your discretion. And rather than having a motion and locking you into one thing or another, do what you want, when you want. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's what I want to do, so thank you. And then, last item that I wanted to bring up is, I was reminded by the court reporter at the last Planning Commission meeting, very politely and professionally, that I needed to do a better job at my job, and that is recognizing one speaker at a time. And with that in mind, I know -- I feel certain that there will be questions asked by each Planning Commissioner at great length. Out of respect for one another, rather than interrupt another questioner, what I'd like to do is recognize, at that time the Planning Commission starts asking their questions, that the Planning Commissioner who has the floor, be allowed to complete their question, and if another Planning Commissioner wants to follow up, please get the chair's attention. I'll make every attempt. I'm always looking back and forth. And then at a convenient break in the conversation, we'll bring you in for a follow-up so that we each respect one another and everybody has their chance. Not to preclude any opportunity to ask a question or to limit those questions in any part, but just to keep ourselves in order. And then the last thing I would like to do, requesting of the Planning Commissioners is, as we try to take apart this complex project, is we try to focus our questions in an area at a time. For example, transportation as an issue, and try to stay as much as possible on that topic. And then, for example, the economic model, and try to work on that, because I think it's quite clear that there's a number of expert witnesses here, and if we bounce all over the board, it's going to be a game of Twister out here in the side aisle as people are moving around and trying to move back and forth. Again, that's -- and I'm not suggesting we limit that you missed your chance at transportation, you Page 7 ~--'-'-'-"-----'-'- June 2, 2005 can't ask that question. Not at all. Just saying that while we're on that topic, let's try to stay focused on it and we can exhaust that issue and move on to the next one. So I'll ask your help in that matter. Are there any other addenda to the agenda this morning? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, are there any planned Planning Commission absences? MR. ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, prior to the events of this morning, I had planned to be absent on the 16th. It seems like that was pretty smart, but I didn't realize it at the time, but I won't be here on the 16th. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Any others? Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: I won't be able to come tomorrow. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And that brings up a good point, it's not a scheduled meeting, but it's quite possible that we may continue until tomorrow. Is there any expectations that we will not have a quorum? Mr. Midney cannot make it. Are there others? So we should appear to be in no danger ofa quorum for tomorrow. Approval of minutes. The April 21, 2005 regular meeting. Do we have a motion to approve those minutes. MR. ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein. Do we have a second? MR. MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Murray. Discussion. All those in favor say aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. ABERNATHY: Aye. Page 8 .---- June 2, 2005 MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MINDY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Board of County Commission report in recaps. Ray, do you have a report for us? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I do. The Board's last meeting they heard the Ross variance. That was the variance with the sea wall and the screen enclosure encroachment. The first motion for denial failed. The motion for approval was adopted and the variance was granted. The other variance was for the landscaping at the Golden Gate import request, and that was denied by the board. And the Collier County EOC, part of the Bembridge amendment was also denied by the board. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And the EOC, as I understand it, is -- was asked by a member of the majority to be reconsidered. Is that a date certain? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. And I'm not sure of the date. MR. ABERNATHY: It's going to be a motion to reconsider. CHAIRMAN BUDD: At a future County Commission meeting will be a motion to reconsider at that time, if that's where it stands. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. STRAIN: Ray, that second one you mentioned, it wasn't a landscaping issue. It had to do with Don Carlos at Kings Lake and they wanted to have units up against the water. Is that the one you're talking about? MR. BELLOWS: Let's see. MR. STRAIN: You said Golden Gate Export. That's the company that I think owned that little piece of property in Kings Lake. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, you're correct. My copy is missing a little print there. Page 9 --,.-. --"- June 2, 2005 MR. STRAIN: The rain out there probably washed it out. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I'm just curious. So that is the right one. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And before we start on our first agenda item, going through my notes, I realized the Collier County Planning Commission meeting on Thursday June 16th will be held in conference room 609-610 at the Community and Development Environmental Division on Horseshoe Drive. And Mr. Bellows, I think you mentioned to me that should this meeting be continued until tomorrow, it would also be at the Horseshoe Drive location; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. So with that, we will start with our first petition. That is agenda item 8A, that is DRI-2004-AR-6293. And I think we should hear at the same time, but take separate action -- let me see -- on the related petition -- I believe it's related. Yes. SRA-2004-AR-6896 for the stewardship receiving area for the town of Ave Maria. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Disclosures by Planning Commissioners. On my own part, I met with petitioner's agents, Mr. Varnadoe and Mr. Reynolds and discussed this project. Other disclosures? Starting at the end, Mr. Murray. MR. MURRA Y: Yes, I've often talked with Mr. Blake Gable because he was in Leadership Collier with me, but we never went into Page 10 -----.- - 0""--- June 2, 2005 any great detail. I also met with Mr. Varnadoe and had a preliminary discussion regarding papers and questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: None. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: I met with Mr. Gable. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: None. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I mentioned mine. Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: I had quite a few. I met with various members of various heads of the departments of Collier County Staff, various employees of Collier County Staff. There are about nine or ten people in the meeting that occurred Tuesday. Ray Bellows had requested a meeting and had the people brought to the meeting. We went over a lot of issues involving the entire packages in front of me here today. I also met with Anita Jenkins, representative of the applicant. We went over a lot of issues that were pertaining to a couple of these documents today. I met with Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy, and there's been-- almost everybody you bump into on the street, that recognizes that I was on this panel, has talked to me about A ve Maria. I don't even know their names, but there's been a lot of discussion and I can't recall everybody. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: I spoke with Mr. Varnadoe, but we mutually agreed not to talk about Ave Maria, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, you've got another disclosure? MR. STRAIN: Yeah, I've got -- I just noticed Hank and Russ are in the audience, and I did have a meeting with them to try to understand better the FlAM and how it works. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti. MR. VIGLIOTTI: None. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. Page 11 ._----~~. ".--.-- June 2, 2005 MS. CARON: None. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That concludes our disclosures. We'll move on with the petitioner's presentation. MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. George Varnadoe of the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson. I'm here today representing Ave Maria Development LLP. We're here today, as you know, requesting stewardship receiving area destination for the town of Ave Maria and approval of a DRI development order for the town. I'm pleased and proud to be part of the team as bringing this to you today. I think it's a very exciting venture, and I think it's going to make a lot of positive impacts on our county. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank your county staff for their coordination with us on this proj ect. We've had countless meetings with the staff trying to work out differences and issues, and I think that has resulted in a very clean staff report that you have before you today. As you noted, we have available various experts in the variety of disciplines to answer your questions in their respective areas of expertise. However, I'm only going to have two main presenters to lay out the project for you, and then we'll be responsive to your questions. Alan Reynolds, the CEO of Wilson, Miller, is going to give you a brief overview of the rural land stewardship area overlay program as contained in the growth management plan. Tell you how the stewardship sending areas and stewardship receiving area for Ave Maria implement the RLSA overlay, tell you the status of other approvals, and how the town of Ave Maria meets a specific criteria of the RLSA overlay specifically relating to destinations of SRAs. Anita Jenkins, the planning manager of Wilson, Miller will describe the town plan, including the university. Before they get started, I have one housekeeping matter. We have records from providers that I want to put on the record, including Collier County EMS, the Sheriff, Immokalee Fire Department, Collier County School Page 12 ------ June 2, 2005 District, Immokalee Disposal, and Ave Maria Utility regarding their ability to provide services in their respective disciplines to the town. I'll give a copy to the court reporter, and I'll have a copy that you might pass around. MR. STRAIN: Do you have copies that we can keep with our packages? MR. V ARNADOE: I'll have some more made. MR. STRAIN: I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. V ARNADOE: So I think, what I'd like to do is get Alan Reynolds up here and get right into the presentation and maybe we can, hopefully bring this to conclusion today. Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. My name is Alan Reynolds. I am the CEO of Wilson, Miller but I'm really speaking to you today in my capacity as a planning consultant. I've been doing planning work here in Southwest Florida starting my 27th year. And I can tell you that, as George has said, this has been an extremely interesting and exciting process that we've been through over the past five or six years, going back to the creation of the stewardship plan and now the culmination of that with this first town that you're going to be considering today. I too want to thank staff because we have actually been, over those five years, been working closely with your staff, both when the stewardship plan was being first put together. And they have done an extraordinary job every step of the way of being very diligent about, not only making sure that the public's interest is being protected, but that this process would go smoothly and that we would work together to resolve issues as we went. And as George said, this project is coming to you today with a staff report that -- I think as you have gone through it, you will see that we have tried to take every issue and come up with a solution for that issue so that we could come before you today with something that is complete and thorough. I also want to thank the members of this Planning Commission Page 13 -.-.-----,- .--- June 2, 2005 because you have received several pounds' worth of documentation on this project because we're dealing both with a stewardship receiving area and a development of regional impact application. And that's an enormous amount of material to try to go through, and you all are volunteers in doing this for the good of the public. And I just want to thank you starting out that you have taken the time to serve the public in this way. We're going to do our part to maybe try to get us out of here before 4:00. We'll see how it goes, but we -- we're not going to give you an hour long presentation, an hour-and-a-half. What we're going to go do is try to hit the highlights of the project and then really save the time for addressing specific questions that you might have. But we did think it was important that we start out with a presentation and just back up a little bit to 1999, particularly for the benefit of the Planning Commissioners that weren't, and did not live through the adoption process for the stewardship program just to make sure that there's a context for this application. So I'll spend a few minutes doing that and then talk about how the mechanics of this program work generically. Okay. And then we'll talk a little bit about how this particular new town of Ave Maria has used the system as it was set up in order to bring this petition forward today. So, we go back to 1999, and for those of you that recall, that was a fairly contentious time in Collier County history with respect to planning issues. There were a lot of things that were happening. There was a whole public dialogue about density reduction. There were issues of how to deal with natural resource protection. And without getting into a lot of history, the county found itself having the comprehensive plan challenged for failing to have lived up to certain things that it said it was going to do, particularly for natural resource protection. That, in turn, led to the governor and cabinet issuing a final order that said that the county would take the time to put together a long range plan for the eastern part of Collier County. Page 14 ____.__._n_ _..--- June 2, 2005 That final order set up two planning studies. One that dealt with the fringe area, the rural fringe, and the second that dealt with the eastern lands, which is the -- now become the rural land stewardship area. So when that was set up, then these processes took about two-and-a-halfyears to create a plan. And the county for the eastern lands put together a committee of volunteer citizens, a stakeholder committee, and they spent the better part of two years essentially meeting and looking at information, data, alternatives and came up with a -- really a first in the State of Florida -- an innovative new way of dealing with long range land use issues in the eastern part of the county. That committee met 33 times, and at the end of the process they had come up with a consensus, and a unanimous consensus, to put in place what is now called the rural land stewardship overlay. There were countless people that were involved in putting this together, but I think the significant thing about it was that you had -- you have all of the interest groups represented. You had people who are advocates for the environment. You had advocates for agriculture. You had property rights advocates. You had people who were interested in Immokalee's future, economic development. And at the end of the day, they all came to the County Commission And said, we all support a rural land stewardship plan because we think that that does the best job of balancing all of the interests of the Collier County citizens. And because of that, the Board of County Commission, at their hearing, adopted that overlay unanimously. It went on to the Department of Community Affairs. They found it in compliance with state law. So now the overlay was set up for this some 200,000 acres of land in the northeast part of Collier County. But, of course, that's just the starting point because without implementing regulations and codes, there's no way to utilize that system. So, it took about a year after that to put in place the land development code section that dealt with all of the various things that had to be done in order to implement stewardship. Page 15 --...-.---- June 2, 2005 Then there was a petition, and it was the first one that was filed under the program, to initiate the initial phase of this town of Ave Maria. And many of you were here on the Planning Commission, I think, last year when we brought that plan forward. And what that dealt with was the first phase of the university and the first phase of the town. And so the Planning Commission, and then the Board of County Commissioners approved a stewardship receiving area, and a preliminary development agreement was approved to actually allow this process of creating this town to commence before the full town and the full DRI would be reviewed. So that has been going on really for about a year implementing that particular approval. I also just want to say before we get past this is that Collier County has now found itself in a -- at least in the eyes of people around the state -- in an enviable position. Because I will tell you, I've spent the better part of the last three years traveling around the state talking to people about the similar kinds of issues that Collier County faced in dealing with the rural lands. And almost all of these areas now are looking at Collier County rural land stewardship program as a potential model to use in their counties. The program has enjoyed widespread support across the state. The Department of Community Affairs is fully in support of rural land stewardship. A lot of interest groups that deal with growth management, environmental advocacy, all support the concept, because it does some things that other programs simply can't do with respect to long range planning. So, Collier County now has become -- looked at candidly as a model that may be used around the state for dealing with these same kinds of issues in other parts of the state, and I thought it would be worthwhile to note that today. So, let me again go back to the big picture. And the big picture was that the final order said, and the stewardship plan created the way to address three big issues. The first was agriculture. Finding a way that we could support agriculture over the long term and protect areas Page 16 ..---_... June 2, 2005 that served an agricultural function. The second was to protect wetlands and uplands habitat. And Collier County had a -- really the basis for the challenge was we had a natural resource protection area program in our plan, but it had never been fully implemented. And so, the second piece of the puzzle was how do we protect natural resources going forth. And then the third was how do we deal with expected growth and do that in a way that is more sustainable, that provides greater economic diversification and, frankly, creates a better way of accommodating future growth than what would happen if we did nothing. And the do nothing scenario was basically to take and continue the process of carving rural lands into 5-acre, 10-acre ranchetts, which is happening across the state right now in places that don't have a stewardship program. And essentially, converting the rural countryside to very low density scrawl. So that was the task that needed to be addressed. And let me talk a little bit about how this overlay program addresses those three issues. The first thing to understand is that the stewardship program is an overlay. And so, it is an opt-in process. Nobody that lives or owns property in this area is obligated to participate in this program. They choose to participate, or if they don't choose to participate, they utilize the existing rights that they have on their property with the existing regulations. So it's an incentive base process that's opted in. The second thing is that there are four basic classifications of land in the rural land stewardship area. The flow way stewardship areas are areas that are significant because of their wetlands, their hydrology, their interconnectedness in terms of water flow, and basically the Camp Keais Strand and the Acalachoochi -- the Camp Keais as being the blue area on the west and the Acalachoochi on the east of this slide. Those are the two major flow ways in the rural land study area. The second classification are habitat stewardship areas. And Page 1 7 _._-~--- 0' __.___ June 2, 2005 those are areas that are predominantly native vegetation, and their function is more from the standpoint of habitat for listed species than it is wetlands. So you have a mix of wetlands and uplands, but these are areas that were designated because of their value for accommodating listed species. The third classification, which are the light blue areas on the map, are water retention areas. And water retention areas, that have been used historically and are used today, to provide storm water treatment, storm water storage, and conveyance today for agriculture. And ultimately for both agriculture and to support new towns and new villages that are created. The fourth designation is open, which is everything else in the stewardship area. And the open areas are the pink areas. Those are areas that had a low score on the natural resource value, to the extent that they didn't perform any of the functions listed above. They were predominantly areas of active agriculture, citrus row crops, improved pastures, things of that type that had very low resource value. So, those are the basic classifications. We're going to be talking about those a little bit today, so I thought it was good just to kind of refresh everybody's memory. And we're dealing with an area of about 195,000 acres of land. It's about 300 square miles. So, briefly, the mechanics of how this program works. For anybody that wants to participate, that we start with the sending areas, which are the flow ways, the habitats, and the water retention areas. Those were mapped when the overlay was set up based on their natural resource value. And the -- these are the areas that are going to address the issue of protecting natural resources. They become sending areas when a property owner petitions the county to have that designation formally placed on their property. Right now it's just a classification on a map. So, the property owner has to come to the county and petition for a sending area application to have that actually designated as a sending area. And when they do that, they -- two Page 18 ---.'...... ~._-- June 2, 2005 things happen. One, the property owner agrees to eliminate certain uses that they're otherwise allowed to have on their property. And secondly, they agree in perpetuity to maintain the property in whatever condition it's going to be brought down to, if you will. And in return for doing that, through a mathematical formula that's based on natural resource values and other factors, they can receive credits, stewardship credits. And those stewardship credits then can be transferred, sold, or used by the property owner to entitle areas that will become new towns or new villages or hamlets, or areas that will accommodate population growth. The -- there is a whole process for setting up a sending area. You, as a planning commission, do not see the sending area portion of this equation because it goes directly to the Board of County Commissioners because, essentially, it's a matter of documenting the environmental conditions on the property, and then the mathematics of it. So it's a -- it's not really a -- what I would call a discretionary process, and that's since beyond the fact documenting what's on the ground, but the property owner has the right, if they need the criteria under the plan, to have their lands designated as sending areas, and that happens by an action of the Board of County Commissioners. When they do that, there is a easement that's put on the property, a stewardship easement, that dictates the uses that they have retained on the property, any management things that they will be obligated to do to keep that property in its condition. Now, I've talked about sending areas being selected because of high natural resource value. There's a very involved GIS modeling that was done. I'm not going to get into that today because it's probably not really germane to what you all are considering, but I think it's just important to know that this is a data-driven scientific process that both classifies and ultimately designates these stewardship sending areas. There are about 89,000 acres of flow ways, habitat areas, and Page 19 -----............... .n___ June 2, 2005 water retention areas within that 300 square mile area, so it's a little less than half of the total area. And this picture at the bottom, that's just a good -- that's a good picture of showing what is a flow way stewardship area. And you can see the wetland, vegetative cover and the water and the open pastures. So that's the -- those are the sending areas. And we'll talk a little later about the sending areas specific to Ave Maria, but again, I just want to cover sort of the generic part of the discussion. The other classification are the stewardship receiving areas. And, of course, that is one of the two applications that you are all considering this morning. The receiving areas are where we're going to have development taking place in the rural lands area. Those developments can be in the form of towns, villages, hamlets, or there's a fourth classification called a compact rural development. But basically the prototypes for each type of community are set forth in the comprehensive plan. These receiving area sites have not been predetermined in the plan. Anything that's colored pink on that overlay map is potentially eligible to be a receiving area because it's already been determined to have a very low natural resource value and, therefore, it is a potential candidate for a receiving area. But there are criteria then that have to be applied project by project and community by community to make sure that that particular location does, in fact, meet the criteria under the plan. There are also a whole range of characteristics that have been spelled out in the comprehensive plan and the land development code that really talks about how these communities are intended to be planned, designed, and performed. And we've talked about the idea of trying to create more compact development, mixed used development, development that is self-sufficient, communities that have the full range of things that are required to support their population. So, the characteristics for these communities and Ave Maria is a good Page 20 .---'"'.-.-.... -""-'- June 2, 2005 example of that, is that anything that is necessary for the day-to-day functions of the people that live in that town, can be provided within the town. And that's the general concept. There's also a whole set of design standards. And you probably noted in the SRA document that there's a big section that deals with very specific design standards as to how the town is going to be set up. And the reason for that is because the form of development that we're dealing with here does not fit within the traditional subdivision type of approach that is used in other places. Generally speaking, that has been a way of segregating land uses, of keeping land uses away from each other, using buffers to separate them, and having essentially an area for residential, then an area for commercial, and an area for this, and those things are not interconnected. And when you try to create a town that in fact mixes uses, you really have to deal with design issues, and you have to create standards that enable things to be more interconnected. Streets to be narrower, on street parking, vertical integration of mixed uses. So those are all the kinds of things that have to be set forth. The landscaping requirements are all different when you're dealing with a mixed use town of this type then with traditional subdivisions. Receiving areas require credits. In order for anybody to get approval to build a new town or a new village, they must acquire credits proportionate to the footprint of development of that town or village. And through a whole process, the county established, as part of the comprehensive plan, that eight credits would be required for every acre of a new town or a village. Those acres then can have any type of use that's allowed under the plan. So it's -- it may be an acre of residential, it could be an acre of open space, it could be an acre of a mixed used town center. It doesn't change because what you're allowing and entitling under the system is a footprint of development that can support a mixed use community. Page 21 -,_.~ --------....- June 2, 2005 Public benefit uses are exempt from consuming credits. And the reason for that policy was to encourage the inclusion of certain public benefit uses in towns and villages and essentially to create an incentive for them to be accommodated as part of the planning process. Ave Maria is a great example of that because the footprint of the university does not consume stewardship credits, because it's deemed to be a public benefit use under your comprehensive plan. So, I think, you know, the relationship is clear. If there are going to be new towns and villages out here, they must acquire credits. That means the property owner is going to have to opt into the program and designate sending areas. By designating those sending areas, they're going to protect natural resources, and they're going to be keeping agriculture uses on that property. So now we've balanced the equation between the protection natural resources Ag and accommodating development. The stewardship sending areas are typically fairly large size pieces. And you can see on this map -- this is an aerial photo of the entire 300 square miles. And the areas outlined in red, are the stewardship sending areas that are being used to generate credits for the town of Ave Maria. So, summing up really on how this program works protecting natural resources, which has been one of the linchpins of this process, works because, if people use this system, which we believe they will because it's an incentive based system, we will have protected approximately 90,000 acres of natural resource areas out in the eastern part of Collier County. And we will have done that without a public acquisition cost. And that's a lot of land to protect without having to buy it and use taxpayer funds to purchase it. And you can do the math and just kind ofproject what it might cost. But I will tell you, if 140 square miles is probably more than any single county in the State of Florida has ever protected through any kind of an acquisition program. So it's a significant thing that's being accomplished. Page 22 ----.---.-.-.."..- m.__ June 2, 2005 So now we'll kind of get back to the Ave Maria and how that works. Again, the sending areas for Ave Maria -- and now on this map you can see them in green. There are actually six different sending areas that are going to be used to generate the credits. Up here, this is 846, east of Immokalee, and there are three sending areas. Actually sending area three, four and five are the numbers. And those comprise a significant part of the Acalachoochi slew. And those were selected because that's a very intensive area that's used for panther habitat. And there have been a lot of issues that others can talk about in terms of panther mortality, and so we're protecting an area that will provide both a flow way function and a habitat function. There are two sending areas that are located in the Camp Keais stands that are immediately west of Ave Maria. They're located here and here. And those were selected because they are the closest sending areas under the ownership of the Barron Collier Company to the town of Ave Maria, and they will start to put together, essentially, the puzzle of protecting the entire Camp Keais strand. And then the sixth one is this large green area down at the very south end of the map. That's about 9,900 acres. That is sending area number six. It encompasses and shares a common border with the panther preserve that's immediately to the south. When that stewardship area is put in place, the effective size of the panther preserve will have increased by one-third over its existing size today. This one has not been approved yet. That is going to the County Commission on June 14th. The other sending areas have been approved and the credits are available. Now the receiving area for Ave Maria. 5,000, a little over 5,000 acres located west of Camp Keais Road, which is this road right here. Oil Well Road to the south. The Camp Keais strand to the west and south of Immokalee. It's about five miles from the town of Ave Maria up to the town of Immokalee. This site meets all of the criteria that are set forth in the comprehensive plan. All of the criteria that is set forth Page 23 ~ ,,~--,,'----'--'-"" June 2, 2005 in the land development code for being suitable to become a receiving area and a new town. And the SRA document that you have goes through lots of detail to show how it meets all of those various requirements. And we don't plan on going back through all that with you today, unless you have questions. But we'll hit the basic pieces of it. The other thing to note here is that in addition to a comprehensive plan being in place, and a land development code process being in place, there's actually the zoning overlay is in place. So, today you're not looking at a rezoning application, you're looking at a designation of this property. So the zoning was set up as an overlay at the time that the land development code was put in place. And there are a lot of reasons for that, but one thing to keep in mind is that this is a process that if it's going to work, property owners need to know that if they choose to participate in it, they can have some expectation that they will get the favorable result that's called for under the plan. So this is not, what I would call, the pure discretionary process that sometimes takes place when you're trying to change land use classifications. There are very specific sets of criteria that are set up. And if an applicant comes to the county and they can document that they meet those criteria, and the county staff agrees, and ultimately the County Commission and the Planning Commission agree, that designation takes place. That's very important because, if we don't create a system that gives property owners some level of comfort that if they enter into this, they will, in fact, be approved, then I will tell you, the rural land stewardship program will stop working and we will be back to where we were before we put this overlay in place. Now let's talk a little bit about the basis for a receiving area. There are really four key things that have to be found in order to approve a receiving area. First is that the plan that is put together is consistent with the policies of the stewardship overlay. And that's the Page 24 --.--.........,-.-.-.- - June 2, 2005 same test that virtually every petition that you look at has to meet. You can't be inconsistent with your comprehensive plan. And the staff report has done really an outstanding job of going through policy by policy, the ones that are most applicable and showing how this particular application has met all of those required policies. The second is that there's a set of what are called suitability criteria. And those are more specific things that have to be documented on each site in order to be able to be approved as a receiving area. And we'll talk about those in a second. Compliance with the overlay district in the LDC. There's both a procedural part of that and a standards part of it. Of Course the procedure is what we're going through right now, and the standards are spelled out in some detail. They really mirror what's in the comprehensive plan but get into a lot more detail about how you deal with the specific policies in the plan. And the fourth thing is you have to document that you can acquire or produce sufficient credits to get your receiving area entitled. And there is a -- that's all set forth in the code. There is a period of time after an SRA approval that you can produce the credits. But essentially as part of the application, you have to show that you will be able to acquire sufficient credits. And there's a whole section in the application of credit reconciliation that goes through all of those numbers. Let's talk a little bit about the suitability criteria. Again, first is consistency. That's always the starting point with any kind of an application. The second criteria is that you have to show that you've got enough land in order to accommodate the uses that you're proposing. The reason that's important is because, depending on the scale of the new community, if it's a town or if it's a village, there are certain uses that you have to have inside your town. Certain ratios and square footages and certain amounts of open space. So you have to prove that you, in fact, have enough land to provide all of the things Page 25 ~,_.__..~,_._.""o____n._ _, d --._--- June 2, 2005 that have to be provided to meet that criteria. The third and the fourth are kind of companions. When the overlay was put in place, there was this natural resource scoring of the entire study area. And that scoring is based on a whole series of natural resource characteristics. So every acre of the stewardship area has an index score associated with it. When you come in to do a receiving area, and when you come in to do a sending area, you have to go back and refine, if you will, the documentation as to what you are index is. And if you have property that scores greater than 1.2, it was determined by policy that that has natural resource value, even if it's not in a sending area that should be given special treatment. And the special treatment is that those areas in a receiving area have to be kept as open space, in natural vegetated conditions. However, if it's 1.2 or less, there is no obligation because it's been determined under the scoring system and by policy that that represents land that may have some natural resource value, but it's not of significance in order to restrict the use of that land. There's also a requirement that you must have a minimum of 35 percent open space within a receiving area. There are buffering requirements if your receiving area is adjacent to either a flow way or a habitat area. And there is a requirement that you either have direct access to a county arterial or collector, or that you build and provide a connection to one of those roadways. So those are the key suitability criteria. The pieces of the submittal, and now we're again talking about the receiving area. There really are five sections to that application. The first is that natural resource index assessment. Basically what that does is provide documentation as to the NRI scores on the property so that you can determine whether the 1.2 criteria has been met. The second is an impact assessment report. The impact assessment goes through infrastructure. You know, and the requirement here is that the infrastructure that's needed to support that town is provided by the Page 26 -"-...,.-.-- June 2, 2005 community developer or the county and will be in place and able to support the population that's going to be accommodated. The third piece is the economic assessment or the physical impact assessment model. That is based on a requirement in the comprehensive plan that says that when the county is approving a new town or a new village, it must be demonstrated that the revenues generated from that new community will exceed, meet or exceed, the cost to the local government to provide services. So there's a very involved modeling that's done in order to demonstrate that test. And Dr. Hank Fishbein, who is part of our team, actually created the model as a statewide effort, and it's being used now in this particular application by Collier County. The fourth piece is a credit agreement. That goes through the balancing of the numbers with respect to how many credits are required for your receiving area, and can they be produced. And then the fifth piece is the town plan. And the town plan gets into some of the design details of the town or village. We've talked about the natural resource index assessment. Bottom line is that we don't have any land within the boundaries of this stewardship receiving area that exceed 1.2 on a score. So, that test has been met and that's been well documented in the application. Second, the impact assessment report. We have provided extensive documentation and coordination with public service providers in the county to show that the infrastructure that's going to be required to serve this town will be in place, either being provided by the developer or by the county or by some other service provider. We will have a private utility system for the water and waste water, and we have a special district that's going to be in place that will handle the long term maintenance of the infrastructure along with property owner associations. There's been lots and lots of analysis and documentation about the transportation element of this project. I'm going to talk in a second Page 27 "..,__.....~___._.. ,n"__ ..-..-- June 2, 2005 about once piece of that, but suffice it to say that all of the folks that have reviewed both the SRA application and the DRI application have come to the conclusion that, with certain conditions and with certain commitments being provided, that we will have adequate transportation capacity over the long term to support this new town. And one piece of that is, that the right of way that's going to be necessary to widen Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Road is being provided by Ave Maria in places where it joins the property. And that's being done without an impact fee credit, but even though they would be entitled to one. I'm just going to talk a second about something that happened recently. And there are others that can get into the details of this, if you'd like, on the team, but there was an agreement entered into between Collier County and Ave Maria and it was approved just last month. And that agreement is what I would call a public private partnership. It basically puts obligations on both Ave Maria and the County to do certain things to advance the construction of some very important road improvements in the eastern part of Collier County. The things that the Ave Maria side are doing is, first of all, donating the right of way, which we talked before about 13 miles of right of way. The estimated value of that is about $7.6 million. And I think your staff would tell you that the cost of right-of-way acquisition now is becoming the single fastest growing element of producing roads. You know, road construction costs are going up, but right-of-way acquisition costs are going up at an extremely fast rate. So that's a significant contribution. The second is -- and it relates to that because you have to have land to support roadways for water management. And A ve Maria has committed to providing water management infrastructure for the widening of the roads, Oil Well and Camp Keais Road, and the value of that is $1.8 million. We'll also be donating fill for 18 miles of road construction. That's valued at about $11 million. All of those Page 28 ---,----", "._'M_~._ . ,~--",,--"--""'" June 2, 2005 contributions, although they would be eligible for impact fee credits, the Ave Maria side is not seeking impact fee credits. We get something else instead, which I'll talk about in a second. In addition, Ave Maria is going to pay to advance the design of permitting for Oil Well Road. And as, I think everybody here knows, the linkage between the urban area of Collier County and Immokalee is a huge issue for residents in Naples and residents in Immokalee and everybody that travels those roadways. F or some period of time the county has been focused on trying to widen Immokalee Road. As a result of the stewardship process, the alternative of looking at Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Road was considered as a, perhaps a faster and more direct way, to accomplish the objective near term. It doesn't replace the widening of Immokalee Road, but it would appear to be a more direct and easier to permit improvement. So what's happening essentially is that that is going to be accelerated as part of this developer contribution agreement with the county, and Ave Maria is going to be paying for the design, permitting, and construction portion of that $6 million. They're also committing to pay a certain number of impact fees in advance to cover the initiation of the construction process, which will help essentially with the cash flow. And, of course, at the end of the day when all is said and done, we also have to pay all of our impact fees. And for this project, it's estimated to be just under one hundred million dollars worth of impact fees. That produces a lot of capital to build necessary infrastructure, and, so when people have questioned well, how can you accommodate growth in the eastern part of Collier County, because the county has never programmed significant improvements out there, it's because the county never had a reliable source of funds through impact fees because there was no development taking place. So in this case we now have a source of money that is going to work as the county intends it through its impact fee process. Page 29 .__..._-,,--,- '" June 2, 2005 What's the county going to do? The county is going to require the additional right of way that's needed that's not being contributed by Ave Maria. They're going to undertake and complete the construction of the road in a timely fashion. And then they're going to reserve capacity for the town of Ave Maria for concurrency purposes. And that way Ave Maria has a reliable way of making the front end investment and all the infrastructure they're putting in, and they will be able to have assurance that they can continue to complete their project, and the county will then be reserving capacity to make sure that that's taking place. So that's a very overview description of that agreement. And Jeff Perry and George Varnadoe both can delve into the details if you have questions. The economic assessment report, I'm sure there will be some questions about that because its something new that the county has not applied previously to projects but applies out in the stewardship area. We talked about the fact that there is a model that's used to make this analysis. Bottom line is that we have demonstrated that we meet the criteria that's set forth in the plan. You look at the physical neutrality of the community at five year intervals. So, we have to show that in the fifth year and in the tenth year of this project, and that particular year the revenues generated exceed the cost to provide services to the county and government. And it does have to be reanalyzed every five years. So, even though we have proven with our assessments that we do meet that test and, frankly, meet them by a fairly wide margin, five years from now it will have to be reanalyzed to show that it, in fact, it is performing the way that we intended. Just to give you some order of magnitudes, in the year 2011, the excess in that year is somewhere between 5.9 and $8 million, depending on which assumptions you use in the model. And in 2016, it's 11.4 to $17.6 million. Accumulative impact, however, because the project continues to have positive yearly surpluses that ranges somewhere between 60 and Page 30 -.----.-^ "....-,.----_."...0 June 2, 2005 100 million dollars over that ten-year build out. And so, it's not that this community is just sort of squeaking by and on a neutrality test, there is significant excess revenues. And if you think about it, it makes sense because, if the community is self providing most of its infrastructure, maintaining its infrastructure, paying its impact fees, and generating value throughout ad valorem taxes, they are doing so in greater proportion than the typical home in Collier County would, because of all those self provided services. So the combination of that and the values of the real estate that are created, create a positive impact to the county. MR. ABERNATHY: Alan? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: Can you refresh my memory, if I once knew it, what the rationale for this requirement is? I mean, Mediterra doesn't have to do it, and whatever. MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. It has been used -- the philosophy is this, if you have property that's in an urban area, then there is an expectation of public services being provided to that property. And that's sort of the essence of each county's plan. So then it becomes a matter of how do you balance the provision of those services to the cost. When you get into rural areas, there's a lower expectation of urban level services. So the theory here is that, if you're going to create a population in a rural area, that there will have to be some assurance that the services of that population is going to demand, can be provided without being to the detriment of the rest of the county. So I think that's the underlying philosophy behind it. It's interesting, there's actually been a case in Lee County, the Brooks community. And Lee County had to go through a physical analysis similar to this because, even though it was surrounded by urban land, it was actually a rural destination. So, under a different program, they had to go through the same kind of analysis. And, in fact, Dr. Fishbein did that analysis. And that's probably a good model Page 31 --,---~-,..~".,...,.- < ---- June 2, 2005 because that proj ect has proven to have well exceeded its physical surplus test as well over time. Let me skip over this. This is just -- all I'll point out to you is, there have been three different modelings of this town. There was the modeling that was submitted by the applicant, and that showed that we met the test. Then the county staff in reviewing this questioned some of the perimeters that were inputs to the model and suggested some different perimeters. So those were put into the model and it was rerun, and it produced a positive impact, albeit different numbers. And then there was a third analysis that was done, because it was pointed out that those two were conservative because they did not include an escalator for impact fees that are built into your ordinance. So there was a third run. When you put the impact fee inflator in and, as you would expect, because the other two were conservative, that also produced a greater positive physical impact. So, it may be questioned. You know, there may be questions about each perimeter, but if you can run this model and change the perimeters using different assumptions and still produce such a significant positive result, it should give everybody comfort that this community can meet that test. And frankly, nobody is more concerned about it then the developers. Because if they make the investment to build this community, and five years when the analysis is rerun, and if it's not positive, they're obligated to make up the difference. So, the reason that the model runs have been very conservatively run is to have assurance, frankly, on the community developer's side, that they're going to meet the test. Because nobody wants to be writing, you know, huge checks halfway through the project that were unanticipated. So, I will just characterize this as I think a very conservative analysis. And I think without question looking at it several different ways, we've met the test. The last thing I'm going to talk about is the credit agreement. And without, again, getting into lots and lots of numbers, there -- if Page 32 . ------.-., June 2, 2005 you recall before, there are incentives built into this program that allows some uses to not consume credits. The public benefit uses. In this community, there are basically three big ones. The university as a public benefit use, there are other schools, public school sites that are being provided, and then there is open space that's in excess of what's required, the 35 percent. And when you do all the math on that, you find that out of our 5,000-acre town, we have a demand for 28,658 credits. And all the details are contained in your applications. And the six SSAs that are either approved or pending, produce sufficient credits to cover that 28,658 credit demand for this town. Your staff has looked at all the numbers, has looked at the policies, and has agreed that the methodology and the math is correct. So that's what we're obligated to acquire. I'm sorry, there was one more thing. I just wanted very briefly to talk about the DRI process because we've spent most of our time talking about the SRA. But the rural lands program anticipated that because of the scale, particularly of towns, they would probably also have to go through the DRI process. And there are state guidelines that are established that if you exceed those guidelines, you have to go through a DRI. And for those of you that may not be real familiar with the DRI process, it's -- it is a statutory program that involves, not just the local government, but the Regional Planning Council, and the State Department of Community Affairs, and a whole bunch of agencies all start reviewing your proj ect to make sure that you are -- that you have something that's well planned and that is addressing impacts to citizens of more than one county. So the DRI process is -- covers a lot of ground, but it's narrowly focused on those issues that could have the potential impact of citizens in more than one county. And the way that that's determined is, first of all, if you exceed the statutory threshold it sort of -- you're presumed to create some impact, and then you actually go through a very detailed analysis, and the Regional Planning Council looks at it. They identify the things that Page 33 "~~_'_'_''''.'''_''_._'~___''_"___'''__'.'_'____'_'.''.'~_"..u_.,.._._ June 2, 2005 they think are regionally significant. They make a recommendation to the county. The county then adopts the development order for the DRI, not the regional planning council of the state, but the region and the state look at that development order to make sure that that has properly addressed the issues that were raised by the region as part of their review in the state. So, that's the very kind of short description of the DRI process. What's pertinent here is that the DRI and the SRA have been going simultaneously through this process. So, as your staff has been looking at the SRA, they've also had this other three-inch document of all the other DRI related -- and there's -- there are areas that are overlap, and then there are areas that are different. Because the DRI process has very specific methodologies that have to be followed in the document, and they're not the same as your SRA. So if you look through those carefully, you're going to see that, for example, things like transportation, the analysis has a different test to meet because there's a state rule on transportation. They have the state rule on affordable housing. So, the tests, if you will, are different and, therefore, sometimes the analysis and the result are different, but at the end of the day, both of those have to be approved on this project in order to allow the development to proceed. We started this process about a year ago with this main DRI application. And what I want to point out is that there is an agreement in advance before you file your application as to what methodologies you're going to use. There's a whole process now that essentially means that the county, the region, the applicant, all have to agree on the way in which the proj ect is going to be analyzed before you actually submit your application. And what that does is cut down on sort of the second-guessing of well, what if you did it this way, and what if we change this perimeter. Everybody agrees on that in advance and that helps, frankly, get everybody on the same page with respect to the study. Page 34 ---- June 2, 2005 In our case, we have been through the process. The project has been found sufficient for review by the county and the region. We've been to the Regional Planning Council. We have gotten their recommendation of approval. We have gotten things that they think are important, incorporated them into the development order that will be executed by the DRI. And then if and when the county commission approves the DRI, they will look at it again to make sure that they're comfortable with the result. So, because of the DRI process, that was the reason why we actually went through this SRA and PDA process last year and had the first phase of the application, because we needed to get the university started. So that PDA was approved. And in March of 2004, The county approved a receiving area application. And since that time, we have submitted and been approved for all the site development plans, all the permits are in place, and we have started construction of the university. If you go out there today, you can see that there's earth work being performed, the backbone infrastructure, and the first phase of the university. So, things are happening out at Ave Maria as a result of that preliminary development approval that was granted by everybody that needed to. So right now I'm going to ask Anita to come up, and she's going to walk through the town plan very quickly and that will wrap up our presentation, and then we'll be available for questions from the Planning Commission I think after the public speakers. MR. STRAIN: Alan. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: Before you leave, will it be possible for me to get an electronic version of this presentation you're making, and maybe you can provide it to Ray Bellows so I can get a copy of it? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Absolutely. Page 35 ---,. --'- June 2, 2005 MS. JENKINS: Good morning. I'm Anita Jenkins. I'm a planning manager with Wilson, Miller and I'd just like to reiterate what Al and George have both said, thanking particularly the county staff. They have been through a thorough review of this application and in constant contact with us weekly to address issues that have been raised, develop solutions to make sure that this is the best plan that we could possibly come up in concert. And also Amy Taylor is here in the audience today and has went through a significant review with us as well to make sure that we are planning for and accommodating the school-related students that will be part of the town. And we'd just like to recognize our coordination and recognize Amy's efforts with this project as well. In talking about the town plan. The town plan is a significant element of the SRA document. And it sets forth the master plan which you see before you, the uses that will be included in the town, and also the development standards. The town plan, as you see, includes this area here is the university. it includes several town core and several town centers and several different neighborhood types within the town. We also have the public school that is located here and a series of community parks within the town. First and foremost the university. This is the impetus for Ave Maria, and the reason and the privilege and the honor that I have to be here today. With over 15 years of planning experience in the State of Florida, I can tell you that this is a career project for me. It's a significant project for Collier County. And my experience in planning in Florida, I have been involved in many projects. But the majority of projects and planning in Florida has been done on single use projects. This project, being a mixed use project and self-sufficient project with this public benefit of a university, is an honor to be involved with and very exciting for Collier County. It is designed to be just over 950 acres and to accommodate 6,000 students. It will provide for both academics, student housing, and Page 36 ----~_~_-_--__'.----H-- June 2, 2005 sports and recreation. There is also an ancillary use with the university to provide for students that will be associated with the residents of the town, the faculty, and staff of the University and that will be the K through 12 school which is located in the town, in the neighborhood, so the students can walk to the school. Next the town core and town centers. The town core, again, located right in the center of town. And we have three town centers. The first here. This is what we referred to as town center two. And then down here is town center three. These town centers are specifically designed to be dispersed throughout the town. So you can keep in close connection with the different types of neighborhoods to be able to walk, to drive, to bicycle, to get to these town centers in a variety of ways. Each town center will be somewhat unique in the services and goods that relates to it. The town center that is -- this is really what we refer to as downtown. Those goods and services and entertainment will be designed to be somewhat different than the goods and services that will be located in town center two and then in town center three. But each one of these town centers combine together will provide for the daily goods and services that are needed to really function as a town. It will provide employment, shopping, entertainment, the civic and institutional uses, wellness, as well as residential will also be a component of each of these town centers. The neighborhoods. We've. kind of popped out the neighborhoods for you to see clearly here on this graphic. There is a variety of neighborhoods, a variety of housing, and a variety of lifesty les that will be accommodated in this town. And this is also something that is unique, I think to planning in Florida, that generally the lifestyles and housing types are somewhat the same in a lot of neighborhoods and plans that I have worked on before. This community provides for a variety. To accommodate the different lifestyles that are needed for a town to function in a proper manner. Page 37 _,.._~, m... June 2, 2005 They are pedestrian oriented. And we'll look at a pedestrian map later on. But each one of these neighborhoods is designed to accommodate specifically the pedestrian through a series of sidewalks and trail systems. There are pocket parks that are located in these different neighborhoods to accommodate, you know, different types of passive recreation. And there are also opportunities for neighborhood goods and services to be located. So it would be the small ice cream shop maybe by the pocket park or things like that so you can -- there's different opportunities to continue to walk and to be close to the different goods and services. The neighborhoods will also contain work force housing. And this work force housing will be integrated throughout the neighborhood. It is not going to be concentrated in anyone area, but integrated in different styles and manners throughout each of the neighborhoods. The commitments that have been made so far are the on-site commitments of200 very low income units, 700 low income units, with half of those being owner occupied, and then 1,000 moderate-priced units. There has also been an off-site commitment made to Habitat for Humanity for 28 acres, and that will accommodate up to 150 units as well. The public schools that we referred to will be located in the neighborhoods so close to the students so they can walk and bicycle to school. There has been a donation of over 47 acres to accommodate both the elementary and the middle school in the town of Ave Maria. And we are also in negotiations with the school district to find the best location for a high school that would be preferred to be off site on this, so it would serve more than just the students of Ave Maria, but the school district could take advantage of serving a greater area for the public high school. Ave Maria has a series of parks and open space contained within it. There's a wide range of both the pocket parks that we talked about, Page 38 -------"~"--,-~-~"--. ---- June 2, 2005 and also community parks. There are three different community parks that are designed to accommodate the residents of Ave Maria, and the different lifestyles being very active parks and also some passive parks as well. There is a community trail system that will link these parks together, and over 1800 acres of open space that's made up of these parks and lakes and other open spaces. Both of the parks and the open space exceeds the requirements that are in the land development code. The binder of all of these different areas, the university, the town centers, and the neighborhood are bound together to be pedestrian oriented as required by the plan. And what you see before you is a pedestrian network map that is included in the town plan. And the yellow lines indicate all the streets that will have sidewalks on both sides of the street. And one thing that is really terrific that the developer has designed into this project is, not only the sidewalks, but also the street trees. Because we see a lot of sidewalks that are not very functional because of the design of them. The pedestrian facility design has a lot of detail worked into it to accommodate and encourage pedestrian movement. So, the addition of the street trees and the buffers and the shades will encourage more pedestrian activity in this town. So you have those sidewalk systems that are on both sides of these local streets. As well as the green lines here are a different type of facility on some more collector roads, as you would categorize them. Those being sidewalks also on both sides, but a wider sidewalk on both sides of the street to accommodate more activity. There's also, within the entry road here, a pathway system. And then the trail system that we spoke about is the orange line that goes around the community here and links back into the neighborhoods and also goes all the way up here, and this is where the public school is so children will be able to use this trail system to get to the schools, as well as the local streets providing access to all of the different town centers, the schools, the parks and throughout the neighborhoods. That's the brief overview of the town plan. And we'll Page 39 ~'..~_.,_.,- June 2, 2005 be here to answer any questions you have about this specific design. But in summarizing this plan and this new town, for Collier County, being designed in a self-sustaining manner is unique to Collier County, and as a professional planner, I can tell you it's unique to the State of Florida. And it's a lesson learned in planning that we have to design better, to plan better, to provide the goods and services necessary to support the residents of the communities that we're designing, and that's what we're doing with Ave Maria. As well as stewardship that we're working with in this eastern Collier County area in protecting natural resources and agriculture. And those three cornerstones are really new planning in the State of Florida for our rural areas of protecting natural resources, accommodating agriculture, and planning in a more self-sustaining manner for these new towns is something that's very exciting for Collier County and for us to be involved with. And with that, that's the summary of our presentation today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions after the public comment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Right now we're going to take a 10 minute break. We'll come back and start with the registered public speakers. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll call the Planning Commission back to order and resume with our agenda with the registered public speakers. Ray, do we have some registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: We have four registered speakers. The first one is Fred Thomas followed by Nancy Payton. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Thomas. Either one. MR. THOMAS: Good morning. Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Fred N. Thomas, Jr. I served on this planning commission for 11 years. Some of you remember me. I also served on the Eastern Land Development Committee that came up Page 40 -..--- June 2, 2005 with the whole program of this stewardship program. I'm presently serving as the chairman of the Immokalee Master Plan Envisioning Committee. When we first saw this project, we had a little bit of a concern, but working with the developers -- working with the developers, and they working very closely with the leaders in the community and the various organizations in Immokalee, they've reoriented their exposure to the rest of the community. And there's a connectivity that makes it possible for a lot of great things to happen between Ave Maria and the town of Immokalee, especially with Immokalee looking to become the industrial heart of Collier County. We got the Planning Commission because of all this. We got the County Commissioners to expand the thrust of the master plan envisioning committee to look at the four censor tracts so we can, into the future, begin to look at connectivity to any potential receiving areas so that there's a -- we serve as a major hub to a very large area. And this has worked out. And the developers of Ave Maria have changed their orientation, as I've said, so there's a major connectivity and major things happening. Some of the good things that have come out of that, for example is, to the four laning of 858. The need to have 858 expanded -- let me back up and say it another way. When I came here this morning, I didn't come down 846. And I wish we changed the name of it from Immokalee Road to just 846. Most people think because it's Immokalee Road, it helps Immokaleeans get into town. We come down 29 and get on -- the reason why I don't come down 846, I don't want to deal with Immokalee Road between Randal and Wilson. Excuse me. That road is designed for Orangetree. But by widening 858, it gives us good access, good access for the folks down Orangetree going east and west, and then they're going to straighten out Camp Keais Road, which comes straight into Immokalee. Major nice connector. And they're donating a lot of money -- land and money to make that Page 41 "----..---- ... June 2, 2005 happen. So, we see this as a real model for the rest of the state and doing this kind of process to get these kinds of projects. Remember, we made some major mistakes over the years in various parts of this county, which required the use of automobiles. You have a new town being developed now, and that's going to be a walkable community. Not even a walkable community, they've got a system of bike trails and natural trails that make it a nice place for a Sunday ride on your bicycle. And they're close enough to Immokalee where it makes sense to make that kind of a trip if you want to. So, we need to look at it closely, but understand there's a lot of effort and time that's going on. A lot of communication with the folks in Immokalee to make this thing work. And it'll be a major magnet to help us develop the industrial engine that can be a major source of income for the whole county. So anything you can do to speed up this process would be appreciated by the folks in Immokalee. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Nancy Payton followed by John DePrisco. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. And I'd like to speak briefly to the significant gains that A ve Maria brings for nature in that part of Collier County, and specifically for the critically endangered Florida panther. 846 east of Immokalee runs through the middle of three stewardship areas. This is an area that is a segment of road that is the deadliest roads for panthers in their entire occupied habitat. At least seven panthers have been killed on this stretch of road. And there was no action that could be taken to prevent that until lands on either side of the road were in a conservation or similar type status. And we've achieved that through the stewardship program in the Ave Maria town. It's a significant gain for panthers. Very important because the Old Calloway Caloochisloo is an important north/south corridor connecting conservation lands. Page 42 . ...~ .,... -.-." .." ---,.--.-- June 2, 2005 We also secure an almost 10,000-acre buffer to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. And if you recall, it is an II-mile boundary with the panther refuge. And it is a significant habitat for panthers. Roy McBride, who is the panther tracker for the Wildlife Commission talks about the bazillian telemetry hits that are found in this particular area. So it is a significant gain for panthers and the restoration that will be happening there to increase the prey base and also benefit other listed species. There is a crossing that will be built on Oil Well Road at Camp Keais strand. Camp Keais is another important north! south corridor that's being enhanced through this program. And it's far better to have a safe four or six-lane road than a deadly two-lane road. So we see that the widening of Oil Well Road is a benefit to wildlife. And the wildlife crossing will be designed, not just for panthers, but for all wildlife that needs to cross that road at that particular area. Many of these lanes in the Camp Keais area that are being designated stewardship for Ave Maria are on the crew acquisition list within the boundaries of the crew acquisition area. And these are areas that for years there has been an effort to have them protected. We found away, and a successful way, through the stewardship program. Lastly, I'd like to inform you that Florida Wildlife Federation has submitted detailed comments to the Corps of Engineers and the US Fish & Wildlife Service supporting Ave Maria's application for 404 permitting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: John DePrisco followed by Tammie Nemecek. MR. DePRISCO: Good morning. My name is John DePrisco. I'm president of the Waterways of Naples Homeowners' Association, a community of over 420 homes situated on Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road. Weare the beneficiaries of growth, but we are also concerned with growth. Most importantly -- Page 43 _,_"..".~,,," _"'__""_'_."_._._'m.,__,.._",_,_",,,_, '. ---'- June 2, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, Mr. DePrisco. MR. DePRISCO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Were you sworn in at the beginning of this program? MR. DePRISCO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. I thought you had come in late. And also, for any others in the audience that might have come in late that intend to speak, if you would please, any others that might want to make presentations, please stand. If you'd raise your right hand, I'm going to swear you in so your testimony is appropriate. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. DePRISCO: We are concerned with growth, especially traffic and roads. The availability of commercial and retail use, jobs, and the use of utilities in the area. The way this plan is presented, they address all of these in a positive way. Number one, for traffic -- and I fight this traffic every day coming down Oil Well, Randal and Wilson. We exceed the 80/20 percentage split of traffic going 80 percent one way in the morning, 80 percent coming the other way. We believe this town will reverse that traffic flow so it's beneficial. Also, they're providing for expansion of several of the roads, particularly Oil Well, which is very important to us. Another key part is that they're providing commercial and retail space, which again means our residents don't have to travel westbound to get into town to get their essential goods and services. Another component of that is that jobs will be available down Oil Well instead of coming into town. And lastly, they're self-sufficient in terms of utilities, water, sewer, schools, parks. All of those impacts are occurring in a positive way. They're meeting those needs and these are things that our residents can enjoy and benefit from. Page 44 - _ ".~M.__. June 2, 2005 So, just very briefly, you know, the residents appreciate this type of plan in the way that it's addressing their needs and what they want out of district five. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. I apologize for having interrupted your presentation. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker, registered speaker is Tammie Nemecek. MS. NEMECEK: Good morning. Tammie Nemecek, President of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. I'd like to express my support for this project and explain to you a little bit about the economic impact that this proj ect is making on our efforts and within Collier County and in our efforts to create new jobs within Collier County. Within the community itself, the EDC focuses onjob creation within targeted industries. Aviation manufacturing, technology companies, biomedical types of companies. And our continuing effort to find places for these companies to go within the coastal area is diminishing and diminishing quickly. And our opportunities to open up this town of Ave Maria with potential job sites and employment sites for the companies that we're trying to attract here that will help diversify the economy create a better tax base of businesses within our community. But not only that, within this geographic region of Ave Marie, but it brings validity to our efforts to bring businesses out to the Immokalee community. Years ago when we tried to bring businesses out to Immokalee, and specifically the Florida Trade Port, the Immokalee Regional Airport, the transportation systems, educational institutions, the opportunity to bring companies there and look at that community as a valid site for putting their companies, it was hindered a great deal. The number of leads years ago that we had for that community was about 10 percent. Since the institutions of Ave Maria and the siting of the university there, our leads for Immokalee have increased to about Page 45 ..,,_.~--,.- June 2, 2005 30 percent of our total leads and its growing. Weare actually looking at -- the leads that we're working on right now that are looking for sites in Collier County. Over 500,000 square feet are being looked at for the Immokalee community, specifically in Immokalee. That's significant. And that's about half right now of the total sites that are being sought here in Collier County. And that would not have been that way without this community being there and providing this improved transportation infrastructure is probably one of the key components, as well as the education and the importance to have employees that can work in these companies as well. So, looking at this project and encouraging you to move forward with it cannot only help just that rural stewardship area and the environmental opportunities that we have with that, but really bring new jobs, not only to the town of Ave Maria, but help us to bring new jobs out to Immokalee. So I encourage your support for this and thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. No other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Can we have our staff presentation, please? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, from the manager of the Department of Zoning. Due to the presentation made by the petitioner, I have no additional information to present. However, I would want to put on the record that the staff has worked closely with petitioners and their staff in creating this designation document for the SRA. The staff report, I think, pretty much outlines our county review staff comments. Our comprehensive planning staff has reviewed this and their comments have been incorporated in the staff report, the transportation. And the Zoning Department has reviewed the development standards proposed for the town. Weare supporting this proj ect and are recommending approval. I'd be happy to answer questions and open it up to questions of the -- Page 46 .------- June 2, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a question for you, Ray. I couldn't help but notice in the summary of the staffs position, there was not one addendum or modification or additional condition to the recommended staff approval. And we see side yard setbacks that receive those kinds of amendments or qualifications. Surely, it means something other than the implication that the staff has no input over modification. How could such a project of such magnituude have no comments or modifications by staff? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the petitioner and staff have been meeting ongoing throughout this process. And whether there are staff comments and concerns, petitioner has been willing to meet with us and resolve those questions and issues. In regards to the development standards and setbacks, because we're dealing with a rural type of town, the development standards will not necessarily relate to the requirements of the land development code for those types of development standards. And as the petitioner explained the project, seemed to me that those development standards were important to how they want the community to be developed, and so staff did not obj ect to those types of standards, so there no stipulations resulting from that. Now, there are maybe a few little issues that we're still trying to work out dealing with landscaping, and I think we're close to getting those issues resolved, and, therefore, it was not a result in a natural stipulation at this time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So it would be safe to say that there were stipulations, if you will, but they were incorporated into the petitioner's presentation? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Questions. Mr. Abernathy. MR. ABERNATHY: Ray, I have yet to see -- and I don't care how far out in the county it is -- single family detached houses with 5- foot side yard setbacks. That just -- I thought at the very least we Page 47 ^._~_.'----_._---.~"--,._,~ _._~--- June 2, 2005 were requiring six, and if I had my druthers, seven-and-a-half, but there are a number of 5- foot setbacks in here. Did staff notice that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Like I was saying earlier, this is not an urban community or neighborhood. This is a community that is revolving around compact design. If you look at all the development standards contained within this SRA document, it's based on a compact design. And those type of compatibility issues are not relating to existing neighborhoods. They're all relating to the planned proposed development of the community itself, and, therefore, the 5 - foot setback, that has been previously approved in the county for urban -- type of urban projects, seemed appropriate at this location. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Abernathy? MR. ABERNATHY: No, I give up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: Did we get the EAC staff report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The EAC reviewed this petition and I believe it was in the packet that's contained in the -- either the DRI document -- I'll check, but that was incorporated in this packet of information that was sent to you. MS. CARON: No. It's to be presented here. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, the results of the hearing? MS. CARON: Right. MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. I thought you were talking about the staff report. Yes, the EAC did review this petition, and they unanimously recommended approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I have books of questions, but I was -- out of indifference to the rest of the members, I was going to let them go first, if they'd like. MR. SCHIFFER: For Ray or in general? MR. MURRA Y: Well, get the ground rules established because I Page 48 ~--.-----~-_.,.~._~_._."---~_..- ,....._._--._.._._._..~,,-- June 2, 2005 too have a number. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll open the topic and we'll stay on that topic. MR. STRAIN: It's okay. I'll just hold mine off because maybe a lot of yours will answer mine then I don't have to be redundant. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, go ahead. MR. SCHIFFER: And, George, you can answer this maybe. Part of the overlay was to preserve agricultural land, yet 91 percent of this land is agriculture land being disturbed and becoming a community. Is there a problem with that or -- how does this preserve agricultural land? MR. V ARNADOE: In a couple of ways, number one, because in the SSAs, as Alan went through, out of the 17,000 is about 4,200 acres of active -- what we call active Ag, or under the program Ag 1, which are road crops or citrus, that we have taken that -- that down to that level of land use so that can never be used for anything in excess of that. So it can't ever be used for a golf course, earth mining. It's going to be Ag 1 or grazing. And the rest of the land that's in the SSA, with the exception of about 600 acres, which are conservation. So about 12,000 acres were taken down to an Ag 2 designation, which means the only uses allowed are unimproved pasture or grazing. So, we are preserving that land for agriculture. Second, by clustering the development we will not be impacting other lands in the area with the sprawl type of development at one per five -- with unit per five acres or things of that nature, Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Do the partners in this venture own land contiguous to this? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHIFFER: And is there a plan to develop that land included into the town? MR. V ARNADOE: Right now, sir, it would not be possible because your growth management plan limits towns to 4,000 acres. Page 49 ""'--..- --'-~-'-"- June 2, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. So the agricultural land surrounding this would probably remain agriculture? MR. VARNADOE: As far as I know, yes, sir. MR. SCHIFFER: The other concern is, there's one -- actually two entry points into this town. I mean, we have traffic problems in Naples because of gated communities, but is this going to be a limited access town, or what is -- why is there two access points? MR. V ARNADOE: Actually, I think, sir, there will be four when we complete. There's a second -- we showed you I think two primary access points. One towards the main entry and it's going to be off of Oil Well Road. The second one off of Camp Keais Road. There's a secondary access that goes through one of the neighborhoods to the west off of Oil Well Road, and a secondary access off of Camp Keais Road to the south of where the other access point is showed. MR. SCHIFFER: Could you show me that because the drawing just appears to have two? And would this community at all be gated, or is this going to be free road? MR. V ARNADOE: The main access roads will be open and much like, I guess Wyndemere or Pelican Bay, there may be some gated communities within -- and there will be some gated communities within the development -- within the town. Excuse me. MR. SCHIFFER: I can find two easily. Can you show me the other two then? MR. REYNOLDS: Primary access here on Camp Keais Road. Second access on Camp Keais Road. Primary access on Oil Well Road, and then there's a second access point that actually is going to align with and come through a farm field here that provides secondary access. So these would be the two primaries. MR. SCHIFFER: The other issue is affordable housing. Will all of the affordable housing necessary for the workers within the town be available within the town? MR. VARNADOE: Let me answer that this way, this town has Page 50 June 2, 2005 gone beyond any other town or project in the state, in my recollection, as far as meeting our needs for affordable housing. We're going to have 1,000 units that meet the moderate income level in the town. We're going to have 700 units that meet the low income level in the town, and we have submitted that at least half of those, or 350 would be owner occupied. And we agreed to have 200 very low income housing units in the town. In addition within the 10-mile radius, which happens to be the DRI criteria, we're going to have 28 acres dedicated to Habitat for Humanity for up to 150 units. This has been a very hot issue with the Regional Planning Council, and throughout our community, as you're all aware of the need for affordable housing, and how the price escalations in the last, 18 months in particular, has exacerbated the problem. And, yes, sir, I think we're providing our fair share of affordable housing. MR. SCHIFFER: But in the literature, if I recall, that's a little over 2,000 units you'll be providing. There's like 10,000 jobs to run the town, correct? Wasn't that the figure that was given in there. So that would seem like there's going to be a shortage of affordable housing within the town proper. MR. VARNADOE: Well, not everybody that's going to be working in the town is going to be having to have a work force housing or affordable housing. Some of them are going to be making salaries that would allow them to not have to be within those price range of housing units, sir. MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, we've heard statistics of like 75 percent of the workers in this town, require affordable housing. Once the town is developed -- will the town be governed by a homeowners association? How will it be governed? MR. VARNADOE: Ave Maria stewardship community district that will have the responsibility for some of the main road systems and the water management systems. Each neighborhood will no doubt have their own property owners association. Whether there will also Page 51 -.._._._--.,~ June 2, 2005 be an umbrella property association over the entire town is yet to be determined. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Murray. MR. MURRA Y: Yes. With regard to the affordable housing. Going through it, I noted that the dorm rooms will be counted in some fashion for affordable housing. And that kind of confused me because, obviously, that changes semester to semester. How does that k .? wor , SIr. MR. V ARNADOE: I don't -- the units I just gave you are in addition to any housing on the university for students. I think what it may be referring to is that, at Ave Maria University, approximately 50 percent of the students work part-time an average of 10 hours a week. So, obviously, those students are going to be fulfilling some of the low income jobs in the town as it grows. But we're not counting those dorm rooms as affordable housing. Those units that I just told you about are totally separate and apart from the university. MR. MURRA Y: Okay. I can go further. With regard to transportation, Collier County -- do you have plans to introduce buses into the community to facilitate movement of workers back and forth from Immokalee and so forth? Is that part of the program yet? MR. VARNADOE: We have been talking to Collier County about running one of their CAT routes through the town, and have agreed to provide several stops, if you would, for that purpose, yes. MR. MURRA Y: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions, but I'm going to be comfortable if we could pass it on to someone else for now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. V ARNADOE: Mr. Budd, while I'm here, I'm going to be just kind of the master of ceremonies until you wear me out then I'll pass the gavel. But a couple of things I wanted to kind of clarify when we went through our presentation, if I might at this time. Page 52 --..------ June 2, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. MR. V ARNADOE: Alan Reynolds was talking about the donation of fill for the six laning of Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Road, and then that part of Immokalee Road north of Camp Keais into Immokalee. And I wanted just to clarify that we are providing that fill at our cost of separation. Whatever permitting cost we have, whatever digging cost we have, whatever loading cost. But it will result in a significant savings to the county because, obviously, the value of the land is not in that, nor is any profit. So that's our agreement in the developer's contribution agreement. I wanted to make sure we were very clear on that. The second one had to do with the schools. We're dedicating two school sites. One for elementary and one for middle school. We will be receiving impact fee credits for that. I wanted to just make sure that was clear on the record. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Questions? Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, you had asked earlier if we tried to group our questions. And, unfortunately, the books that were given to us didn't really group them because they're in different books. So I'm just going to have to start out, and if I hit a question and George wants to answer or Ray, or Don Scott or Amy, we'll just have to -- I mean, that's the only way I can do it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. STRAIN: But I think the process I'd like to start with is the presentation you all just made because those are -- that's pretty fresh in everybody's mind. I have only a dozen questions as a result of the presentation. In the Power Point, one of the frames said that one-fifth of the stewardship sending areas will be set aside for protection and the long range plan. I'm not sure -- I wrote it down because you moved the frames, in some cases, quicker than I could write. And I'm trying to Page 53 -..-.- ...-,.,.-.---...............,.-- June 2, 2005 understand what that meant, one-fifth. And -- well, here comes Alan because he's the one that gave the presentation. I'd like to know what that frame meant, Alan, if you can recall which one I was talking about. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, I do. The one-fifth, if you recall, there was a slide that said there were approximately 89,000 acres of flow ways, habitats, and water retention areas in the entire stewardship area. The stewardship areas associated with Ave Marie are about 17,000 acres. So that's about one-fifth of the total of all of the sending areas in the stewardship. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Well, then those sending areas that you're referring to though including the Ag lands, so they weren't conservation lands. And the SSAs then in this regard, your reference to conservation, and it does occur in the D RI, that there was a set aside of certain numbers of conservation acreage. Really the only conservation is 651 acres. MR. REYNOLDS: Well, if you recall that there are two things trying to be accomplished by sending areas. The sending areas include essentially all of the acreage that has been deemed important for natural resource protection, and the sending areas retained agricultural uses. So they serve both functions. MR. STRAIN: I understand that. I guess in my mind conservation meant habitat for species naturally left untouched. And I guess then for clarification, when you mean conservation, you're included Ag 1 and Ag 2 that's been set aside as an SSA, you're considering that conservation? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, and there's a reason why the specific instrument is called a stewardship agreement not a conservation easement, because of that very fact. In this case there are uses that are retained by the property owner that typically would not be retained if you're going to a pure conservation easement. And by retaining those agriculture uses, that creates the ability for the property to remain in Page 54 -- -.^ '>^~"_"_"'----"~---'-- --.---.--- June 2, 2005 private ownership, and for that property to be maintained long term by private interest rather than having the government assume that responsibility. So that's why we call it a stewardship agreement rather than a conservation easement. MR. STRAIN: So, out of the 17,050 acres, the natural, untouched -- let's say, pristine natural vegetation that isn't going to be remaining as Ag is 651.3 acres, approximately? MR. REYNOLDS: No, that's not correct. Look at it the other way. There's about a little over 4,000 acres that is an active Ag. The balance of the land has either unapproved pasture or is in what you would call a pristine condition. But all of that land essentially retains its existing land cover. In other words, when the agreement is put in place, the land is taken down to its existing land cover. So if it's being used for grazing cattle, it still has natural resource value. So, the part that is arguable that doesn't have a significant natural resource value is the active farm fields, but the rest of it clearly does. MR. STRAIN: Again, I guess maybe I'm not making myself clear. The natural, untouched areas that's touched -- that are not going to be Ag, that are not going to be used for grazing cattle, or any other use under Ag 2 or Ag 1, for that case, that aren't going to be mowed for pasture lands, or anything like that, you're down to 651.3 acres? MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. Those are the acres -- the 600 acres that you're talking about are acres that are being designated for restoration. MR. STRAIN: Okay. And those will be put into a conservation easement? MR. REYNOLDS: No. They're put into a stewardship easement. And the stewardship easement will describe the uses that have been retained on the property, or the uses that have been eliminated from the property and the long term management that's going to be required to maintain that land. MR. STRAIN: For the 651 or so acres that will be supposedly Page 55 ---~----_._~..._----.^._._- ..-- June 2, 2005 left as conservation and pristine and in a natural format, is that going to be set aside in a manner that can't be changed in the future, or would it simply take an GNP amendment in the future to change that to something else? MR. REYNOLDS: Once the stewardship agreement and the easement is in place, that agreement is in perpetuity, and it runs both in favor of the county and one other independent entity. So there's two entities, if you will, that govern the perpetuity of that easement. MR. STRAIN: Who is the other independent entity? MR. REYNOLDS: There are several that you can select from. In this case I believe it would be Department of Ag and Consumer Services, or it could be the DEP, or it could be the Water Management District, or it could be an established public land trust. MR. STRAIN: So there's no title or deeded conservation lands going to the public that are not going to be potentially up to, say, reconsideration by those parties in the future? MR. REYNOLDS: George thinks maybe he can answer this one better than I. MR. V ARNADOE: I'm lost, Mr. Strain. There's an easement on all the stewardship sending areas that tell what land use layers have been removed, what land uses are remaining, and what will be done with the property. And to say there's only 651 pristine acres that are going to be under this program is a misnomer. There are approximately 12,000 some odd acres that will be in the native vegetation state as they are today, but they will be maintained with removal of exotics, cutting of underbrush, and things that will make them better prey base and better for panthers who habitat that are utilized today. The easement agreements are in place, and the growth management plan amendment will not affect those, because there's a professional easement on that property. MR. STRAIN: Again, I must not be making my point. Maybe when we get further on today, you'll understand what I'm trying to Page 56 ~~~'"" June 2, 2005 say. I'm simply looking for natural habitat that's left. MR. V ARNADOE: And there's going to be some 12,000 acres of natural habitat left. I think we just have a disagreement on that, Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: No, it's not a disagreement. I have a statement from county staff that says Ag 2 will be 12,173.5 acres. Ag 2 includes a lot of area that is pristine, but allows passive uses such as grazing and mowing. That's all I'm asking. So, if you're going to mow it, it's not going to be left in its natural state. That's all I'm asking, George. MR. VARNADOE: Well, that's the state it's in today, Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: I understand that. I understand that. MR. VARNADOE: That's where it is today. And that includes areas in the Camp Keais strand, it includes areas in the Calloway Caloochisloo who have been in that state for more than 50 years, and we have a lot of listed species that utilize those lands today. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for that. I also heard mention in the presentation that the Ave Maria project was going to be contributing the design permitting and construction cost of Oil Well Road; is that accurate? MR. V ARNADOE: No, sir. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So what is it in regards to Oil Well Road are they actually committing to do? MR. V ARNADOE: I know you have a copy of the developer's contribution agreement. Weare providing 156 acres of right of way for Oil Well, Camp Keais, and Immokalee Road north of Oil Well for the future six laning, urban six laning of those roads. Weare providing approximately 39 acres of land for water management, or taking the water management runoff from those roads into our existing systems at our option. Weare providing fill for some 18 miles of road improvements for six laning urban condition at our cost of removal, if you would. Weare -- excuse me - doing the design and permitting for Oil Well Road from Immokalee Road to Camp Keais Road at a cost of Page 57 -- >-'--"'-" --".-._-"_.~-,._-~--- June 2, 2005 about $6 million for which they'll get future impact fee credits, not readily usable right now until we have paid in some six-and-a-half million dollars of impact fees, and then we take them out dollar for dollar, if you would. For every dollar impact fee we pay, we can use 50 cents of that credit. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So you aren't doing any construction for the road then? MR. V ARNADOE: No, sir. MR. STRAIN: And in regards to the fill that you're providing, it's excavation only. Does that include stockpiling, reloading, transporting and dumping to the location needed, or is that just excavating? MR. V ARNADOE: What we're doing is improving the site, doing the permitting. We'll actually have somebody out there that digs the fill and stockpiles it, and then it will be loaded on, whoever the contractors' trucks are that will be constructing the road, Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Is the permitting paid for all by the applicant? MR. V ARNADOE: That's going to be part of our cost of separation. MR. STRAIN: Is there any split between that and the county? MR. V ARNADOE: I'm sorry? MR. STRAIN: Are you splitting any of those costs with the county for the permitting cost, or is that just on the side of AMU -- or the applicant? MR. V ARNADOE: That will be -- I'm not being very clear I guess. That is part of our costs of separation. That will be built into what is charged for the fill. MR. STRAIN: Okay. There's another large special district. I believe it's to the west of this particular one, Ave Maria. Do you know if that fronts on Oil Well Road as well? Page 58 ~---''---''-'-'._~-~',"~"",,,,,,,,,,.,.^,-",.._- ---_._,~-- June 2, 2005 MR. V ARNADOE: I am informed that it does, but I certainly don't have any personal knowledge of that. MR. STRAIN: I just was curious. That's even larger than the one that you're representing here today, from what I saw on the maps. Brooks was brought up as an example in regards to this project, and that they've got an FlAM application, or they were using the FlAM at their location. How often are their standards used in the FlAM monitored for performance in regards to -- MR. V ARNADOE: I don't know, sir, but the land development code is very clear that ours were monitored on a five-year basis. MR. STRAIN: Right. I was just asking about the Brooks. And I'm sure when I get to the FlAM, and Hank gets into his, we'll hear that. The public schools, the one that is on site is tucked away a little bit into the site there on the north corner. And maybe, Amy, you could comment. Is that going to be used for bussing students from outside the Ave Maria, or is it going to be strictly for the people within Ave Maria? Is it a public school then or is it a private school? How is that being set up, if you don't mind. MS. TAYLOR: Amy Taylor, for the record, Collier County Public Schools. We anticipate that it will be for the Ave Maria area. There may be, at the time in which it begins, the Ave Maria community develops, that the attendance boundary may include other areas. We have attendance boundaries that don't necessarily -- they wouldn't necessarily be just for Ave Maria particularly early on, so it's not specific for Ave Maria, but, just the way the town is configured and where it's located and access to it, it would likely end up, you know, as completely Ave Maria at some point as it builds out. MR. STRAIN: If that school was further to the outside of the community, accessible by some of the main roads supplied by the county, would it be any more different in its possible usefulness in regards to other members of the public, other than the town of AMU? Page 59 ,----.----- "------_....,--- June 2, 2005 MS. TAYLOR: Not particularly. I mean, there's access from Camp Keais and so on that would bring opportunity for students that are north of A ve Maria. There are schools that we have currently in our 20 year capital plan that are along Golden Gate and within the Golden Gate area that, you know, there may be some time in the beginning of the phases where Ave Maria students will be attending those schools, and namely Palmetto Ridge, Sabal Palm Estates. So we have adequate, within our 20 year plan, for what is existing is planned in the Golden Gate Estates areas and rural areas. Ave Maria we needed to have a specific -- we needed to address the needs specific to that town. So the location is fine. We like the idea and the concept of a totally walking school. It's very, very difficult within Collier County generally to have that situation. So if we were outside the community, we would just be sort of mimicking what we do here at times, and we would like to see something a little different. MR. STRAIN: In the old days they used to have this thing called bussing, and I was just wondering if that's going to be occurring here to integrate the school in any manner. MS. TAYLOR: Bussing could -- that certainly may occur. It just depends. Our policy, and it's actually state policy, is that we will bus those that are within outside of a two-mile radius. Those within that two-mile radius are required to walk, unless there is certain extenuating circumstances or hazardous condition. The way this town is laid out, there would not be any -- anticipate any hazardous condition. So those within a two-mile radius would be bussed. Those outside -- I mean, outside that two-mile radius would be bussed. MR. STRAIN: Is anything within the community-- MR. V ARNADOE: Mark, maybe we can amplify on -- MR. STRAIN: Sure. MR. VARNADOE: This is the site here. So 47.7 acre site, or 46 Page 60 --~_.._--"------<----- ---.--- June 2, 2005 net of water management. It's one -- it's in one of our neighborhoods, and this is the neighborhood where we are trying to target young families and families with children, so it is walkable. It's also located right next to our active park, which is one of the policies and our SRA suggested that's a good place for it. Which we tried to locate it where it would be walkable, but it is on one of our main roads, for those who are coming in from the outside. This is one of our main loop roads. And here's the access point to Camp Keais for people coming from the north, fairly well accessible. MR. STRAIN: Those main loop roads, are they all going to be roads paid for by the district? MR. V ARNADOE: The main -- excuse me -- the main loop roads will be paid for by the district. Some of the roads internal to the neighborhoods will not be. MR. STRAIN: So, accessed to those main loop roads as well as some of the access -- the main loop roads, if they're paid for by the district, they're open to the public? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: The public will have complete access to that school? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. They'll have complete access to the loop system on the roads. MR. STRAIN: Amy, you said there was a discussion about a site location -- at least in the letter that you wrote, the site -- concerning the high school site. The site location has yet to be determined. And apparently, it's going to be 60 developable acres, is that -- MS. TAYLOR: Yes. Our school board policy now is the high school site will be at a minimum 60 acres. It will have to be -- the school district selected those general areas to anticipate any growth needs in terms of Ave Maria, but also in the general area to relieve Palmetto Ridge in the future and Immokalee High School. MR. STRAIN: Do you see that happening in one of the Page 61 _"'___4 ""'-"'- June 2, 2005 stewardship receiving areas? Somewhere within 195,000 acres that make part of our stewardship area out there? I mean, and if it does, my next question of maybe staff or George can answer this is, if you create a high school site, are you going to need any credits or SRA agreements or anything like that to have happen to make that site reality? MS. TAYLOR: It is part of -- our understanding is it's part of the DRI commitment. MR. STRAIN: Well, it's not within this community, is it? MS. TAYLOR: Pardon me? MR. VARNADOE: No, it's not within the community. MR. STRAIN: It can't be if it's not within this community. That's why I wanted to kind of iron out where this was going to go, how it was going to be established, what kind of process so you have all that to deal with now instead of in the future, so, maybe you can elaborate on that, George. MR. V ARNADOE: I can. The public schools do not require credits. And they are either an allowed or conditional use under the baseline condition. And the school board has generally come up with two or three sections on the north side of Immokalee Road between Orangetree, if you would, and Immokalee where they think they would like to locate the site. We've agreed to dedicate 60 acres for that school. MR. STRAIN: And they won't have any requirements then to have any involvement with an SRA application or anything? MR. V ARNADOE: No, sir. MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. Oh, I understand your question. It's outside of the DRI. As we know it, and as is currently zoned agriculture, and there would be -- I don't think it's within a planned SRA. Weare allowed in an agriculturally zoned land use zoning district. MR. STRAIN: Okay. That's all I have, Amy, so thank you for Page 62 -----.-.-.~~. <^~'-_. June 2, 2005 that. MR. MURRA Y: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. MURRAY: May I revisit something? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MR. MURRAY: Mr. Varnadoe, may I call your attention to what here is appendix I, regional issues analysis. And particularly page IA2 where it speaks, staff assessment associates with affordable housing. And it speaks to 700 low income units within the town, at least 50 percent owner occupied, et cetera. However, the basis for my question earlier was the following, and the second to the last paragraph there is a statement that says, students are not permitted to live off campus; thus, the application states that the dorms are counted towards the affordable housing for people with low income. So, I'm trying to understand how something is in excess of, if this is the only number that we were told. MR. V ARNADOE: I thought I tried to explain it best of my ability, Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: I apologize. MR. V ARNADOE: No, no. And we're all trying to work through this together. What I think it came back from was several discussions that we had from Regional Planning Council about the fact that some of these students are going to be working, are going to be housed on campus, and will fulfill some of those jobs. But as far as our commitment to provide affordable housing units in the town, our commitment stands in addition to any dormitory rooms. MR. MURRAY: I appreciate that. I understand your commitment is there. I guess where I was thinking in the future, if you've already given over those homes to those people who need them, then how can the dormitory -- how could they qualify? How can -- is AMU willing to extend the numbers so that these youngsters that are in the dorm can qualify under low income, or do I not have it Page 63 --_.'-~'~'---<---"-"---~~-"-----,,-,,,~ --'-'-"--~------- June 2, 2005 yet clear in my mind? MR. VARNADOE: I don't think so, sir. Undergraduates -- Ave Maria's policy is, as an undergraduate student, you either live in the dormitory, or you live with your parents. MR. MURRA Y: Got it. MR. V ARNADOE: So, it's not going to be a commuter college, and they won't be able to go out and buy three or four of them -- buy or rent an affordable housing unit and live there. And Ave Maria's University commitment is to provide enough dormitory housing for their undergraduate students. So they will not be utilizing the affordable housing units. MR. MURRAY: Okay. So, that's clear then. I think it was the way this was phrased here that got me on that. And I just wanted to be absolutely certain that there's a difference between the two. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. And I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: George, I think you answered this, or somebody did, but I'm not quite clear. Where is the Habitat 28 acres going to be? Is it off site? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. It's in the town of Immokalee and, my recollection, it's adjacent to the Habitat project that's going on there today. MR. STRAIN: It would come under standard Collier County zoning not stewardship area? MR. V ARNADOE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: Okay. In the newspaper years ago it started out -- MR. V ARNADOE: The reliable source that it is. MR. STRAIN: Well, actually I think they're quoting you, so-- MR. V ARNADOE: Or misquoting you. Go ahead. Maybe I'll like it for a change. MR. STRAIN: No. I'm not sure what they were quoting. I was Page 64 --- ~_._-- ----- June 2, 2005 just being facetious. There was a talk at one point about a stadium and they were going to rival like Notre Dame for football games and things like that. And I know that was in the early stages. Is there still going to be some central area in here for those kinds of sports activities? MR. VARNADOE: Yeah. Tom Monaghan is a visionary, and if you get to know him, he has these big ideas and he lets others bring him back to more of a reality. And when he started he had envisioned Notre Dame of the south. When his academic adviser said, Tom, we won't be able to keep the high standards of education that you want if we have enough students to compete in an NCAA one football program. It readily collapsed back to what we're now -- what we're now referring to as the Princeton of the south, that is, trying to keep the high academic status and have student athletes, but yes, there will be an active sports program at the University. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. V ARNADOE: Maybe I said more than I should have, but I was trying to respond to your inquiry. MR. STRAIN: I didn't see a big stadium site on there, that's why I brought the question up. In the letters you passed out to us today from the providers, Don Hunter's office indicated that -- and I'll read the last paragraph. Additionally, we understand this facility will eventually be converted to a permanent facility, yet to be designed as this proj ect evolves. Is there some commitment somewhere that provides them with enough land so that this is assured to happen? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. We're working with them on a joint EMS fire, sheriff facility that they've all agreed to share and we've agreed to provide the land for that. MR. STRAIN: And do you know what the outside number of the land acreage you're considering? It would be nice to be able to tie it to something. Page 65 , ,"'_.~ .--.----- June 2, 2005 MR. V ARNADOE: I think as the day goes on, I will try to get that number for you, Mr. Strain, if you'd allow me that luxury. MR. STRAIN: I appreciate it. Those are the questions from the presentations. I guess if it's okay, Mr. Chairman, I've got the books we can start working on. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Oh, excuse me. Ms. Caron. MS. CARON: Yeah, I have a couple of questions first. In -- let's go back to the what we've started talking about was in perpetuity. What legally does that mean, Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VARNADOE: Well, it's a stored up easement agreement that runs in favor of Collier County and the State of Florida, and it means that we have, in this instance, Ms. Caron -- Ms. Caron is it? MS. CARON: Uh-huh. MR. V ARNADOE. Thank you. We have removed certain land use layers which are in that easement agreement, which means, we can never go in and ask for any of these uses in the future that tells what uses are remaining. And it also talks about land management measures that we are required to do to keep the land in the condition it is today. And that's enforceable by Collier County, or, in this instance, the one we've done so far, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, forever. MS. CARON: It's also changeable by those two bodies as well, correct? MR. VARNADOE: It would take all three parties to change that agreement. MS. CARON: It would take all three parties. How many more credits do you have to get for the panthers SSA? How many more will you get? Because that's not included in what we have now, correct? MR. V ARNADOE: No, it's not. It hasn't been approved yet. Maybe about 16,900 credits -- it's actually 16,952.3 credits coming off of SSA6. Page 66 -,-~---".---,-_.~,-~.".__.~,,- ,.,._,"-- June 2, 2005 MS. CARON: And the fiscal impact. What happens after the build out? It's all very well and good to have a model that says this is going to be neutral or positive to Collier County, but as anybody who might have been involved in a major development in this county knows, developers can keep costs down while they're developing, but once it's turned over to the community, it like changes dramatically. Is there any continuation of this impact study that has to be done after you, as the developer, are out of it? MR. V ARNADOE: There's a requirement -- let me answer that two ways, if I can. I'll go through what is required, and we can talk about what we already talked about with the physical assessment. There's a requirement to have a physical analysis at the end of each phase, or every five years, whichever comes first. And also in the horizon year, which is the build out year. But what we're talking about with the physical analysis, is not the cost to the residents inside the community, we're talking about the impact of the overall town on the county's budge. MS. CARON: Exactly, yeah. MR. V ARNADOE: But, you know, when you started talking about turnover, that's typically where the developer turns over the amenities that he's been subsidizing, then it becomes more of a burden on the residents of that area, not on the county as a whole. MS. CARON: Well, but where everything that you're going to have is supposed to be self-sufficient -- MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. But it won't -- that physical analysis won't reveal that because that's going to be borne by the residents in the town not by the county. MS. CARON: No matter what. MR. V ARNADOE: No matter what. Those facilities that we're going to be responsible for. MS. CARON: Yup. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else? Page 67 "~_"e.._m_,"~,.~_,___"...,,,_.,~_._, _.,-~---- June 2, 2005 MR. V ARNADOE: I think we're back to you, Mark. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Just -- how are we going to do this today? Are we going to go topic by topic, transportation, affordable housing? MR. STRAIN: Well, I was -- the Chairman had requested that. The problem is, the books we received weren't necessarily all collected that way. There's issues that overlap from binder to binder. And I went through trying to tab everything with notations so I could try to concentrate, without anticipating, that would have been the best way to go, I just can't do it. And I'm just going to have to go through and ask the questions as they come up page by page, and I have five books of pages. I mean, so there's quite a few questions. And I think as the answers come in, I'll start pulling off the redundant questions that are in the other books, so hopefully that will lessen it, but I can't do it that way. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, one question, you said binders. I've only received one binder. What are you referring to? MR. STRAIN: Wow. Well, there's two binders. There's one in the stewardship receiving area, and one on the DRI that were provided by the staff. And then there's a third one that if you put it into a binder so you can see how large it is, it comes up to about this size. And that's the staff reports and all the backup to that. And we've had several versions of those and they're all in here. So, that's three. And then if you were here a long period of time when this first originated, and you didn't turn your binders back in, like staff asked you to, you'd have additional resources that you could have pulled from, which I have here. MR. WHITE: We wondered where those went. MR. STRAIN: We don't ever give them back. MR. SCHIFFER: So, what are we going to do? How are we going to do this? MR. STRAIN: We'll just start walking through one of the Page 68 _...~~"-,.~-,-,-- '.'.-.-- June 2, 2005 binders. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, I had what I thought was a good idea that has no legs, so we're just going to work through this in a logical process, and if you have questions, fine, otherwise Mr. Strain is probably going to lead us down this path. MR. MIDNEY: So, if we have a follow through on what Mark's dealing with, get your attention? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just get my attention and then we'll get follow-ups to Mark's lead. MR. SCHIFFER: That's good. Lead on. MR. STRAIN: I noticed you were talking to Anita, and I was last week, and I had asked for a couple of things. And I talked to staff and asked for a couple of things, and so far I haven't gotten them. And I'm wondering, George, are the pumpage reports for the water use on this project under the agriculture permit from South Florida, are they available? I mean, I know the documents you have to submit to South Florida Water Management District. I have been asking for those. The actual pumpage reports. It actually tells you how much water was actually used for the agriculture, not how much was permitted. MR. V ARNADOE: The problem is, Mr. Strain, that the -- there are several different permits, existing permits that include this land, but go beyond this land. And the Ag land that Ave Maria is going to be located on is leased. And we have looked and tried to find out accurate pumpage records, extrapolating from various permits and various reports, but we haven't been able to come up with anything that's reliable. MR. STRAIN: Okay. That will play into some questions I have later on then. And, Ray, I had asked as recently again as yesterday for copies of the pre-application minutes, and I still haven't got those. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I don't have a copy in the file anymore. I don't know where it went. I'm trying to recreate it from the -- we store another copy in records and I'm trying to get that copy. Page 69 ...__._-~ June 2, 2005 MR. STRAIN: The County had a pre-application meeting of which they took records and minutes of involving the largest project ever to be developed in Collier County, and we don't have a record of that pre-application minutes meeting? MR. BELLOWS: It's a standard form and we have a copy, it just wasn't in the file that normally is -- I mean, there's so many people coming and looking at the file, things get disheveled. I have another source where I'm trying to pull it. MR. STRAIN: Are you sure you have a copy? MR. BELLOWS: Not at this time. MR. STRAIN: Is the other source the applicant? MR. BELLOWS: No. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So you have another copy possibly somewhere, but we don't know for sure if it's there? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. STRAIN: When that comes in, I don't care if it's after tomorrow's finishing of this meeting or Saturday's finishing of this meeting, whatever day it is, can I get a copy of it? MR. BELLOWS: I'm working on it. MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Strain, if we have a copy, we'll be glad to provide you. I'm sure we do. MR. STRAIN: I appreciate it. Thank you. I'll make sure staff gets a copy because I think they ought to have one for their permanent file for years to come. In the D RI report, and this seems to be consistent in the South Florida Water Management -- South Florida Regional Planning Council report as well, the reference to acreage is constantly 4995, not 5027. Is there an explanation why your SRA and the DRI are not consistent in the acreage? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. After the Regional Planning Council staff report, we had been talking with various representatives, of both some county commissioners and others about affordable Page 70 -- ~ . - . - June 2, 2005 housing and we added some acreage to be able to accommodate more affordable housing. When we submitted the revised acreage and SRA plan to the staff, we also copied Regional Planning Council staff, Dan Presca on that, and we talked to him this week, and he's comfortable with that addition. MR. STRAIN: Has DCA been notified there's additional acreage, or is it -- MR. V ARNADOE: I'll check. I don't know whether we copied them on it. Yes, we did, as a matter of fact. MR. STRAIN: Okay. There's been no feedback from them? MR. VARNADOE: Your previous question on the EMS, fire, sheriff site -- MR. STRAIN: Yes. MR. VARNADOE: It will be a minimum of three acres. It might be larger as design occurs, but the minimum of three acres if you want something for -- MR. STRAIN: Yeah, I do. Great. Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: Yes. MR. STRAIN: In the DRI, I guess we'll get into the maps later because I'll wait until I get to SRA and we can try to combine those into one. There was emergency preparedness elements in the DRI. And it's under the consistency and comprehensive plan section. And it talked about the fact the applicant is coordinating with Collier County EMS to explore opportunities to provide emergency supply storage for the county and hurricane shelter for coastal residents. I believe I found in your SRA application a reference to storage availability, but it wasn't clear on what the hurricane shelter for coastal residents is going to be and where it's going to be, the quantities and items like that. Do you have any information on that? MR. V ARNADOE: I can tell you where we are, Mr. Strain. We have been having various close coordination with Dan Summers, the Page 71 ---_."'-"-,._~~~..__.,^"--~--,~-_.._.._- ,.~-"----_.- June 2, 2005 Emergency Manager Director. He had asked, and we had agreed to provide covered parking in this joint EMS, fire, sheriffs station for two of his emergency trailers, so that if there's any kind of an emergency in the area, whether it be in Immokalee, or Ave Maria, or in the Estates area out there, that he has ready access to those and they'll be closer than any other location, and we've agreed to do that. He also requested that we, even though we're not in a hurricane evacuation zone, that we provide shelter for the university students in the event of a storm event. We provided Mr. Summers with building plans for the first 12 buildings at Ave Maria. He found in the math, tech -- math, technology and science buildings, two areas that he thought were appropriate for hurricane shelter. We had quite a conversation. He said it would be good if you could have those on -- you know more about this than I do -- on a separate electrical outlet so that you can plug those into an emergency generator and have lights and cooling. We have done that in the design. We have upgraded the emergency generator to a bigger capacity to serve those areas. In addition, in the student activity center in the kitchen area, we have provided another emergency generator to provide cooling for the refrigeration and have some propane stoves so that basic food service would be available after the storm event. Also, there's two public schools that are going to be at the university at -- in the town -- excuse me -- which we've been talking about before, which will be for hurricane evacuation purposes. Mr. Summers tells me that those should be able to house 220 to 250 people each. MR. STRAIN: I know that during the previous -- I think it was the PDA, or -- I know I brought this question up to you before and it was going to be addressed at the DRI. The hurricane shelter provisions for coastal residents, people that have to evacuate from areas, let's say west of Airport Road, or west of 41 in a category two or three storm, how much space will they have available to them Page 72 . --,-,._-,~_..,_._, - ,-,._--_...._._" June 2, 2005 provided by this town? MR. VARNADOE: Well, I'm going to answer that two ways. I just went through that. The public schools are going to provide shelter for 222 to 250 people each. There will be some excess spaces at the university. But I don't know that we have -- I know we don't have any responsibility to provide hurricane sheltering for people outside of our town. I mean, is that our obligation, our financial obligation? MR. STRAIN: I'm just reading to you the statement placed on page 107 under emergency preparedness that's in the DRI package. And it says that you're going to be exploring opportunity to provide emergency supply storage for the county and hurricane shelter for coastal residents. And you're saying the town, the students -- which, by the way, you prefaced your description of these hurricane shelters for the students originally, now that you mention -- MR V ARNADOE: The -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. The science, tech and math building will be the hurricane shelter for the university. The schools will be available to the general public, so that would be available for the urban area. MR. STRAIN: As well as the town residents as well? MR. VARNADOE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: But, I mean, all that being said, 30,000 people in that town, as well as a quarter million people on the coast, the provision that indicates there's going to be some cooperative effort to find hurricane shelter for coastal residents is basically 200 to 400 space area in two schools on site. MR. VARNADOE: Well, up to 500 people, according to Mr. Summers. MR. STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: And the same thing, what is the flood zone that this is being built in? The elevation. MR. ABERNATHY: What was the question? Page 73 "~_._'_._._------ June 2, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: What's the flood zone elevation? MR. STRAIN: I believe there is no elevation assigned to it because it's so far out. I could be mistaken. MR. VARNADOE: I think we have 13 feet natural elevation. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. So it's a flood zone X. MR. V ARNADOE: It's part of the theme of remapping that's gOIng on. MR. STRAIN: I think you're right, Brad. It's a high number something like that. MR. SCHIFFER: The reason I ask, I wanted to see if they would be evacuating into our shelters. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, that was just one point on what Mark was saYIng. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Under page 1010 on the DRI report you talk about demographics. And you used a number that I have been trying to figure out a basis for two or three weeks. And I know you are very much aware of it. Persons per household. The standard in Collier County, pursuant to David Weeks, and I know David was here -- data that I received from him, and I've got more data from him on other different parts of the county, but it's 2.39. And in discussions with David, he indicated that generally the farther east you go, the higher the DPH get. There are exceptions. The rural fringe -- we just had an example, where they used 2.59. In the last TDR discussion that we had before this panel a couple of weeks ago, and that was used by somebody and confirmed by a staff member. Immokalee, I believe, is 3.1. And then Ave Maria in between has dropped to 2.2. I know you have a different demographic possibly than the rest of the county. There are different aspects of this town that will be unique to it. But I was wondering how or what studies you used to drop the person per household rating from a standard down to 2.2. Page 74 "'^--~ , ._"._---~-_."....._".~~-- June 2, 2005 MR. V ARNADOE: First let me say that the FlAM model analysis that we submitted used the county standards, 2.39 people per household. But I can answer your question. We have four basic neighborhoods in A ve Maria. One of those is, what we refer to in the industry, as age targeted community, which means active retirees is, I think a better word. So we know from history and other projects what the demographic of that neighborhood is going to be. One is going to be a family-oriented neighborhood, and we've used the standard county 2.39 for that. One is going to be a traditional downtown neighborhood, and we have other examples where we pull that from. And the fourth one is an active adult community, and we have examples of that around the community that we pull those from. So we went back and looked at the different communities of what we were trying to target, Mr. Strain, to come up with those numbers. MR. STRAIN: Well, I asked your consultants, Wilson Miller, for a copy of the FlAM, and the one I received from their office shows 2.2 being used. The DRI shows 2.21 being used. And I was just curious as to what statistical basis you used to lower from the 2.39. And I understand what you just said, but I'm not sure there's any cultural statistic or demographic. I've searched on the Internet carefully to try to find such demographics, even from the Census Bureau, and I couldn't find anything that related the specifics more to the demographics of your community than to any other, which means I don't know why you varied from the amount that's standard to the county. And the concern there is that drives level of service calculations and so I was wondering how you got there. And basically it's an in house statistical analysis that you did to get there? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. But, again, the FlAM that was submitted to the county used 2.39. Now the county came back and said we want you to run a model that uses 2.2 because that's what you had in your DRI. We did that, with the one that was officially submitted used 2.39 under county standards for people per household. Page 75 , .__'_._..,_~._..;._m'__~._'"" '.-"-__'0" .__.__."._.___,_ June 2, 2005 MR. STRAIN: Who would it have been officially submitted to? MR. VARNADOE: The county. It was part of our SRA application. It was the FlAM that we submitted with our application. MR. STRAIN: Because the one that was submitted to the DRI, DCA -- through the DRI was 2.2. MR. VARNADOE: No. We don't do an FlAM for DRI. MR. STRAIN: No, but the demographic used on the DRI page 1010 is 2.2. MR. VARNADOE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. In the DRI application, part four under the impact summary, says the town is being titled by placing approximately 20,000 acres of environmentally valuable land under easement restrictions that limit future land uses to agricultural and conservation activity. Now, where is this 20,000 coming into play in the discussions we've seen this morning? MR. VARNADOE: It's 17,049 acres. MR. STRAIN: So the DRI application is 3,000 or so acres off. It's greater than ten percent. Is that going to cause any problem? MR. V ARNADOE: No problem. When we represented this to the -- you know, the DRI application was filed over a year ago. We presented this to the Regional Planning Council, and we went through much of the same presentation that you heard this morning, and had the actual acreages at that time. When we started this, we didn't know how many acres we were going to require to generate the number of credits to entitle the town. So we estimated. MR. STRAIN: I know DRIs are sensitive to changes greater than 10 percent of their acreage uses. The basis for the review of this DRI, if you submitted it a year ago and used the 20,000 that we have in front of us today, it's changed greater than ten percent. It's down to 17,000 now. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, it would be true that that was Page 76 ~"--"- '"'-"'*-~--~--'-'- ...._w,_~,~ June 2, 2005 within the DRI land, you'd be absolutely correct, but it's not within the DRI land. MR. STRAIN: But it was the basis for approval of the DRI. MR. V ARNADOE: No. MR. STRAIN: Well, why did you mention it in numerous places throughout the DRI? MR. V ARNADOE: Because they asked us how we were getting the credits, Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Because it must have been concerning to them. MR. V ARNADOE: I'm sorry? MR. STRAIN: Maybe they were concerned about how much was set aside. Usually when you've got 11,000 units going in on 5,000 acres and the basis for the preservation part of that was the SSA that was created. MR. V ARNADOE: As you know, a DRI looks at regional issues, and they do not look at -- this is not an issue they were concerned with, and we straightened out the acreage and the credits when we went through the presentation, Mr. Strain, at the Regional Planning Council. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Did you make a presentation at DCA? MR. V ARNADOE: No, sir. MR. STRAIN: Okay. This is the DRI. I wasn't -- it wasn't a Regional Planning Council issue I was asking about, but the FlAM -- I shouldn't say the FlAM. The revenue generation summary that is in the DRI -- I think now you may have partially answered it -- it was done about a year before today. The statistics used in that are quite different than the FlAM that's been used today. At least the one I received from Wilson Miller's offices. I guess I'm going to be getting into a whole lengthy discussion on line item by line item on the FlAM later today. We can bring all this up at that time. It might try to reach more what you're trying to get to. Under page 12 to 15 of the DRI, talking about to discuss what Page 77 ~-~-,".,_._~._.,^.- -, ,~ .'--,--"------- June 2, 2005 measures are being proposed to be taken to mitigate impacts to state and federal listed wildlife planned resources. And it's under that question. I'm just pointing this out because it was part of our previous discussion. That again, you mentioned that there's 20,000 acres put up as part of the RLSA development entitlement process. My concern was, if it had been 17,000 acres, would that have any impact on the way this was reviewed. I don't know, but I wanted to enter that statement into the record at least. Under the general water supply, it's question 17, it has a table of 1 7 and A-I. It talks about the amount of potable water and non-potable water being used on the project. And in phase one and in phase two has a current of what's expected as the project builds out. And I think combined there's a total of 12.2, which does match -- 12.2 million gallons per day, which does match the SRA. What I'm finding is that the existing amount of existing MGD is 11.07. Do you know where the 11.07 number came from and how it relates to today's SRA? MR. V ARNADOE: I want to take you back for a minute to the official recommendations of the Regional Planning Council staff. MR. STRAIN: I've got those. I was going to get into those later. MR. V ARNADOE: Let's just -- because it answers your question, what you had before. Habitat -- you're talking about now vegetation and wildlife and wetlands. MS. CARON: What page are you on? MR. VARNADOE: Page 12 of the official Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council staff report. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. Good. MR. VARNADOE: Item A, habitat protection for listed species -- listed plants, excuse me, and wildlife species and additional off-site wetland mitigation will occur on approximately 17,000 acres of land as part of the rural land stewardship development title process. The development order shall indicate the specific entities will hold the Page 78 ~~""-~---_.._-~,-,..- .' '-'-"-'-"---'-"-- June 2, 2005 stewardship easements to the off-site 17,000 acres of stewardship sending areas instead of certain recommendations, blah, blah, blah. MR. STRAIN: I've got that. MR. VARNADOE: Well, then why are we discussing the 20,000 acres, Mr. Strain? MR. STRAIN: I'm talking about the DRI application. MR. V ARNADOE: And this is the DRI official report from the Regional Planning Council to the county. MR. STRAIN: But this is the DRI application. That's what I was using. The South Florida Regional Planning Council reviews it locally, but the DCA reviews it up in Tallahassee. MR. V ARNADOE: And they get their official recommendations from the Regional Planning Council too, sir. MR. STRAIN: And they're reading this document too. Which one are they going to believe? I don't understand what's so difficult about that question, but let's move on to the water question that I have. How did that existing 11.07 get into this chart, this table 17-Al under the water supply? MR. V ARNADOE: I think that's permanent allocation. MR. STRAIN: Okay. When we get into all of the documents, and maybe the SRA, I thought the permanent allocation was over 30 MGD. And the basis argument then was that-- MR. V ARNADOE: Let's get an engineer to answer. I'm just looking quick at that table. Somebody can more readily answer your question. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I'll go on until we find someone. CHAIRMAN BUDD: They're researching that right now, so you can go on with your question and we can fall back on that one when they've calculated an answer. MR. STRAIN: Under the solid waste, hazardous waste, medical waste, question 20 of the DRI application. Last paragraph on page 20-A1 says, solid waste generation estimates are shown on table Page 79 "_.~"-,~",---_.".... -.._--~" June 2, 2005 20-Al. These estimates are based on the criteria published in the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, solid waste management, and the resource recovery technical assistance handbook dated October 1976. We do not have a newer standard than a 30 year old one to go by? I know I'm asking questions you probably can't answer. MR. V ARNADOE: No. Mark, we're just trying to get the right guy to answer the question. That's all. MR. GOREY: This is Jason Gorey. For the record, Jason Gorey, with the engineering firm Camp, Dresser & McKee. We develop the solid waste aspects of the DRI. You're absolutely correct, that is a very old document, and it's a very conservative one. Since 1976, significant efforts have been made at recycling and source reduction to reduce the amount of solid waste being generated. We have historically referred to that to build conservancy into the application. You'll see that document referenced frequently. But you are correct. The numbers now are much lower than the ones generated in 1976. MR. STRAIN: Is there a reason we couldn't have used the more modern numbers. MR. GOREY: Just as an effort of conservancy, sir. To be conservative in the amount of solid waste that we are estimating being generated. MR. STRAIN: Do you know if Collier County uses the more modern numbers in their calculations. MR. GOREY: No, sir, I don't know which numbers they use. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Whether it's for or against the outcome, I think the most relevant and most recent numbers ought to be used in all cases. And I understand your conservancy viewpoint on it, but if the newer numbers after 30 years are justified, I would imagine it would be more accurate for the public's understanding of this. MR. GOREY: Yes, sir, I understand. MR. STRAIN: But I guess that's all. The other question maybe Page 80 --,-~._-~,--~.. ..__.~._._- June 2, 2005 you can answer then. On page 20-3 it talks about waste disposable plan on and off site. It is anticipated, and there's a statement in response to the question. It says, it is anticipated that the removal of solid waste from the development will go to the Immokalee solid waste transfer station which is to be completed by the end of 2004 per conversations with Collier County solid waste staff. Did that get completed last year? MR. GOREY: No. I don't believe the transfer station is in operation right now. My understanding is it's still in the permitting phase. Probably another year or so before complete operation of that transfer station. MR. STRAIN: How will that interact with the impact of Ave Maria then, if it was supposed to be done in '04 and it's now not going to be done until after Ave Maria is under construction and possibly permitted? MR. GOREY: Well, it's important to understand how a transfer station works. A transfer station is really for convenience and ease of getting the solid waste to the ultimate disposal site. The concept is that the smaller route trucks which go around and pick up the solid waste curbside, deliver the waste to a transfer station where it is simply put into a larger trailer and then transferred to the disposal site. In the case of the early phases of the development when there's very little solid waste being generated, it's just as convenient to take those route trucks directly to the disposal site. Does that answer your question? MR. STRAIN: It does. Why don't we just do that without the transfer station then? MR. GOREY: Because in the later days of development, it will be more economical to transfer the waste. To deliver it to a transfer station and then deliver it to the ultimate disposal site. MR. STRAIN: So the fact that this was supposed to be done 2004 is still not going to have that much of an impact on the Page 81 ~-~_. -- -".<._~~----~- June 2, 2005 operations of the solid waste removal? MR. GOREY: Very minimal, if at all. MR. STRAIN: What about the construction debris removal? Is that going to be handled the same way, direct transfer to the waste site? MR. GOREY: Construction debris is delivered to a separate site. It will not go to the county land fill. It goes to a separate CND landfill. So that is not typically handled through a transfer operation. It's just direct haul to the disposal site. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your answers. MR. GOREY: Are there any other solid waste questions while I'm up here? MR. STRAIN: Well, I mean, I don't know. But right now-- moving past that one, I don't believe so. MR. GOREY: Thank you. Understood. MR. STRAIN: The -- and I know you won't be able to answer this, but sometime before we're done, if someone could provide me with an appendix that was not attached to this DRI application. In particular, they're referring to a transportation methodology section of the pre-application document, and supplemental pre-application document dated May 25, 2004 that are included as appendix 21.1. I didn't have that and I know you got someone out there maybe writing that down, so, if I could get a copy of it, I'd like to see what it is because it does reference it in the DRI application, and it would have been nice to have it. And the intersection capacity analysis table 21.5 in the DRI, and that's existing 2004 traffic conditions. It talks about the intersection of Immokalee Road at Oil Well Road. And its average level of service existing is stated as A. I thought that was an intersection that's difficult right now. And I don't know if you would have that information. Maybe Don Scott would. But I didn't realize that was an A level of service. Or, Jeff, I'm sorry, I didn't see you there. Page 82 ~ - ~.'_..'"--- June 2, 2005 Do you know how A would have been in that table, or is that correct today? MR. PERRY: For the record, my name is Jeff Perry. I'm a transportation planner with Wilson Miller. I reviewed that particular table. The logical explanation is this a p.m. peak hour analysis. And using the data that is required for p.m. peak hour analysis, that traffic condition that you're probably familiar with, and may have read about, occurs in the morning peak hour where the traffic flow, as someone mentioned earlier, is dramatic in one particular direction, does not occur in the same district or the same components in the p.m. when this particular analysis was required to be done. So what you might have in the a.m. peak is perhaps, in some movements, slightly different, or even dramatically different than what you might have in an a.m. analysis. MR. STRAIN: So, when these tables are done, if someone picks the right time of day to do the table, they can come out with a much better result than what a lot of us experience in reality in today's road system? Is that -- MR. PERRY: If you pick three o'clock in the morning, I guess you'd be right, but we're not allowed to do that. We're required to analyze on a p.m. peak hour condition. MR. STRAIN: Why wouldn't they require you to do that on the worst timing conditions so that it's more related to reality? MR. PERRY: Under normal circumstances, the p.m. peak is the worst hour of the day. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. PERRY: It is historically the worst period of time. It may change which hour. And when we collect traffic data, we collect traffic over a two hour period, and we pick the worst hour of that two hours. The worst 60-minute period. It may start at 4:30 in the afternoon and go to 5:30 or something else like that. It is the same analysis period that is historically and institutionally analyzed and it's Page 83 ~,._._.^ - ,..---.-.--.,.,--.-..'--....---- June 2, 2005 the same hour of the day that the county analyzes in their level of service evaluations and their AUIR. It is the hour of choice. MS. CARON: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, go ahead. MS. CARON: Yeah. To follow up on that. I want to talk to Mr. Scott, because I was under the understanding after our workshop that we would go to whatever was the most affected hour. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. Exactly. I was going to jump in on that. And Mark wasn't at that -- where we did talk in some areas of the county were a.m. is worst, and this is one of the things from our concurrency standpoint, but when this analysis was done, that was previous to any of those discussions. MS. CARON: That we'll be going-- MR. SCOTT: Yes, we will be going to that. Beyond that A, B, C, the one part of that is the improvements are at Immokalee Road, and we're doing improvements on Oil Well at Immokalee Road that will help the condition that really people are experiencing right now. Not right now but when school is in session. MS. CARON: Because we know that it really should be the a.m. hours, we will change it for this DRI? MR. SCOTT: Not because -- the analysis they did was quite -- it started awhile back. The methodology with DCA, with all the partners that were involved at that time it was p.m. peak, so it will not change for that purpose, no. MR. STRAIN: Don, before you go away, there's going to be a lot of questions throughout the day on transportation. MR. SCOTT: Oh, I thought that was it. MR. STRAIN: We haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg on that. There's a series of tables in the DRI -- the DRI was actually the simplest document in the grouping -- that talk about a couple of other things, including impacted roadways needing improvement. And impacting roadways for both 2011 and 2016. I guess phase one and Page 84 -.- ...--.......- June 2, 2005 phase two. A statement was made that they'll need to be improved to accommodate the general growth in the area. And the improvements are included, and they're listing them. But is your department going to have them done? Have you looked at these tables and verified that in your ten-year plan, which is approximately ten years from now, that these segments of road system will be done? Does anybody look at it that way? MR. SCOTT: Well, obviously, our program that we have funded out is out five years. So, or 2010 essentially at this point. Beyond that, some of the issues, it looks -- obviously anything that I'm talking towards the west right now, I have comfort that, you know, they've identified like Collier Boulevard is impacted. Those are all programmed within the next couple of years. All of Immoklee, essentially from 41 out beyond Oil Well Road. Oil Well Road from Immokalee out to Camp Keais is programmed in the five-year work program for construction. Now, the sections that aren't programmed, Camp Keais would be something we'd probably move on in the next five years essentially. The section of Immokalee going into Immokalee. And then some of the roads on the other side like around Immokalee, looking at loop road right now, PD&E studies on 29. We advanced 82 with Lee County for a PD&E study. So those are actually at the beginning stages and we assume to be about seven or eight years out. MR. STRAIN: Is there -- did you review the DRI application? MR. SCOTT: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Did you, did you review the DRI application? MR. SCOTT: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Did you at the time you reviewed it, go through the two dozen different roadway segments that are going to be impacted in phase one and phase two to see if there are any particular plans on the horizon that you may have coming up? Page 85 .^'"'~- June 2, 2005 MR. SCOTT: That's how we got to getting Oil Well. I mean, obviously, if you go back in time, Immokalee Road -- say, before Ave Maria -- Immokalee Road was, what was in the long range plan to be widened out to Immokalee. With Ave Maria coming, and some of the other issues that came up -- and Fred Thomas touched on this earlier about people coming down actually Camp Keais and Oil Well anyway -- and the issues in Orangetree, which weren't being addressed, Oil Well Road and Camp Keais was added to the long range plan. With those being added, and moving the programming up based on the DCA that was signed with them, that was addressed as part of that. So, at the beginning of this whole process, no, not everything was addressed. It is being addressed by this process though. MR. STRAIN: Are you able then to testify today that the 21 road segments that are needing improvements to coincide with the phasing of this project, will be improved to the best of your knowledge in regards to the feasibility and financial capabilities based on income -- impact fee revenues, pursuant to those listed in the DRI? MR. SCOTT: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Okay. And then the last one I think might be the only one for traffic at this point. There's a paragraph here. I'd like you to explain a little bit more. It says the significant and adverse impact on the segment of 175 for Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road is due in part to the use of the lost fee standard when considering that the commitment from the state to improve 175 is not until 2008. The planned widening to at least six lanes will provide sufficient service volume to eliminate the sufficiency even at level of service C. When is 175 now scheduled to be expanded, and to what expansion is it going to be to? MR. SCOTT: To six lanes from Golden Gate Parkway to, I believe, Colonial, maybe Daniels Parkway, in 2008. Now, the discussions -- a lot of the newspaper articles recently. Not having the money earmarked in the bill, does not change the fact that that's Page 86 June 2, 2005 programmed in 2008. N ow what has happened, as part of the growth management bill, is the thought that the FDOT there at like 30 -- somewhere between 30 and 60 percent design on 175 for six lanes. It might turn that into a design bill and move it up to next year actually because of the influx of funding based on the bill. That's not guaranteed, but beyond that, the guarantee is, it is funded in 2008. MR. STRAIN: When you say six lanes, is that each direction? MR. SCOTT: three lanes each direction. Six lanes. MR. STRAIN: As bad as it is out there, this one lane is going to make all the difference in the world? MR. SCOTT: Well, obviously based on the discussion and the bill to be signed, if it hasn't been signed yet, was the toll authority bill. Actually, Lee County is talking with their board on Monday. We had a discussion with our Board the last board meeting about implementing -- you, know, enacting the toll authority and moving forward with the fact of trying to get the ten lanes essentially. That's actively moving forward too. You know, time frame, don't really know at this point. But, obviously, if you look at, six lanes is going to be the be all and end all of the interstate, no. I mean, beyond that some interchange improvements need to happen. Like we're talking about Immokalee and Golden Gate Parkway opening up and things like that. MR. STRAIN: I can't recall right now, maybe you can help me. The TIS, does the TIS address state roads like 175 and the impacts? MR. SCOTT: Yes, yes. Do you recall how that was addressed? I mean, it might be in one of these other books I haven't gotten to yet, but I just thought maybe you might know. MR. SCOTT: Well, let's see. It's in here in the list. They're referring essentially to the fact that the level of service C with six lanes would meet. Obviously, the growth on the interstate, you're looking at the model. The new model is being worked on right now. Page 87 , ~~--.-----,- June 2, 2005 That will be done by the end of the year. I think six lanes is not going to last 20 years, or whatever. That's why we're going after the ten lane section. But when they first analyzed it with the six lanes it would meet, but obviously the growth on the interstate has been more than -- MR. STRAIN: I think I know the answer -- I mean, I know the answer to this next question, but I'd like you to say it for the record. Is 175 a hurricane evacuation route? MR. SCOTT: Yes, it is. Most of our arterial system is. MR. STRAIN: I realize that, but knowing that it is, and it's in the failed level of service right now. MR. SCOTT: That's correct. But it's not part of our concurrency system. MR. STRAIN: I understand. That's-- MR. SCOTT: Though I'd like to widen it. MR. STRAIN: I have a lot more transportation, but I'll get into those as we get to them, if that's okay. MR. SCOTT: Okay. MR. STRAIN: George, I'm sorry to keep putting you through this, but I keep having questions, so -- MR. V ARNADOE: No, no, you go right ahead. MR. STRAIN: There's a discussion in the DRI about your target market, and then it talks about employment opportunities for residents within the town and in the vicinity of the town. It talks about communities where you're planning on drawing employment base from within a 10 mile, 20 minute commute of the town. Those are Immokalee, Orangetree and Golden Gate Estates. Has that statement changed any with your affordable housing component, because at the time did you this, I don't believe you had that put together? MR. V ARNADOE: Obviously, the amount of employment we'd be drawing from those areas would be reduced, Mr. Strain, as a result of the increase in the affordable housing. We did not have a firm commitment for that, and not for that amount of affordable housing at Page 88 --. '......-.-....-^ June 2, 2005 that time. MR. STRAIN: Okay. We actually got some of these questions done. Oh, here's one. Historical archeological sites. Apparently, you hired a consultant called Archeological Consultants, Inc, ACI, to do your required historical archeological review. They provide an addendum dated July 20, 2004. I don't have a copy of it. And I thought it might be copied to the DRI, and I went back and read the letters from the Division of Historical Resources that were supplied -- and there are actually three of them -- and the most recent one which was dated April 21, 2004 basically only addressed the area outlined in our PDA. I don't find any kind of letter from the Division of Historical Resources giving any kind of recommendations in regards to historical sites in the property as the DRI application is for. And I mentioned this to Anita, and I think she was going to try to get something for me, but I don't have it yet. MR. V ARNADOE: Did you get the two sufficiency responses to the DRI that we filed with the county? MR. STRAIN: I believe I got one late yesterday. I was going -- haven't gone through it completely, but I don't remember -- there's no attachments to it. So I wouldn't have gotten that with it anyway. Can I get a copy of this at some point before the meeting is over today? I can't read it right now so I'd like to read it at lunch time, or break time, or whatever time chairman let's us breathe around here. MR. STRAIN: For the DRI package, with the exception of the economics part of it, which I want to do in conjunction with the SRA, that's all I have from this one book. And it might be a good time, unless there's any other break at some point. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. I have questions on the DRI regarding affordable housing, but is that a topic we're going to take en masse somewhere? MR. STRAIN: I have it. There's a section in -- it's either Page 89 ~_'H__._".,_.,_,_ . ,--~ June 2, 2005 Southwest Regional Planning Council's report, or SRA that starts breaking down the affordable housing. I was going to get into the details and the price ranges and Cormack's responses and all that at that point, but it's subject to you on your questioning. MR. SCHIFFER: It's in the appendix I think of the DRI, isn't it? MR. STRAIN: There's pieces of it in here, but they basically said they were going to work out something with affordable housing. And it has gotten now worked out, but I don't think it was completely addressed in the DRI. MR. SCHIFFER: I think it's a topic longer than we have, so let's save it then. MR. STRAIN: We've got days. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, before lunch. I'm short term thinking here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any follow-up questions by Planning Commissioners on their current track, because I think Mr. Strain makes a good point. Before he starts on the next section, 20 until 12 is probably as good a time as any to break for lunch and then we start clean with the next round. Are there any other follow-up questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: It is kind of hard to decide what's follow-up and what's not, but I have a question about the stewardship areas one through six. A lot of it is in agriculture now and is clear, and a lot of it is infested with exotics. Is there going to be any agreement or arrangement to maintain these stewardship areas exotic free? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, but there's not a lot of exotics in the SSAs. Obviously, we have a few exotics around the dikes, around the active farm fields. That's cleared as a matter of course, as you know, once a year when they do their work. The benefit to keeping the Ag 2 areas in Ag 2 as opposed to making the conservation, is that you have active management with those lands. And if you look at the lands in SSA 6, that are Ag 2, Page 90 _..._H__......,.._...__.,._...,_......._...._ June 2, 2005 which it's unimproved pastures, what the definition is, I guess, and you pair that to the panther refuge lands, they will admit that our land is in better shape because we actively manage it and they don't. They don't have the money to do it. And that's one of the benefits to keeping that in private ownership. But the answer to your question -- I didn't mean to go on a sermon, is yes. MR. MIDNEY: So there is an actual formal agreement to keep them exotic free? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. MR. MIDNEY: And I have another question. The Regional Planning Council has 25 recommendations, which is in our packet here of the Collier County Planning Commission. Is the county, Ray, in conformity with all 25 of those recommendations? They're lettered A through Y. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. In your DRI staffreport, included is a DRI resolution order. It incorporates those findings. MR. MIDNEY: So you're in agreement with all of them? MR. BELLOWS: As staff takes the findings from the Regional Planning Council and formulates a resolution to incorporate those, and normally DRIs are associated with PUD, zoning type documents, where the local recommendations that may have come out of the DRI process, are then addressed to the rezoning process. In this case we're dealing with an SRA as we try to address the local issues to the SRA process. But, in all cases, the SRA doesn't necessarily, or PUD have to match, because one is dealing with the regional issues, and the other is dealing with the local issues. MR. MIDNEY: But in this case, the county is -- MR. BELLOWS: The development resolution fairly well incorporates all of those recommendations that are attached in that Regional Planning Council findings. MR. MIDNEY: I kind of feel guilty about going forward, but I do have a problem with one in particular of those that are in the DRI Page 91 .,--,_._---'~..- ^..~-----_..~~.._--- June 2, 2005 report. I don't know if now is the time to go into it or not. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's take a swing at it. MR. MIDNEY: Okay. I'll take a swing at it. -- MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Midney, where are you, sir? What page? Can you give me a -- MR. MIDNEY: I have so many documents. This one which says, staff report, Collier County Planning Commission. Where it is included in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's recommendations. On my page -- it's page five, where they go into the storm water management recommendations. The cover looks like this. Yeah, that's right. Storm water management section. And I don't know if you're the one to answer that because you didn't originate these. We don't have anyone here from the Regional Planning Council? Anyway. Area Q, they talk about storm water management system maintenance requirements within the town of Ave Maria shall include removal of any mosquito productive nuisance plants species such as water lettuce, water hyacinth, cattails, and primrose willows from all system nodes, regions and percolation basins as well as from the lake lateral zones employed in the system. My problem with that recommendation is that they have two exotic species, water lettuce and water hyacinth, but then they have two native species, cattails and primrose willows. If you try to remove all of those from any lateral zones, what are they trying to do, and why are they getting to this level of specificity? Doesn't the developer have the right to remove any species that they want to. I mean, why is this in such fine detail at this level? MR. V ARNADOE: Tim? I'll get Mr. Durham up here who is our environmental expert. MR. DURHAM: My name is Tim Durham, Director of Ecological Waste Resource with Wilson, Miller. Taking a second to try to think of a politically correct answer to the question. Cattails are native, but they're a nuisance often indicative of excess nutrient levels Page 92 -"'"-,---~_.._.- "---~."."_. June 2, 2005 in the water, et cetera. So, as a general principle, the Water Management District will otherwise try to get you to keep cattails out of systems. They can spin out of control. It's often associated with wetland systems that have been degraded or somehow been lowered in quality. So all those are native species and are typically considered undesirable. The question you asked, why do they go to such detail? I would imagine there have been problems in the past in other projects where there may have be a wetland or some system that they let get dominated with cat trails and primrose willow and native species, what's the problem with this. So, my assumption would be -- MR. MIDNEY: Who would be the party that would be complaining? And, I mean, if Ave Maria town decided that they wanted to get rid of these plants that were in, you know, their lake lateral zones, why wouldn't they just have the right to do it? Why do they have to put it at this level when we're talking about -- why does it have to be in the development of the DRI development order? MR. DURHAM: South Florida Water Management District typically comes up with a list of recommendations for projects. Sometimes they're very project specific. Often they're general. This language was recommended by South Florida Water Management District. I would, without having to go back to the file, I would have to guess as part of a general block of language they recommend. MR. MIDNEY: It seems -- what they talk about is any mosquito productive nuisance plant species, and then they put such as, so really they've sort of mentioned four species, but they're also very general. I mean, it could include other plant species. And what I'm wondering about is, are they trying to get at that the lateral zones and the areas around them are going to be mowed grass right do~n to the water level, or. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, there's the water level. MR. MIDNEY: No. I mean, why do they have to be so specific Page 93 -~~_.+ June 2, 2005 at this level? MR. DURHAM: You have to understand, South Florida's perspective is over thousands of permits that they process and issue. I'm sure they've had run ins with people who have tried to argue that cattails and primrose are native species, therefore, they shouldn't be required to reduce those. South Florida Water Management District permits typically require that you get rid of exotics and keep nuisance species down below a certain number. I can only guess that their language and recommendations are specific species that probably reflect some past problems they've had with people debating that point. Irrespective of that, we would keep those out no matter what. That would be a permit condition for South Florida Water Management District to control native and nuisance species anyway. MR. MIDNEY: See, if you were to try to do that around Lake Trafford, you'd have to get rid of hundreds of acres, and included with that would be a lot of important bird habitat, because those two species that I mentioned are used by birds for nesting and for forage areas and for cover. So, I'm a little bit concerned that the way it's written, it sounds as though you don't want these species at all in there, and they are important to wildlife. MR. DURHAM: I suspect long after Ave Maria is around, there will be lots of willows and cattails still around, but within the permitted storm water management system of the proj ect, those would not be allowed by the Water Management District. MR. MIDNEY: Okay. MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Midney, and Tim, these are recommendations from the Regional Planning Council. And if it's your -- certainly this board can recommend that you take out those examples and just leave the nuisance species in there, language in there. It's your development order. As long as we're being responsive to the issues that are raised by the Regional Planning Council, that's what we are here to do. Page 94 ~, ,-.- __'''.___._H_'-___ . ..._--"-_._,-~...,. June 2, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, you had a follow-up question? MR. STRAIN: Well, no. I have a question of Tim since he's up here. It has to do with something I heard earlier today. There's been apparently a lot of -- some panther deaths on 846, Immokalee Road. Are you guys going to be putting a panther crossing so panthers can move across Immokalee Road without crossing the surface of the roadway, or is it Camp Keais or Oil Well Road you're putting the panther crossing on? MR. DURHAM: First of all, 846 has been the site of a number of panther deaths. When we looked at the whole rural lands area and said what areas should we put in stewardship sending area status, working with Florida Wildlife Federation, for gain commission, that area up there was identified as really a great opportunity for stewardship sending area because the main inhibition to a wildlife crossing being placed there anywhere up to this point has been the fact that it's been in private ownership. So by putting the lands on both sides of the road in stewardship sending area status that now allows the process to move forward for the state to put in a wildlife crossing there. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So you're not putting one in there? MR. DURHAM: Correct. MR. STRAIN: Yours is down on Oil Well Road or Camp Keais? MR. DURHAM: As part of the permitting and design and construction of Oil Well Road between Camp Keais Road and Immokalee Road, it is anticipated Wildlife crossing will go in at the Camp Keais strand location. The county is currently working to have a study done to identify the exact precise location of that. And the Florida Fish & Wildlife Service is aware of that and coordinating in that mix as well. MR. STRAIN: I just wanted for factual information. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRA Y: Yes, sir. Having to do with the same document Page 95 ^.--- ' ~-,-_.._~., June 2, 2005 on page 14, and my question has to do with the second paragraph down. It speaks to waste water. And the last sentence says, there may be some remote septic tank location that would not be practically served by the centralized facility. And I recognize, you know, 4995 acres is a fair amount, but I'm just a little surprised that we'd actually have any septic tanks there when we do intend to have a waste water treatment system. Can you give me an enlightenment on that possibly? MR. V ARNADOE: The only areas that I would know where that might occur would be typically on golf courses where you have restrooms that are remotely located from the clubhouse or any development where it's not economically feasible to run facilities out to those. That would be, off the top of my head, that's the only thing that occurs to me, Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Okay. That makes good sense to me on that basis. One other question. On the letters that were given out this morning, I noted here, having to do with the Ave Maria utility company, you're talking about applications for 1.0 million gallons per day water and 75 million gallons per day waste water, that's an application, I believe. I remember somewhere, and I cannot point to it immediately, but it seemed to me to be -- that seemed to be rather small. Is that to be in incremental stages or? MR. VARNADOE: Exactly, sir. It will grow as the town grows. MR. MURRAY: That satisfies my curiosity for the moment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're at a break point. We'll certainly take any other pressing questions, otherwise, it's a good time to break for lunch. Any summary comment from this morning at this stage? MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. I think we're making Wonderful progress. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman. Page 96 .~---'"_...__.. -.-..---..----- June 2, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Assuming that we're either going to complete today, then this won't matter, but we do need to make clear that although we previously advised that the continued meeting might be in Community Development, my understanding is from e-mail traffic this morning is that it would be in these chambers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Give note of clarification, should this meeting be continued until tomorrow, we'll be here at this same location. So with that, we'll break for lunch, and we'll resume at 1 :00. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. We'll call the Planning Commission back to order. And we have had our petitioner presentation, staff presentation, registered speakers. We'll resume with our questions. And, Mr. Varnadoe, you had a question or comment? MR. V ARNADOE: Two things very quickly, Mr. Budd. The-- Hank Fishkind, our FlAM, physical impact analysis model man, has got a flight this afternoon. I wondered if we could do his questions next so we could -- we could get him out of here. And I talked to Mr. Mark Strain during the break, and he said he thought he could cluster those together so we could do that, if that's okay with you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Works for me. I think everyone else is in agreement. Does Mr. Fishkind have an opening presentation, or just to be here available for -- MR. V ARNADOE: He'll be available for questions. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. MR. V ARNADOE: I would like to clarify one thing. I guess that some -- Mr. Midney asked me about exotic removal, or words to that effect, in the SSA areas, and I wanted to make sure that what we -- what we do in our documents is we control exotics. You know, we -- I'm never going to tell you that they're a hundred percent removed at any point in time, but we do have a provision for controlling exotics in those areas. Page 97 ~-'-" _'_~'____,_ _'w_ ^ ,.-...,-. June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. Thank you.Mr. Strain, you had some questions on the economic model? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hundreds. Almost. But there are quite a few questions. You want -- am I supposed to be directing them to you or Hank? MR. V ARNADOE: No, no. I'm getting -- I'm getting out of here, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't blame you, George. MR. VARNADOE: You're not running me off. MR. FISHKIND: I was hoping you'd stay. For the record, I'm Hank Fishkind from Fishkind & Associates. Thank you for your courtesy, appreciate it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hank, I've had the benefit of some time with you to understand how the model was put together. And it was very beneficial because it really helped me understand the -- how the cells work, how the formulas track back and forth, all that stuff. And I was fortunate enough to have an electronic version, which allowed a lot of understanding of that. But I know the rest of the members of the panel have not, and I don't know -- first, before I start my questions, if I just barge into the FlAM, or is there a short preface you might fill them in on what this document is so they have a better understanding of why it's such an important document to this new town? MR. FISHKIND: Sure. With your permission, I'll be very brief. The fiscal impact model -- and you're seeing some of the results from that model -- was developed under contract to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. In 2002 the department, under mandate from the governor, let out an RFP to develop a prototype state model that would assist commissions like this and county commissions in estimating the costs and revenues associated with land use decisions. The new growth management law that was passed by the -- by the legislature this session redefines portions of the statute and makes Page 98 ...__..",-,.~~,"-,..- -'---'-- June 2, 2005 it clear that comprehensive plans have to be financially feasible -- and I'll discuss what that means in a second -- amendments to the plan cannot render a plan unfeasible, and that levels of service standards, both for new growth and existing growth, have to be set in a way that the community can demonstrate that they have the finances to meet those level of service standards. In other words, you can't have level of service C for roads and be delivering F on the ground without a plan to come back to C. And this fiscal model that we developed is going to be the safe harbor. If a community uses this model, then the methodology will be accepted, much the same as the Florida Department of Transportation uses Fasudamus (phonetic) as the safe harbor model for analyzing transportation issues. This model is designed to serve that same function, but for land use decisions. The department had plans to promulgate and roll out the model this summer for you, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's kind of where it was at with me. So with that in mind, Hank, first thing I'd like to talk about is some base information. We received, on April 5th of 2004, an e-mail from Joe Schmitt to each one of the Planning Commission members that in it contained financial model information. And it looks like it was written by your office, dated December 2002. In that, there was a couple items that I wanted to highlight because they'll play into today's discussion. One of them is an item under limitations of the model. There's a paragraph, last paragraph on that, it says or -- I should say the second paragraph says furthermore, the projections of the costs and revenues associated with land use decisions are only accurate to plus or minus 25 percent at best. So does that mean that the model that we're looking at today and that we're going to be talking about has a margin of error of 25 percent? MR. FISHKIND: Over a forecast arising of 20 years, yes, sir, I Page 99 '~"~m."_,~__,,._m"_'_ ",--".".-..,.-.- June 2, 2005 think that's fair. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. FISHKIND: Makes -- the model makes forecast projections not only for the current time period, Commissioners, but also out over a 25 year horizon. So certainly as one extends the forecast horizon, the precision obviously deteriorates. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Under your recommendations for model delivery, there was a discussion there that seemed to pertain to some of my concerns over today's model. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it says -- and it was -- you listed three things under those recommendations. Third it says our research indicates that no customization was required to produce models that the pilot communities found reliable. Now, there are some input values in your model and there are some base values that I believe are established generally by the counties, maybe, but in what we're going to be finding out in our discussions today that some of those base numbers have been modified for the town of Ave Maria. And I am just wondering is that in -- is that the reference that I was bringing out in this paragraph, about the fact that no customization is required generally for them to produce models for that pilot community found reliable. I mean is it standard that you would allow these variables to change? MR. FISHKIND: Yes. In terms of customization, what I mean by that is that we have one model structure. One basic Excel workbook that one populates with local data for each specific jurisdiction. In other words, the budget structure of Collier County's different than the budget structure of Orange County or Sarasota County. You're much more reliant upon ad valorem taxes, for example, than is Sarasota County, which is more fee based in its revenue structure. Page 100 ---",-_." ""-'~-~------~"'--"-'"- June 2, 2005 The revenue structure of the City of Naples is different than Collier County. The cost structures are also different. But the basic model parameters are driven off of the adopted budgets, as required to be reported to the Florida Department of Banking. So that structure doesn't change. The model uses population. Population numbers, the official numbers come from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida, so we use those. Employment numbers come from the employment section of the state government of Department of Labor. So -- so those parameters don't change. What does change, though, is if one is making an application to a specific project. For example, if we wanted to apply the model that is calibrated for Collier County to Ave Maria, which is the exercise today, one could either, for the sake of discussion, to pick a parameter, household size. One could use the average household size for the county, if one didn't have better information. Or if one thinks one has better information, superior to populating with the default or the average values, then it is standard practice to use whatever the best estimate might be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You have a disclosure section in the same document, and in it, it describes things that the analyst should have done. Were you the analyst for this FIAM? MR. FISHKIND: We were in terms of the submission, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The sentence reads, in addition, since the FIAM is calibrated for each community and contains numerous default parameters that are reasonable for average conditions in each jurisdiction, the analyst should clearly describe any deviations from the FIAM norms. Did you produce any document that told us and listed for us all the deviations in this particular document from the norms? MR. FISHKIND: In the initial submission for the DR!, there were no deviations. As we began to progress and work with the Page 101 _.- __"'W",.",._" 'h~"_.__ -... June 2, 2005 county and the staff, county staff had inputs for us, which I find appropriate. And I believe that we transmitted a set of detailed discussion about what the county staff had asked and some sensitivity analyses that we had conducted. The end result is that there's no difference in the ultimate conclusion, which is on a spective basis. I think under any reasonable set of circumstance and assumptions that this project would have a positive fiscal impact. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the deviations that were in here, I mean we -- there was no separate sheet listing every deviation that you know of? MR. FISHKIND: No. I don't think that they're material, for the reason I just described. If they were material, then I think that would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The initial FIAM for the town of Ave Maria had obvious input deficiencies that required modifications to the analysis. That's in a memo from Ray Bellows, to Randy Cohen. Since we received the final copy, what were those input deficiencies? MR. FISHKIND: I think that Mr. Bellows is referring to some suggestions the staff had with respect to household size, inflation on the -- on a prospective basis for the real estate. There were extensive discussions about internal capture rate for the transportation component. I think that was the main sources of the county's concern. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, we'll-- I've got those itemized on line items in the model. I'm going through some literature I had on this to kind of work into the model itself, and I'll have -- MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- probably some questions of that. The input tab changes, there were several. One was to reduce the persons per household from 2.39 to 2.20. The 2.20 or 2.21, I think it is, is what's in the -- 2.21 is in the DR!. The 2.20 came out in the version that we have. MR. FISHKIND: Right. Page 102 -~."_._---,.~,.,.... < "._-,~."'~~---_._,~._- June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The 2.39 was in your FlAM 3.0 that came out with the original submittal that staff reviewed back in end of '03. MR. FISHKIND: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What is your understanding of why it was lowered from 2.39 to 2.2? MR. FISHKIND: The mix of having a heavy retirement component, as George Vamadoe described to you earlier, suggests that the average overall household size in the project, if it is marketed and sold as planned, would be closer to the 2.20 estimate than 2.39. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's a educational town, university town. MR. FISHKIND: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They attract more retirees than they do young families? MR. FISHKIND: That's their market plan for the rest of the town. The residential components are designed and will be marketed to empty nesters in particular. That's their target market. So assuming that's the case, then it would be appropriate to make some adjustment to the standard average value for -- it wouldn't be average for the community. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If the students have to live in the campus on the dorm or in the town or in the residence within the community, how are they factored in if they live in the dorm to the persons per household? MR. FISHKIND: They are typically treated on a -- as a -- each dorm room and what the bedrooms are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So there's -- MR. FISHKIND: And we assume that some equivalent of two would be approximately one household. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So each student is looked at as a Page 103 .-_.-...--' . ,<",...,.",=, " -.". -.---.-- June 2, 2005 household -- MR. FISHKIND: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- or every two students? MR. FISHKIND: Two to make a full-time equivalent. Because the household size is approximately two. So for driving, some of the parameters on the cost side with the number of people, then would be appropriate to group them in some reasonable fashion or weight them. Either alternative would work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know of any demographic study that shows the demographics of a town of this cultural nature that would indicate it would have a lower persons per household than was typical to the county? MR. FISHKIND: Yes. I would cite the Villages, probably, as a good example, or Sola Vida (phonetic). Both are marketed as active adult communities. The Villages has age restrictions in some parts of the community, but doesn't have age restrictions in other parts. So if one believes that the marketing would be successful and oriented to empty nesters, then it's reasonable to think that the household size would be a bit smaller for there wouldn't be children, typically, in those household. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Further in the report, there is a percentage breakdown of empty nesters. It isn't a great percentage. There is a percentage of them listed, and we'll get to it. It's in one of these books. MR. FISHKIND: As I said, also, the results really aren't very different. If one uses 2.2, 2.39, 2.4, 2.5, the conclusion doesn't change. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I agree with you, but -- MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- if you take the 2.39 and you adjust it to 2.2, it may affect the FlAM in one way, but there are other level of service calculations throughout the other documents that are -- Page 104 -,-"..'...._---~.~ ....."..- June 2, 2005 that have another impact in establishing persons that affect the level of service across Collier County. But my more -- more of a concern to me is that this FlAM is a -- doesn't react to just one change that significantly, but a lot of little changes it does react to. I found that out when I started making a lot of little changes to it. I would go into the cells that you created and go back and change numbers to see how they were -- affected the bottom line. None of them brought it immediately down to a negative, but some of them collectively together did. And that's what I -- that's where I'm going to be going with my questioning today, is try to find out how much of those numbers are realistically changed and how much should be changed to look at it a different way, if need be. And so -- MR. FISHKIND: Well, we certainly went through that exercise. F or the benefit of the commission, Mark asked would we make a series of changes, and, yes, of course the model is -- gets different results. If it didn't, something would be wrong with the model. And one can create sets of scenarios or assumptions that would produce a negative fiscal result. I don't find that set of assumptions to be realistic, personally. And, ultimately, that's why we have strongly urged -- and it is in the current regulations -- to monitor. The fact is that we're making forecasts. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How often is the Brooks monitored? MR. FISHKIND: The Brooks monitors every year. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Every year? MR. FISHKIND: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There are things in here, variables that I have -- certainly am concerned about. One is the persons per household, one is the capture rate, one is the land prices and the unit sales price. Another big one is the absorptions and also the possible trip distances. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. Page 105 "~_'""'''~--'-'-- ~--._,--_. June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As we get in today's meeting, get into it further, there's issues in transportation about counters and things like that that are going to have -- provide valuable information. MR. FISHKIND: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So I know the impacts to the road will be monitored. On a yearly basis, how hard would it be to monitor any of these other things? Aren't they things --like when you have a unit sale in a closing, that is closed with the Collier County, it's recorded, the value of it's closed. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there -- is it difficult to tabulate that stuff on a yearly basis? MR. FISHKIND: No, not at all. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Brooks is doing that. MR. FISHKIND: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that way they verify their model isn't too far askew before they go too far with it. MR. FISHKIND: Well, they monitor annually because Lee County required it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. Okay. That's another thing. MR. FISHKIND: We do what we gotta do to get the data. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. That's where I'm going is the data. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The price of this land -- it's raw land, it's got some entitlements. MR. FISHKIND: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Fourteen months ago or whenever the last version 3.0 came out and was used, the value of the land in that model was 25 thousand per acre. MR. FISHKIND: Right. Page 106 0-"'_" ~-_.__._--_.- June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think if I have -- the DR! didn't have it, but the original FlAM that the county used was 50 thousand an acre. MR. FISHKIND: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And according to Ray Bellows' memo, it was raised from 50 to 75 thousand an acre. MR. FISHKIND: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know what the justification would have been? Is there an appraisal present that we haven't seen that gives the value of that land? MR. FISHKIND: No, I don't think there was an appraisal. County staff said we'd like to see it run with 75 thousand. We believe that the sales that we're familiar with out in Orange Tree and other places would support a higher value, and we'd like to see that put into the -- put into the model. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know why then they would -- the county would credit the developer with right-of-way in their development agreement on April 26th at 50 thousand an acre, when obviously the developer could have benefited from a higher rate? MR. FISHKIND: I couldn't tell you. I didn't negotiate the agreement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The property inflation went from two percent to three percent. And -- MR. FISHKIND: That's right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I kept hearing the reference that the three percent's conservative. Yet when I looked in your inflation factors in your FlAM, the median over a period of time in Collier County has only been 3.2 percent. So-- MR. FISHKIND: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I'm not sure three percent is that conservative. It seems to be pretty close to what the median is. Is that Page 107 .----.-------,,--.----,. ... --,.._-" June 2, 2005 a fair statement? MR. FISHKIND: Over a lengthy period of time, that's true. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Cost per lane mile. In the 03 -- the 3.0 version of the FlAM, cost per lane mile used was -- started out to be 3,151,198. Now that doesn't show up in the model. It shows up when you click on the electronic version in the cell. MR. FISHKIND: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it has a minus 1 million, so that the model ended up with 2,151,198, which is exactly 1 million less than what the model today is being used. MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What was the justification for that reduction of the 1 million? Do you know? MR. FISHKIND: My recollection of that is that the cost of right-of-way is estimated to be less out in this more rural area than would the cost of right-of-way would be for the average right-of-way acquisition in the county, which tends to be, of course, west of 75. So land is more expensive in that area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So then we bump the price back up a million in this current version of the FIAM. And why did we pick a million now instead of215,198 (sic), it's exactly 311,511,988 (sic) . MR. FISHKIND: Well, as I just explained, the model's populated with data that on average should be reflective of average conditions in the county. If we're in an area that for whatever reason is believed not to be average -- it's in the east and land is less expensive, it's on the coast, land is more expensive -- you would want to make appropriate adjustments for those site specific conditions that might vary from the average in some material fashion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The concern of it going up to three one is not as much of a concern as why it was three six, as Jeff Perry had indicated in his analysis dated November of 2004 as the cost per Page 108 .,..-------.... _...._-.'-_..",-~"-~.._.- . '-"-"""->~'-'-'- June 2, 2005 lane mile. That again is found in a note on the electronic version of the FlAM as what the number for lane miles cost at that time. MR. FISHKIND: Correct. That's the average. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it was -- MR. FISHKIND: That's the average. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was reduced down to 3.1, which is one million more than it was 14 months before. MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It seems like the value for the reduction and increasing it, pretty arbitrary at this point. I don't see any technical analysis to follow it. MR. FISHKIND: Oh, I'm sorry. The reduction of a million dollars was in the DR! application; is that correct, Mark? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The 03 version? MR. FISHKIND: That was the -- I believe that was the DR! application. At that point in time, we didn't have the developer agreement, wherein they donated the fill and the right-of-way and the other issues. So in order to accurately account for the net cost to the county for the roadways, we needed to make an adjustment. As it has turned out, that was probably a reasonable adjustment at that point in time, in light of the ultimate developers agreement that was crafted, which, as George has shown you, is total value somewhere on the order of $20 million. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The difference is that we're a year and a half, about, later -- MR. FISHKIND: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Instead of a million dollars a lane mile credit for the right-of-way, it's now about a half million, and I'm just wondering how anyone balances these out. Where is the -- where is the -- where is the authority that exists to make these changes likes this? And why is one change different than the other? If it's consistently a cost of right-of-way and right-of-way gets more Page 109 '"----.-- -'~,~ ...--.,,-.. June 2, 2005 expensive in time, why aren't we seeing a greater gap between the real number today and the bottom number, versus what we saw 14, 15 months ago? MR. FISHKIND: Well, as I said, I think you're comparing apples to oranges, with all due respect. The analysis made for the DR! did not have the benefit of knowledge about what the development agreement was going to be or what the donations of right-of-way or roadway costs or fill or the other items that are in the development agreement today, we didn't have the benefit of that. But we did know that there was going to be some type of donations, some type of -- of value provided in dollars or in kind. So since we didn't have the PDA to take credits elsewhere, we needed to adjust that cost per lane mile. Now, today the costs are back up, as you correctly represent, because then we can also have the benefit of knowing what the development agreement is with some certainty and provide that on the developer's credit line that's in the model. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I -- all I have with the DR! are these sheets that were in the DR!. MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The FlAM version I have that I am comparing to is not -- MR. FISHKIND: Sure, sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- the sheets that are in the DR!. MR. FISHKIND: I'm just -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I can't tell you ifit is the DR! version or not. Another big issue that I found different between the version of the FIAM used as version 3.0 or -- yeah, 3.0 on the one today, involves the absorptions. MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Originally they were -- had absorptions going from 06 to 021. And they started out at 305 a year, Page 110 ,-....-.-.--.--. June 2, 2005 and second year they went a little less, then they started progressively trying to move upward from there. It wasn't until well into the project, like 2014, that they would even crest a thousand units a year. Today's version condenses everything down to completing in 016, and the units, the first year are 760 for sale, the second year 940, and in the third year they're well over a thousand and they're continuing that pace until towards the end. Now, it's great if they can have those kind of sales. It would be different than I think what I understand to be normal in Collier County. But I wonder, this is a -- this document is driven by value, and the sales, this value of those sales, the rate of those sales, all drive to the bottom line of ad valorem income, people on the road, receipts for sales tax, gas tax, and all the other stuff that this FlAM works off of. How valid -- who did the absorption analysis that changed so much from the 3.0 version of your FlAM to this one? MR. FISHKIND: That's the applicant's estimates of what their absorption will be, Mark. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Do you know of any studies that support that, other than just their assumptions? MR. FISHKIND: I -- I don't have any market studies they did, Mark. They didn't ask me to do them, so I couldn't -- I couldn't tell you. But that's what their representations are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the way the model is set up, that's a -- that's a big driving force in the model. If they had put 2,000 units a year in there and wanted to have this thing completed and opened by 2011, they could have done that as well, based on what you're saying, because the model doesn't seem to prohibit that. MR. FISHKIND: No, there's no prohibition. The model is an Excel work book. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There is a couple things, line items I would like to go over in the model -- Page 111 n"__".__,,_ _._-~.,"_.~ June 2, 2005 MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- just to get your thoughts on. MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's a provision that we'll get into later today in the SRA involving -- I don't know if they're called guest houses. They're accessory dwelling units, let's say, attached to the principal structure. MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They're not supposedly counted as part of the density. Even if they were, they wouldn't still break the four units per acre or whatever it is that they're required to have, but that's not an issue. MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm wondering how you -- how those were factored into the FlAM because I don't see them in there. I see the principal structure sale, but I don't see the guest house sale. And I was -- do you know of anywhere -- anyhow that might have gotten into the FlAM? MR. FISHKIND: There's no separate unit count for the guest houses in our analysis. And it also looks to -- I believe that they would be part of the estimate of the total value, though, of each of the units, the price. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But as far as persons per household, since you're -- since the 2.2 used in here, it wouldn't have taken into factor anybody living in a guest house or an accessory house. MR. FISHKIND: Correct. If they're in a guest house, in theory they wouldn't be there permanently. Same with an accessory house, that would be a seasonal use. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You don't think-- MR. FISHKIND: There is a seasonal-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You don't think those guest houses Page 112 -_..-._."'~_._.. ._---,-, ,~,-~~ June 2, 2005 would be used to rent out for long-term basis? MR. FISHKIND: I don't know, Mark. They're -- the representatives guest houses -- the way the model treats them is as seasonal residents. So the model does have a seasonality factor that comes from the normal seasonal ebb and flow of population in the county. So that the total demand for services on the -- it affects demand for services. The total demand for services increases based upon the seasonal factor. So the model now is treating those as if they're for seasonal use. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Nonexistent. MR. FISHKIND: Pardon? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Nonexistent. The accessory dwelling unit that was -- it's not acknowledged in the model. MR. FISHKIND: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. FISHKIND: But -- but as I said, because the model has the seasonal factors, if there are seasonal guests then of course their expenses would be -- would be counted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the model you had a multipliers for a taxable assessment ratio. MR. FISHKIND: Yes, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the DR! it was 85 percent and the 03 -- or 3.0 version of the FIAM it was 92, and in this one it's 92. How significant of a difference is that in your impacts? I mean what -- why would that have changed or how do you see it changing between -- MR. FISHKIND: It changes every year. The Florida Department of Revenue attempts to enforce high ratios of -- of value to what gets on the tax roll, and it's not a fixed number. It will vary each year. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the DR!, the percent of single- family with a household was reported at 70 percent; the percent Page 113 ---- -..,',.----.- June 2, 2005 of multifamily with household was 55 percent. And the -- MR. FISHKIND: This is homestead exemption I believe we're talking about. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the 3.0 version of the FIAM, the single- family was at 85 percent and the multifamily was at 65 percent. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the version we have today, a single-family is at 58 percent and the multifamily is at 17 percent. Now, that's a -- quite a difference in percentages between the various versions that are less than two years old. Any explanation for that? MR. FISHKIND: Absolutely. The housing mix has been refined over time as the project has evolved. The change in the multifamily category that Mark was referring to comes about when one shifts from more condominiums and townhouses, which are ownership, to more rental or more seasonal units. Seasonal units or rental units can't obtain the homestead exemption. So as the product mix began to change, we changed the estimates for those units that would be expected to get the homestead exemption, reducing them on that basis. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The -- you and I had talked about a Florida population study value that was in 3.0 FlAM. MR. FISHKIND: Yes, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it was stated that it's the study from 2002 Florida population studies. The same value appears in the one we received this time, but it says it's from the Florida population studies for 2003. And I question why it wouldn't have changed over a year's time. Did you ever look into that? MR. FISHKIND: Yes. We didn't get it updated properly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So there is a new update needed for that number? MR. FISHKIND: Well, yes. The impact would be to increase Page 114 --,-~ c_~..____._. -'---------_.~-_._..<,~-- June 2, 2005 the number of people, and thereby reduce the cost per person. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. FISHKIND: So that would be the effect. But we'll certainly get it updated. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The employment assumptions, in the DR! they were considerably different on a square foot basis -- MR. FISHKIND: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- to generate employees than they were in this model. MR. FISHKIND: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any idea why, how those changes would have come about? MR. FISHKIND: Yes, sir. We have better estimates of what that nonresidential is going to look like and better staffing as to the university component. Again, when we did the DR!, some of that information was rather preliminary, so we made the best estimates that we could. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you have a lower square foot per employee, you actually indicate then, from an economic value, you're generating more employment. MR. FISHKIND: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the higher you go, the less employment you'll supposedly generate. MR. FISHKIND: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your basis then for whatever is -- whatever multiplies off of that employment basis will be -- will be less, as well. MR. FISHKIND: Yes, that would be correct. And, again, for those very reasons, that's why we encourage monitoring, for these are, exactly as you pointed out, estimates. And those estimates have evolved as the project design has evolved. And as the project gets built out -- as this Planning Commission well knows, what one plans Page 115 -~---~^'~-'-'-- ,-._----_.__.._,.~-._,- -..--,.- June 2, 2005 at one point in time sometimes varies as the project evolves and is -- is finally developed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There were some changes in the -- from the default values to the sales values, and I'm assuming you're going to tell me it's because of more refined marking information and sales abilities since the time that the first FlAM and DR! was created until now. MR. FISHKIND: Well, they had no market at all, so of course we would rely on the default values when there is no better information. But as the specific home building partners who are identified, they had their own particular ideas as to where they thought they would be pricing the product for sale. So I believe it's appropriate to adjust from the default when better information is available. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The calls for service of sheriffs department,renaenaber-- MR. FISHKIND: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- we talked about that? Did you check into that number? It went from 36 thousand to 400 thousand. MR. FISHKIND: Yeah. The basis was different from the Sheriffs Department. The estimate was from them, and -- so the calculations are still accurate, but the whole base had changed from how they reported and what they reported. We're going to go back to the normal incidents report. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the -- does that mean the 400 thousand would stay? MR. FISHKIND: Well, the 400 thousand is okay in the context of calculating on that basis. Ifwe changed the denominator, which is where I want to go in the future, then the cost per call would also change. But the volume calls changed, so the two in essence offset each other. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Under the capital cost, location Page 116 -.".--- - June 2, 2005 factor -- MR. FISHKIND: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- that you used-- MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- there was quite a difference in the trip length and trip rates in some of the land use element references in the 03 -- MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- version versus -- or the 3.0 versus the one that we use today. MR. FISHKIND: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In looking at those and when those numbers are plugged in, I notice they do have an impact on the bottom line -- MR. FISHKIND: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- as far as fiscal neutrality goes. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How was the trip length established? MR. FISHKIND: The -- in the 3.0 model, we had the standard default values for trip length and trip rate that were taken from the impact studies by Tindale and Oliver. Those have subsequently been updated. And the 50 model, as default values, would have the new average trip length, trip rates. The specific ones for the proj ect reflect the fact that the project is designed as a -- as a town, and it is to have the functions of a self-contained town. Therefore, it has much higher capture rates than would be expected county wide and shorter trip lengths as a result. So, those changes are made to try to reflect those things. In our model, it measures on an average daily basis, as compared to the DR!, which is peak hour basis. So in working with Jeff Perry, we tried to get figures that would be consistent with the DR! application but Page 11 7 '.---,..- -., _.,~.~._--",_.~< _._--~- June 2, 2005 converted to the average daily rate method. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How does the work force distance travel factor into that, into this -- anywhere in those equations? MR. FISHKIND: Yeah. It should be in the average trip length. In other words, that average should be the average for all the trips on an average daily basis. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That includes the dwelling unit occupants, as well as any service people they'd have working with them? MR. FISHKIND: Yes absolutely. And -- and deliveries that would come to the site, as well, Mark. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. FISHKIND: It should be truly averaged, just as it is averaged in the impact fee methodology. The number of trips include the delivery trips and other things, and the trip length should be congruent with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If the work force is generally going to be ten miles away, would these numbers have to reflect that in some manner? How would they reflect that -- that length, when they're all smaller than that? MR. FISHKIND: Well, I -- I don't know that all the work force is ten miles away, but let me just grant the assumption for the sake of discussion here and not have too many moving parts. The average trip length should reflect the average for all the trips, including the journey to work and journey home. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And then the reason I'm asking, Hank, is there was a statement, I read it earlier, in the DR! that indicated that the work force -- some of the work force would be coming from Immokalee -- MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- Golden Gate Estates, with an average trip of ten miles and an average length of 20 minutes. And Page 118 ......_-->--" '.W'____ June 2, 2005 when I read this, I couldn't figure out how that was factored into the cost -- MR. FISHKIND: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- analysis. MR. FISHKIND: That reflects the affordable housing. You have to have -- when you're measuring affordable housing, it's the ten-mile, 20 minute length, but that doesn't imply that all of the workers live at the periphery. Certainly some of them will, and that average trip length should accommodate all of that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you, in your model, talk about the state roadway network -- MR. FISHKIND: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- what is it you're talking about? Give me an example of a road you're talking about. MR. FISHKIND: Any state road, as opposed to a county road or a city road. And we have that classification in Florida. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any state road. 951, portions of it is state; 175 -- MR. FISHKIND: State road. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: State road. The-- MR. FISHKIND: So there are impacts then on roadways that are county roadways that the county pays for, and impacts on state roadways that typically the county does not pay for. And it's important to articulate the two. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You had a section of your FlAM dedicated to revenue and costing on impact on state roadway -- MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- network. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it's substantially negative to the tune of seven, six, seven -- $7 million a year, just about. MR. FISHKIND: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What does that mean? Page 119 ~-~"'''"~- -.---.... _,"..".,.__~~_~.'_~~M'__._".'______""_"_'_"~__ June 2, 2005 MR. FISHKIND: It means that the State of Florida lacks impact fees and other direct revenues to pay for roads. So it's not unusual that projects generate negative impacts on the state roadway network, for we have, in my opinion, a faulty system for supporting the funding for our state roads. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This could be a hot subject for you, couldn't it? MR. FISHKIND: Not at all. The DOT participated in the development of this model and specifically helped us with the calculations relative to cost per lane mile and percentage of trips on various kinds of roadways, and the state is very concerned about these Issues. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if some of these roadways that are having this negative revenue impact are roadways that we -- we travel as part of our county road system, like 951 -- MR. FISHKIND: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- how does -- what does this mean -- how does the impact then of Ave Maria, in regards to fiscal neutrality, apply to 951 in those segments of it that are state, which are quite a bit of it? MR. FISHKIND: Well, in terms of the fiscal impacts -- which is what we're measuring, we're measuring fiscal impacts on the county -- county is not responsible for that roadway. Or unless and until it decides it wants to be. And so that's outside the ambit of a direct fiscal impact of a land-use decision on the county. Is it relevant to fiscal impact on the state? Yes. I would also point out that it is separate from the DR! analysis that relates to proportionate share, which does include impacts on all roads, including the county road and the State Road 951 in this example and requires in that DR! review to make a proportionate cost analysis. Personally, I think it would be helpful if we did that for PUDs and small projects, but we have yet to -- so -- do that, a more general review. But each unit of Page 120 - ..",_. "..~_.." June 2, 2005 government has to have its own fiscal impact assessment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So any impact that Ave Maria creates on 951, in regards to the portions owned by the state, really is not part of this analysis? MR. FISHKIND: Well, it's reflected in the model, but it's not part of the fiscal calculus for the county. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. FISHKIND: Just as impacts on the school board are separate from the county, for those are separate units of local government. Each must be articulated individually, and they're not fungible across the different units of government. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if there was a negative impact as a result of this university on a portion of 951, it wouldn't -- on a state road portion, it wouldn't show up as a -- it wouldn't affect the fiscal neutrality, bottom line, in this model? MR. FISHKIND: For the county, no. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. FISHKIND: And, again -- but it would affect the calculations for the transportation mitigation requirements under the DR!, for that is a separate methodology. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But as far as the model goes, the model showing fiscal neutrality, it wouldn't show up on this model? MR. FISHKIND: Correct. It would be inappropriate if it did, for the focus is on the county. I mean what if it has a positive impact on the school board? We don't want to roll that as a credit back to the county's balance, for the county couldn't use that money. That's why it's very important to keep each government separated. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm trying to cross offmy questions here, Hank. MR. FISHKIND: Sure, no problem, take your time. While Mark's doing that, I expect that the commission will see Page 121 .._- June 2, 2005 the results of fiscal models more in the future and maybe, Chairman, if ever, you would like to have a short workshop. We'd be happy to come and talk about the model more in a non -- in a fashion not related to any specific project. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That would be nice. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. I'd be happy to do a little workshop at an appropriate time. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That would be wonderful. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hotel occupancy-- MR. FISHKIND: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- in the FI -- in the DR! had-- was it 42.5? MR. FISHKIND: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In your current model it's 85. I guess for the same reasons you told me earlier, that's why justifiable. MR. FISHKIND: Yeah. I mean the original is what the average was for the 2003 calibration. Wasn't the greatest year in the hotel industry. They believe they'll do better out at their hotel. Actually -- the impact of that actually is to raise the cost estimate for -- what that means is there's more people in the hotel room. The revenue doesn't change, just more people to provide services to, the higher the occupancy. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hank, I appreciate your time. I think -- MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I have a few questions of the applicant in regards to -- MR. FISHKIND: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- what they could do to respond to some of the things you told us here today. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But I don't have anymore FlAM Page 122 , ~-,."..."-_."..,..,.,_...-,._--"~,-----~_......-..,,....-_._- June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Do we have financial impact model questions for Dr. Fishkind? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: He's covered it. COMMISSIONER BUDD: No more at this time. MR. FISHKIND: Okay. I'll stay as long as I can. And my colleague Russ Wire will be here, as well, so if you have any questions, we'll be happy to cover them. MR. V ARNADOE: Hank -- I have a couple things that I'd like to inquire of Hank. MR. FISHKIND: Cross examined from my own side now. What a day. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Recross. MR. V ARNADOE: I just -- no, I just want to clarify a couple things. Your organization ran the -- when we looked at the absorption, you ran it out to 2020 or 15 years. And was that still positive at that point in time, as far as fiscal neutrality is concerned? MR. FISHKIND: Yes, it is. MR. VARNADOE: And I think just to sum up, tell us what your reaction is as -- your judgment is as the progenitor of this model as to any rational assumptions as to whether this project will be positive in the -- at the end of five years in the end of -- and at the build out or horizon year. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. I think, based on everything I know, that under most any reasonable set of assumptions, this will generate substantial positive fiscal benefits for the county. And as I think either you or Al said in your opening comments, it's not a surprise in the sense that it's designed to be somewhat of a town. If it operates as a town, then it will take care of many of its own requirements. And, therefore, it's cost should be, on average, a bit lower; it's values, on average, are the same a bit higher. So it would be reasonable to believe that it would have a positive benefit. Page 123 --------""---..,~~----~~-_.. June 2, 2005 MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's assuming that the input values are met. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. And that -- that's part of what the monitoring is all about. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that's also -- that does not reflect impacts on state roads. MR. FISHKIND: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thanks again. MR. FISHKIND: Sure. Thank you. Oh, Donna's got -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one question. MR. FISHKIND: Certainly. COMMISSIONER CARON: Would you actually feel more comfortable if this model was analyzed every year, as opposed to every five years? MR. FISHKIND: Well, I -- I think because this is a town, that it needs to have some ability to sort of generate enough mass and enough rooftops in order to be able to let the retail operate before you're going to really know is it going to operate as a town. So I think the first threshold out at five years is something I'm very comfortable with. Subsequently, if you wanted to monitor more often, I mean it's not difficult to do that. I think it's a -- somewhat a policy decision and somewhat a -- you know, a decision about what you want -- what you want to direct staff to do. But I do think that it needs -- the town needs at least a little time to be able to stabilize. When we were doing the Brooks, it was primarily high end residential, so, you know, it really wasn't -- wasn't the same kind of thing. So to monitor right away was -- was fine. It didn't distort anything, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. FISHKIND: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know who's going to -- Page 124 _._._---~,,-~._- June 2, 2005 there you are. George, you're hiding behind there. I didn't see you. MR. V ARNADOE: Never hiding, Mr. Strain. At your disposal. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Based on the questions and answers from Hank, do you have any problem setting up monitoring for -- on a yearly basis for the persons per household? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. The LDC requires us to monitor at five years and at build out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: LDC is a minimum standard. So I'm just asking do you have any problem, since it's not that much of an effort to do, to monitor on a yearly basis? MR. VARNADOE: Your staff has the model, they can monitor however often they want or on a continuous basis. Our requirement is to follow the Land Development Code, which is every five years and at build out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or as stipulated. Do you have any -- MR. VARNADOE: Let me ask that. Patrick? MR. WHITE: At your disposal. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He's asking, not me, Pat. MR. V ARNADOE: Can they require us to do something that's not -- that's beyond what's called for in the Land Development Code? MR. WHITE: Let me give you a simple answer. Yes. MR. V ARNADOE: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you have any problem monitoring the capture rate? That's how many people come and go from the property on a yearly basis. MR. VARNADOE: We'll monitor what we're required to do, Mr. Strain, at the end -- as required by the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or as stipulated. Do you have any problem monitoring the unit sales prices and the absorption rates? MR. VARNADOE: We'll monitor what we're required in the monitor as required in the Land Development Code. Page 125 -~--_._.,._- - _.,----~"._..~..... June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or as stipulated. And -- okay. That -- those are the last questions I have on the FlAM. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Other questions from other commissioners at this point? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just curious, if -- if your numbers are doable and you feel they're viable, and the monitoring, by Hank's own testimony, is not that difficult, what is your reluctance to even -- to offer that up? I don't understand why you're -- MR. V ARNADOE: I don't think -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- against it. MR. V ARNADOE: I think we've got a Land Development Code that says we monitor the end of five years, and if it's negative we're required to make a financial commitment to straighten that out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It may be so negative-- the number could be huge. Why would we want to wait that long to find that out? MR. VARNADOE: Because that's what the code calls for, sir. A code that you voted on and approved, by the way. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As a -- as a minimum basis. That doesn't mean it couldn't be better. And I just was curious if you really feel strongly that this proj ect is going to work like the FlAM shows, which is arbitrary, to say the least, in regards that things can be put in here, I don't know why you're reluctant to -- to do this when it's -- it's not a difficult matter. So-- MR. V ARNADOE: Do you have another question, Mr. Strain, or -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I've got-- MR. VARNADOE: -- are you just going to give me opinions? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Varnadoe, I would like to ask it -- ask that question in another way, perhaps. Because I -- I understand, I think, what Mr. Strain is getting at, and I'm sure you do, Page 126 '~.._~_~"_~ _d.'m______._._." ,"_"~_"_.'_'__'__'_~ June 2, 2005 as well. It's obviously to the advantage of Ave Maria, the town thereof and the university, to succeed and therefore to be concerned for its negative -- conditions of negativity, should they manifest. What -- what means have you that you would use to determine where you are going, given that the model that we have, the data are -- turn out not to be quite so correct? I know you're required in five years, I understand that. And Mark's point is very good. If you wait a long time, it's going to be a sizeable chunk and so forth. But are there other means by which anybody can determine that you're off to a wrong start on something, that there is an -- indicators that can show that changes must be made? Because the concern, obviously, is the -- the county should not be burdened with excess cost. And I guess we -- we'd be very much concerned to see that you wouldn't go into the negative, wouldn't find yourself in a situation. And I know my question isn't as concise as I'd like it to be because it's a big gorilla here but -- you don't understand my question, do you? MR. V ARNADOE: I'm not sure that I do. I think that -- that we are very confident with the parameters that were utilized in the model as we submitted it. There were changes requested by staff to run another version, if you would, to see what would happen under different scenarios. That is not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. V ARNADOE: That is not what we have submitted, that is not what we're relying on. And what we -- we tried to use some very conservative estimates for our home benefit because we say we're the ones that are going to suffer if this thing is negative. But I think that to monitor every year -- the first year, I don't know what -- as you get started, what it's going to be. Five years out, I think we get a really good snapshot in time as to whether it's going to be positive or negative. And if that snapshot year Page 127 "-,._~.~--,'"._"-.~",'~'< June 2, 2005 -- if it's negative, we've got to either allow assessment to be put on our land to make up the differences, or pay the present value of the negativity. So I don't know what we're going to gain by trying to monitor every year or at a -- at a lesser interval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not sure that I would have advocated every year because I understood the professor's statement, I believe. And I just was talking about that period where the concern might be for neutrality and that the county, in some way, didn't get burdened because of something being not considered. MR. V ARNADOE: And the safeguard is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm looking for, the safeguard. MR. FISHKIND: And the safeguard is in both your -- your Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code that the burden is on us to either have an assessment placed on the land to make up the difference or to pay the present value of the -- of the negative impact on the county at that point in time. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And that would be at the five year interval. MR. FISHKIND: And at build out -- or the -- the horizon year-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: There's only two. MR. FISHKIND: -- which is build out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's only two. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. FISHKIND: Unless it went longer, and then you have it every five years and then at build out. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, I would like to talk to someone about the traffic. Not for him. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Could you talk into the mike sir? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. I'd rather talk to the traffic department because the issue is from them, not -- wouldn't want Page 128 ..--.......----.....-......"-......-..--- _..__.... ,.""'.^-,_.....-.__..~". .--.--- June 2, 2005 to burden you with it. If Don could make that long trip. It's my understanding that the County waived, for Ave Maria, the checkbook concurrency for traffic; is that correct? MR. SCOTT: The -- by the developer's contribution agreement, they are -- we are reserving trips for them out into the future. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: My question comes down to the fact that there are other -- other developments in that area that really had prior affect to get these -- their road consistency. What is their position now, and is there anything they're going to be able to do about it? MR. SCOTT: If you're asking is there somebody out there that might have some zoning that doesn't have approval for, you know -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There-- MR. SCOTT: -- for units at a certain point that might get stopped later on in some of these links, that's possible. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Then my question comes out to what I'm trying to find out is they were given the obligation of living under the checkbook concurrency, they accepted it. Now all of the sudden they are not being given that particular privilege. Do they have a legal right to sue for this? MR. SCOTT: Well, it depends on -- I mean the status of each of the developments depends on it. I mean obviously there's other vested developments, too, that have agreements, like Heritage Bay, let's -- for instance, at the corner of951 and Immokalee. There's other -- if you have zoning doesn't mean you necessarily have a right to develop anyway, so it's still subj ect to concurrency. This -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But you've taken the concurrency value out, as far as they were concerned. In other words, they may have had this done two years ago, and they're waiting for their opportunity to actually develop it. Now all of the sudden, this comes along, and it's not going to be in the next six months or a year because now, with Ave Maria, it may be another five years. Page 129 --,--._-,,--,~_. .....~, ..-~--~-~~._.".,. June 2, 2005 Now, when they came to the county with what they wanted, the county told them that they had this way to do it and that when their opportunity came up, they would get the shot to get on to the public transportation. N ow all of the sudden those people that waited, now we've got a situation where it may be five to ten years before they get an opportunity to get what they thought they were going to get within two or three years. Is there anything going to be done to protect that, or is there going to end up in a legal battle? MR. SCOTT: Well, I mean that's possible from any standpoint that we might stop somebody and they say, hey, here you -- I mean they can -- throw them out for a second. Anybody can point to a vested community from the past that we've included within our concurrency system as -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. That happened before this concurrency system. N ow this is happening after the concurrency system went into effect. That's the difference. MR. SCOTT: Okay. I see where you're going. I -- we were reserving trips for them but, you know -- obviously, you know, one of the questions we have would be based on the new growth management bill is -- is everybody gets stopped after a hundred ten percent. And that's one issue that I'm still weighing. So that would affect every development, not just vested or not vested. Is it -- obviously this development there -- for our standpoint, there are a lot of transportation improvements to deliver. Over time -- essentially, the way I'm reserving their trips is over the time that they're building. You know, if it's -- if we're looking at a zoning in an area, then I'll be looking at essentially five years worth of development. There are other improvements that we'll be doing in the future, like Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, that would be, you know, a parallel improvement for Immokalee Road. I can't say that -- I mean obviously if nothing else happens and I don't do any other -- any other Page 130 ~^--_._--" -..-, ., June 2, 2005 improvements out there, then, yeah, somebody might get stopped, but that's -- that's anybody out there. I don't -- you know, I don't care if it's Ave Maria or anybody else that's developing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, the point I'm making is you've taken somebody today -- MR. SCOTT: It's a -- it's a preference thing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: A preference. And I was wondering -- MR. SCOTT: Someone's further along in line than somebody else. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The answer -- question is whether or not this is going to be good for the county. Because I feel that -- MR. SCOTT: Well-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- it's very likely-- MR. SCOTT: And-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- that a lawsuit will be filed. MR. SCOTT: And I've weighed this on both sides. One issue with not providing reservation is that I can't allow them to build like -- essentially, if they built like three years worth of projects and then we shut them down and then -- and then looked back and go, hey, you didn't meet your internal capture rate. Well, it's because -- you can't build a portion of this town and then say, oh, you didn't meet your internal capture rate. If I really want to get to the point where I want to get to, where their internal capture rate's high, less impact on the road, I have to allow them to build through. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Along the same lines that Commissioner Adelstein just started. Talked about the -- MR. SCOTT: Can I address one of the issues that came up Page 131 l -~~-_.__._____... June 2, 2005 during the financial model? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Certainly. MR. SCOTT: About the state roads. Is -- over time, we have, you know, tried to use the state funding to widen state roads, but obviously, as you can tell with Davis Boulevard, which was the highest priority for five years and it's still, what, four years away? That took nine years to get to that project. Weare using our funding now in certain parts of this county, impact fees, whatever, to widen state roads. And I believe that will be more so in the future. If you look at something like State Road 951 and Marco Island Bridge, one of the -- one of the proposals is possibly tolling that to pay for it. Again, that would be taxing ourselves, essentially, to build that, versus state money. 175, the toll authority we talked about earlier, beyond six lanes, which is programmed by the state and federal money, that again would be money that would come from us. Over time, we will be using impact fees, other things, to widen the state roads as the needs come up. Because, you know, based on concurrency, unless -- normally we'd like to do this, but that's not going to happen, unless you take those state roads out of our concurrency system. Because the state's argument the back -- you know, the back way is to say we don't approve development, so have at it. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, you had mentioned that -- I think it was Heritage Bay had a developer's agreement? MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When was that approved, about how long ago? MR. SCOTT: It was 2003. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Was it after the DR! and PUD were approved for that proj ect, as well? MR. SCOTT: No. It was about the same time, I believe. Page 132 ~""""--"~-"-"-"-- -"~'~--,..,,..__._,,-_._-,. June 2, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: Same time. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: It's strictly by -- at least the time frame of comparison, it was before the -- it was not before the concurrency system was a vision and we were following some things, but it was the -- before the official start date. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The GMP indicates that the SR-- at the time of the SRA designation, the road system, transportation element will be subj ect to the concurrency management system in effect at that time. Is this project subject to the concurrency management system in effect today? MR. SCOTT: In the sense of what I -- the way I'm addressing it, I say yes because I -- I know the opposite side of it is that -- can you say we're going to stop them? I don't know that part. All I know is I'm taking their trips into account, putting them in with the concurrency management system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In your concurrency management system and the adopted AUIR table that you gave us -- I didn't attend, but I got a copy of all the proceedings. MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oil Well Road is not slated even on that five year plan as a -- MR. SCOTT: It was -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- extended road. MR. SCOTT: As of nine months ago, it wasn't even in the long-rage plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So how does -- if it's not on there, how does it meet the concurrency management system? MR. SCOTT: We've -- it's not on that because of the time frame that we were looking at it -- that roadway, but it will be on your future ones. It's Oil Well within -- you know, the highest level right now is about 50 percent capacity, though their -- their time frame, what was Page 133 '--- ---~~"----~,.~_.., -, ,-,-. ..~...,,----- June 2, 2005 raised earlier, their a.m. peak is terrible with the school and the three schools in that quotation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the concurrency map that's in effect today, does it have Oil Well on it? MR. SCOTT: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. How is it that we're moving forward with this -- finding it consistent then? MR. SCOTT: Because we've analyzed it. I mean beyond that, I know what the trips are on it, I know what they're adding to it. Camp Keais, any of the other roadways, Randall-- Randall's not on there. We've included Randall, looked at analysis of that. That was not adopted by the Board at that time, but we have looked at the traffic capacity issues like that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Why did you move Oil Well up from the agenda? I mean how do you do that financially when -- since the county is not -- MR. SCOTT: Because we were already starting to -- we had already gone through the process of doing some preliminary stages for Immokalee Road, and it was essentially a switch to the Oil Well Road. Now, that was earlier phases, so we were -- we were looking at doing this project ten years out. The developer contribution agreement has moved that up to '07 and '09 time frame. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you didn't have that developer contribution agreement, would it make any difference to your analysis in regard to the concurrent -- to consistency with the GMP? MR. SCOTT: Ifwe weren't addressing Oil Well Road, then the answer would be no. I mean it wouldn't -- it would make a difference in the fact that if I wasn't addressing Oil Well Road. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. White, the developer contribution agreement in the interlocal agreement with Ave Maria basically it's only effective when the DR! and the SRA are approved and the corps of engineer's permit. I know the county has no control Page 134 .~~^- .--.-.-- June 2, 2005 over the corps of engineer's permit, but the DR! and the SRA is something that county reviews. And if this developer's agreement is contingent upon zoning and zoning contingent upon the developer's agreement for the benefits received by the county, how does that not qualify as contract zoning? MR. WHITE: Well, contract zoning is something that exists in terms of uses that are approved by a particular board essentially outside the terms of their processes that allow for it, and it is a contractual obligation between these parties. And it offends the court's notions of fair play because it binds subsequent boards. That's the evil that the court's are looking to cure. This isn't contract zoning, in my opinion, because first you have agreements that are external to the process, that being this developer contribution agreement and interlocal agreement. I don't know that any of those documents create the types of uses that are only going to arise from the SRA designation resolution. The RLSA zoning overlay district creates a kind of Chinese menus of uses, but none of those uses are actualized or real on the ground until, as Mr. Reynolds had indicated at the beginning of his presentation, when an applicant opts in. They're doing that through the SRA designation process. So, I don't see contract zoning in any of the combination of instruments or actions that are likely to be taken by the Board of County Commissioners. You -- I may not have given you as precise an answer as you'd like, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wanted your clarification for the record, and that's basically the county attorney's -- since they created the document, the county attorney did, I would assume then that that's the county attorney's opinion on this, on this contract, in regards to contract zoning. MR. WHITE: I can tell you that it is this Assistant County Attorney's position. I have not discussed it with Mr. Weigel, but I Page 135 ,."~-----~-~.."..,~-.._-".,--_...,-,., --'-'~-"--..-.- - "-.~,- ---~.-".. __.____"_""u___"_."._._~,..,,__,,..._. --''''- June 2, 2005 think it's consistent with the law. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How about conditional zoning, would it be considered conditional zoning? MR. WHITE: Well, I'm not sure I know what that is these days. But I think the point you're attempting to drive is that somehow there are impermissible conditions that might be added that are external to what otherwise would be the normal and routine process that's authorized by law. I, again, don't see that occurring in this circumstance. It, on the other hand, would be somewhat inappropriate or wrong headed for me to say that there aren't conditions being added in as part of this SRA designation that, in effect, implements the zoning that comes by way of the RLSA zoning overlay district. But, again, I don't think that -- in the sense that the courts consider it to be an evil to be cured is what we have in this circumstance, either through the DR! DO that's before you or the SRA designation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm -- what I'm concerned about is the timing of everything. Because the effective date of the developer's agreement and the interlocal agreement that were signed by the county commission and the applicant -- and it says in the paragraph -- towards the end of each one. This agreement commitments herein shall become effective by the DR! Development Order, SRA designation for the town of Ave Maria, and Army Corps of permit engineers for the town of Ave Maria becomes final and effective. And if they don't become effective by December 31 -- excuse me. This is -- reading in a bit here to get to the end of it. They have a deadline of December 31 st, 2006. And if that doesn't happen, then the agreement and all obligations hereunder shall be null and void. MR. WHITE: Let me -- let me come at an answer to your question in a step-wise fashion. Starting with the last piece of that first. Assuming that nothing happens prior to that date in '06, then we Page 136 ~~'_-",_"""'~'"'~^"''''''_''''.',.-,"-------, ""----~----,,_._.'.^".,-- ._---_._,-~._-- June 2, 2005 default to the concurrency management system and its rules of operation that are applicable across the board to all developments. Okay? So we kind of just go back to the rules of the game. Assuming that there's some concern about what the effective date of that agreement is, the DCA, it's a legally correct statement to opine that that document has been executed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners in a lawful manner, and thus it is operative. And the question as to whether some of the terms of that agreement are yet effective or not is, in my mind, somewhat secondary to whether we consider the agreement to be in effect. I understand your point about what it -- what it says in black and white, but I think that if you were to attempt to apply it, for example, to enforce it, you would quite likely be able to convince a court that in fact because the Board had approved it and executed it through its chair, that it was binding on the county. And thus, I think it is operative in that sense. And maybe it's a stretch to say that it's, quote, effective in the same sense that the word effective is used in the provision you read, but I think that they're legally equivalent. Enough so, at least in my mind, that I don't think it creates a circumstance that you ignore the existence of the DCA because it is not yet, quote, effective, end quote. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I have one more question about that document. At least for right now. The GMP is written as kind of like the master plan for Collier County. There's a section of Florida Statute, 163.3194, that talks about the legal status of comprehensive plans. Our comprehensive plan goes through a series of public meetings and eventually the DCA comes back and then goes for an adoption, approval, final approval. How -- how can a Development Order or interlocal agreement, if it can, take precedent over the requirements of the GMP when they don't go through the same processes that the GMP amendments go through? Page 137 --0--'-'"'' --,,~_._-~-~,- ,..~- ----~- June 2, 2005 MR. WHITE: I think I understand your concern. I-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's to do with traffic concurrency, to be honest with you. MR. WHITE: I know what the statute says in terms of consistency. I think I had -- I would have to agree with your assumptions in -- in your question in order to reach the same type of conclusion that you're reaching about it being inconsistent. I don't know that there's competent substantial evidence in the record that doesn't support an opposite conclusion that it is consistent. So I'm not sure how much I can help address your concern without getting into an even more theoretical discussion. Not only about the provisions we're talking about, the statute, the interlocal, to some extent the DCA, but I -- I don't come to the same conclusion as -- as a finding of inconsistency, based on the evidence so far. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I didn't come to that conclusion, Mr. Scott did. In his last statement before I started on this track, he indicated that if Oil Well Road was not part of this developer's agreement, then it would not be consistent with the GMP. So based on that, that's -- MR. WHITE: That's a factual distinction. And I think the premise of your argument is much broader than that. And I can see in a specific fact circumstance, such as Mr. Scott indicated, where there might be a circumstance that it would be inconsistent. So I'm not getting to the same place you are in the analysis. I tend to think that the evidence we've heard thus far reaches the conclusion that when all of those documents are considered together, that you still have consistency with the comprehensive plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, at this point the record has on it what I needed it to have it, so I'll end my part of that conversation. I'm sure others may have comments. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But that developer who's been Page 138 ;',,~,-,-. -~..,,- June 2, 2005 waiting now for a year or two in that area to get his time to build units is going to now have to wait because this has come up and this new contract has been signed after the fact, not before the fact. Does he have a legal basis to go to court to get the right to put his -- build his buildings, as he -- as he was told he could when that time came up? MR. SCOTT: What developer is that, though, in this area? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In that area. We're talking about developers in that area. MR. SCOTT: But there's nobody else with standing that's waiting there at this moment. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There's none? MR. SCOTT: Not in this area, no. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Off of Immokalee Road? MR. SCOTT: No. 951 south of 41, yeah, but not in this area right now. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And this illustrates the point between a specific factual circumstance and a more general concern, in terms of evaluating consistency or inconsistency. I think to answer your question, without doing a disservice to my client, is to say it is possible that some factual circumstance might arise where a suit could be filed. I don't know what the outcome would be, whether those folks would even have standing or not. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We never do. MR. WHITE: But suffice it to say that it is, of course, the most grave concern that all local governments have, not seeking to replicate the experience of the east coast with respect to the management of concurrency. And the question I guess that you-all have to consider in the aggregate is, is this an approach that in the long run achieves the goals, obj ectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan with respect to concurrency? Page 139 .."-""."<.~.-._-----,-,_.".,.",,.- . June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Further questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don, has there been any study as to what impact the construction proj ect itself will have on the roads? MR. SCOTT: Well, one of the -- one of the things -- obviously getting fill right there was one of the issues. One of the issues is not only the cost of trucking it very far, but also having the trucks on the road. So that's one of the issues that we addressed as part of this. The -- you know, at the time frame that we're doing it at -- and I say this because if we had it scheduled the way we had it scheduled previously, I would be a lot more concerned, but the demand is -- or the impact is not going to be there right away. And once you got beyond the Orange Tree portion, it's not -- you know, there's not that much traffic on it right now. Orange Tree itself we're trying to address not only with the Immokalee Road widening but also that intersection itself on Oil Well Road to address that in the immediate term and then hook that up to the project itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't see -- the workers aren't going to be coming from this area. They'll all be driving in. Do you have any studies as to where they're coming from? MR. SCOTT: And I guess I'm -- I was looking at it a little differently. I believe a lot of the workers are going to come out of the Immokalee area, not as much coming from the urban area. Now, I understand the -- the reverse commute, and that's what I hope for the long-term, but I hope with that, with, you know, economic development in Immokalee itself surrounding this project, too. To start with, though, I would think there are a lot of workers that would be coming out of the Immokalee area, Lehigh Acres, areas like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And one other thing. In Page 140 ~-----.--. ~- .-. _0_'__'____.,._' June 2, 2005 the standards for the thing, there is a length of cul-de-sac that's pretty long. It's like 2700 feet. Is that something you agreed to or-- MR. SCOTT: And I don't -- I think you -- this goes back like two and a half years, when we first were in original conversations on some of the issues, and there were some issues about typical sections. That might have been added at that time. There was a lot of discussion. I wasn't actually doing this job at that time, so I don't have the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But has that been reviewed with the fire department? I mean there's fire prevention code standards. MR. SCOTT: All the reviewers were involved. Obviously during site development plan if there's other issues that come up, too -- I mean there's still reviews of things going forward. There were some issues at the beginning of this, how wide a road an alley should be, things like that, for the things that you raised. Not only fire but also getting garbage trucks in and out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- let me ask Patrick, I guess. Patrick, if we okay this with a cul-de-sac length that exceeds -- first of all, exceeds our code, it exceeds state fire codes, does that mean they can do it that long? MR. WHITE: Well, it certainly means that Collier County's given them the authority to do so. It does not necessarily mean that there isn't some point in time where some other agency may find that their regulations haven't been complied with. The question you asked kind of, in my mind, expands into just what are the deviations from the existing LDC, either in terms of what's in section 4.08, which is the RLSA provisions, or otherwise. And I think what you'll find here is, is that there's some need to have a statement on the record, perhaps either from the staff or the applicant's agents, indicating that there are no such types of deviations, other than those that are stated in the SRA designation, the application. What I'm looking to make sure, in terms of closing the door on, is Page 141 ---_..._-...-- June 2, 2005 that there are not any other unknown deviations that have not been sought consistent with what the Land Development Code says you are supposed to ask for if you're going to deviate from either the base LDC or what 4.08 itself says, if you're going to deviate from 4.08 as the RLSA. So I would encourage you to have that put on the record by either the staff or the applicant's agent kind of as a further example of what you're suggesting could be a problem in the future, in terms of different agencies and the application of their roles. We don't enforce, necessarily, the fire code, per se. That's the fire marshal's responsibility . And my belief is that if you have something in the record or testimony today that indicates that that agency has given it's ascent, then I think that the county's well within its purview to go forward, and your recommendation could include that -- that particular circumstance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MR. SCOTT: From recollection, there were a lot of people involved with the typical sections way back. I believe they were involved in, you know, fire and utilities, as regards to trash, in the review of those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'm not worried about the width of the road, I'm worried about the length of the road. MR. SCOTT: You know, what they look like, I mean essentially. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Other questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have -- I have one quick one. One of the recommendations by the Regional Planning Commission was that the developer could help -- contribute to Collier County constructing permanent count stations. Page 142 .._----..-- June 2, 2005 MR. SCOTT: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: The last line in that, though, says that in the event such data reveals a potential deficiency, any further data collection and analysis would be the responsibility of the developer. Isn't that sort of like turning the hen house over to the fox at that point? If you find a problem and -- MR. SCOTT: We -- we are actually -- the permanent count stations that we're putting out -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCOTT: -- the data comes back to us. So we will be -- it's kind of funny from the monitoring stand -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So this will not happen, it will not get turned back over to the developer? MR. SCOTT: No. I mean, sure, they're going to ask for the data -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well-- MR. SCOTT: -- and things like that, but we will be getting the data. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you'll be doing the analysis of the data? MR. SCOTT: Right. And we're doing it for more than just the purpose of how's everything operating in the system, but also later on in the future, if someone says, hey, this is what it's going to look like or this is how our internal capture's going to look like, we can say, well, this is what reality's shown us. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Other questions? Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I guess instead of going to the SRA application first, maybe we'll go -- since there's been a lot of questions concerning the Southwest Regional Planning Council paperwork, why don't we jump into that one next, if that's okay. But I would like to get an issue on record. Ray, it's my understanding that no other commissioner in this table received the Page 143 .~-'.'-- -------".~.~-_._- June 2, 2005 DR! binder that we're voting on today; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that they did not receive the packets that were put together in that regards, but we are in the process of getting those to you today. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So they can read them and vote on them? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the gist of the information is contained in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council findings that were included that you do have, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I did receive it, and so luckily you're not having to deal with me on an issue but I would certainly have had a problem if I hadn't. Also, I noticed that there are some rather large appendices that were missing from that. I mentioned it earlier. I now know the size of them. They're substantial, so I certainly would like a copy of those. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And we're getting those today, also. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- Mark, so when you said to me you got two binders -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't get two binders. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I got this binder you-all got, plus I got this binder here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's new to us. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is all the information that I started asking about for the first couple of hours today. I understand now why you-all didn't have so many questions. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Didn't have any. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Ray, why wouldn't we all get the same stuff? MR. BELLOWS: They were put together, Mark came and picked his up. I think maybe the error came during the mailing of the rest of them to the planning commission. The packets were put Page 144 " ---~~"^._-""-'- June 2, 2005 together, Commissioner Strain came and picked up his and got it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you didn't notify us that there was anything to pick up. MR. BELLOWS: I didn't do the mailing, and I didn't know that you didn't get the packets. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Now I know why I didn't get the EAC staff report. MR. BELLOWS: You should have the EAC staffreport. That's in the actual staff report. If you have the staff report, you should have the EAC. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I guess then with that being said, though, at least you-all can decide what you want to do with that as we go on or whatever you want. I -- want me to start asking questions again? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Out of the thing we're missing, is that what -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. I'm done with the thing we're missing. That's what we started out with today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I look at it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, no. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I really want to see the EAC staff report. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. White, my copy has notes made in it. Is that something I can share with -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Never mind it's not -- I'm not going to look at it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I don't mind you-- but I don't know if that breaks any rules. I-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll read it out loud. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's okay with me. Page 145 ~. ----"'.- June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: For the next four hours. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forget it, Pat. Forget it. I'm not going to -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Forget it then. MR. V ARNADOE: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. V ARNADOE: No, just a couple -- couple comments on the discussions we were having earlier. Let's don't forget that we have a biannual report that we send to the RPC and the county and that Mr. Strain will have the number of external trips and by reference the internal capture that goes with -- that is a requirement of the DR! law, that goes out every two years. What it won't have on it is -- is number of people per household, obviously. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It will have the absorptions and the sales prices? MR. V ARNADOE: It will have absorptions, it will not have the sales price. It tells you what's been built and what your impact on the roads are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sales prices are recorded at the tax assessor's office. MR. VARNADOE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. V ARNADOE: The other comment I'd like to make is that the developer's contribution agreement by and of itself is a public private partnership to accelerate the -- the road. Especially Oil Well Road, a road on which the county has a problem now at the west end. The level of service on that road is A or B but the -- at that intersection we know we have a problem. And this is an attempt for -- by the developer and the county to accelerate those improvements from 2012, 2015, to 2007, nine time frame. The -- Mark was asking about the -- there is a requirement that in the Growth Management Plan RLSA policies I think he was referring Page 146 June 2, 2005 to that -- that you should not approve an SRA unless the roads that are served; that is, the roads on which it has access -- direct access, are an acceptable level of service under the concurrency management system. I guess to say the other way, if there's a problem, you shouldn't do it. I think you heard Mr. Perry testify that that road is at A or B at the present time, and so I think we meet that policy. But go ahead. I'm ready to go with questions now, wherever we want to go. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The question I had asked Mr. Perry, for the record, was not the road, it was the intersection. So -- as far as the Regional Planning Council sheets that were provided to us -- and I'm starting in the staff report, and it begins with a staff assessment under B, which is affordable housing. And I wanted to understand from -- is Cormac still here? Oh, good. From your side of it, you're going to put up a series of different values of affordable housing. Do you know what price ranges you're going to be using to meet those values? MR. V ARNADOE: Under today's dollars, I do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. V ARNADOE: The -- it's all the -- the state rule, 9J2.048 Florida Administrative Code, says you use the Collier County median household income and then -- which is -- for 2004, 2005 was $63,300. And so the very low you -- would be those who make less than 50 percent of that median income. And then for rental housing -- and I'm going from memory now -- it would be monthly payments that do not exceed 30 percent of their income. And you have to subtract utilities from that so that that's -- that would be the -- the standard. For the low, it runs from 50 to 80 percent of the median household income, same standards. As far as for sale housing in the low or in the moderate, it is -- you go through a machination where they're not paying more than 30 percent for the monthly mortgage payment, including taxes and utilities. And if you'll give me a minute, Page 147 ..--..-- June 2, 2005 I'll see what else is in there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I just -- what I want to make sure is, are you intending to meet the county's definition for those categories as it evolves whether -- starting today forward? Meaning I know we're talking about today's dollars now, but as that definition changes and the ranges change consistent with the county's policies for affordable -- we don't even call it that. We call it workforce housing now. Will you be meeting those standards? MR. VARNADOE: We'll be meeting the state standards. And I assume the county uses the same standards, and if they do, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what -- I was going to ask Cormac that. MR. V ARNADOE: So what happens, of course, is if the median income goes up, what they can afford goes up; if mortgage rates go down, what they can afford goes up; if mortgage rates go up, what they can afford goes down. So it's a -- it's kind of an evolving -- and then moderate income, to finish, Mr. Strain, is from 80 to 120 percent of the median household income. So if you took the $63,300 and start, you know, multiplying that out, you can see in each of those categories what the price ranges would be or the rental amounts they could afford each month. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You -- I think Anita said that these will be scattered throughout the town. Do you have -- from what I could see in the FlAM, three builders in there that apparently you're selling -- somehow buildings blocks to or Del Webb, Pulte, and DiV osta. And I'm familiar with their products, they're not generally affordable housing. How are you enforcing this rule on them? I mean since they're going to be building it, you guys aren't doing the construction, you've got builders involved, so how are the builders -- how is this being set up? MR. VARNADOE: This will be a requirement of the DR!. The -- the very low and low -- most -- half of the low is going to be rental Page 148 --~-- .--- -'~-."'"--_.------_._-"- June 2, 2005 housing, which is obviously very easy to control, as you -- if you have -- you have control with that over a period of time. The other housing will be of -- be required to price enough of that housing initially so that it will meet the standards of the -- of the state. We -- there's actually four neighborhoods in there, Mr. Strain. TND neighborhood downtown, and then obviously as you can see a walk community and then there's a Del Webb community and then there's more of a traditional single-family community. So that's -- that's -- one of the ways we get that absorption is it's not just one entity, it's -- it's basically four separate neighborhoods being developed at the same time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The restrictions on resale that have to go with affordable housing in order to retain the affordableness over a certain period of time, were those being imposed on your builders or your buyers in those particular units? MR. VARNADOE: Weare looking into it. We don't have the same ability to restrain the resale because we are into a density bonus situation or having public funds used in the housing. Weare looking at several alternatives to try to keep investors and speculators out of that and to get them into the right hands, but there is -- there are some legal constraints on restraining alienation over some lengthy period of time. Plus the fact practically -- with regard to moderate housing, if you get somebody in that house that qualifies, I have some personal problems, I think we have some legal problems with telling that person that it's -- after some reasonable point in time, they can't capitalize on probably the biggest investment they got and move up to a higher priced house. But how we're kind of handling that is that we're bringing affordable housing on at least proportionately to the nonresidential development. So that if ten percent of -- are retail office, then we'll have to have at least ten percent or more of our affordable housing Page 149 ---~.-'--. -'-'-"'-"---'-~'-'--"~' June 2, 2005 units in place. So there will always be -- should always be some affordable housing units coming -- coming on the pipeline. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But at this point you're only telling us that you're going to meet the aspect, so you can more or less guarantee you'll meet the aspects of the affordable housing price ranges for the quantities that you're talking about, the initial sale. MR. V ARNADOE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that a fair statement? MR. V ARNADOE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that means as a speculator -- I know you don't want speculators, but as legal as you can't control things, you can't control someone speculating either. MR. V ARNADOE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If I went out there and wanted to buy one and I happen to qualify for the moderate but the next year I wanted to sell it for the value of that -- if this thing hits and is -- like every other development in Collier County, is a big success, I could double or triple my money and walk out of there and there's no affordable housing. MR. VARNADOE: Weare -- as I told you, we are looking at different aspects of how to address that issue, Mr. Strain. And whether they are -- there is some time component on their ability to resale that is controlling the price for one or two years to keep the Mark Strain investor speculator out of there or -- that's the one we're really looking at hard for the moderate housing. And low income we probably have a greater ability to put deed restrictions for a longer period of time because we're probably selling, frankly, at below market values, so that gives us some necessary nexus, if you would, to put some restrictions on it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know that I -- you could probably answer some other things, but if you don't mind, I was wondering if Cormac could comment on some way that would help Page 150 June 2, 2005 regulate the resale so that we can assure that there's going to be some afford housing there more than just the first day that it's sold. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. For the record Cormac Giblin, Housing and Grants Manager, Collier County. I've had several meetings with the applicant on this -- in this regard, and I've shared with them the models that the county uses when we put deed restrictions on affordability requirements -- affordability requirements on the affordable units that we approve through our affordable housing density bonus program. I've also shared with them some of our second mortgage paperwork, that we can put a second mortgage on the home that would discourage the flipping or the cashing out of houses over time. It -- as Mr. Varnadoe said, though, it is problem -- problematic. It's easy to do those things and legal to do those things when the home is being sold at a -- at a loss or at a benefit. And so those are easy to implement over the very low income and the low income units. It's this thousand units of moderate priced housing that we may need -- we need to get a little bit more creative with on how to maintain its affordability over time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Cormac, my concern is that while the applicant here today may have good intentions on providing affordable housing the way it needs to be provided, it's also going to be sold, various parts of this project, to other people where the controls may not be as concise as they are being talked about here today. I think the -- from what I could understand, the intent of affordable housing is it's maintained as affordable housing over a period of time for the benefit of the county. I would certainly like, some time before this meeting is over, to get input from you on something that can be worded so that we could be assured that the chain of events, more or less, falls down to the fact that there's some control on this initial affordable housing so that it stays affordable Page 151 ----,,'-- June 2, 2005 housing over whatever period of time is normally afforded to such thing. Is that something that you could probably think about today? MR. GIBLIN: Well, it's something we've been trying to work on for the past several weeks and months. One of the ideas I -- I suggested earlier was even a community land trust could own the parcels of land that the affordable homes, the moderate priced homes are built on. That would maintain its affordability over time. But these are things that really the developer needs to research and decide which one fits his development model the best. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, Cormac, by the time everybody leaves here today I'd like -- this needs -- this should be resolved and be part of a recommendation so that the BCC can consider it. And I'm not hearing any recommendation from you, other than the fact you've been talking about it for two months and have accomplished nothing. So maybe we can help you accomplish something if you could help us with some ideas. MR. GIBLIN: My recommendation would be that at least for the low income and the very low income, we place a deed restriction on them, similar to the one that we use currently. As far as the upper income ones, I would have to defer to someone with a better legal training than I as to the legality and exactly how that can be accomplished. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know just the person for that. Mr. White, do you have a suggestion? MR. WHITE: I can't tell you how to draw a conclusion about a set of facts and reach a legally sufficient outcome, other than your -- this commission to take a vote on it, and if a majority sees it one way, then I guess that's legally sufficient for purposes we're talking about. But I don't know if George has anything he wants to add to it or not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I wasn't looking at you to tell us -- what Cormac I think alluded to, he didn't know how to practically place a restriction on a moderate income affordable Page 152 - ~ --~- June 2, 2005 housing, make sure it retains that moderate income level through a period of time. MR. WHITE: We do it all the time in different agreements that we implement through his department. Sometimes they're done with annual monitoring and reporting by the folks who are the occupants or renters. And -- and I'm not sure exactly what the facts are going to be in this case, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I appreciate what you aren't able to help us with. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Glad to be of no assistance. MR. V ARNADOE: And, Mark, I think that you -- you heard from Cormac, and he's absolutely right. I think the extent that you have county money or some public money in it or you're selling below market, like a low and a very low, we can -- in a rental, we can control. The problem I'm having is a very real one, and that is the legal aspects of how we're going to do it. And as I told you, we have a couple -- we have two or three options that we're looking at. One is a -- an option to buy back or to have -- for a one year period or to have the profit be payable to the seller or maybe to this Collier County Housing Authority that the -- that they just set up here in the last couple of weeks, couple months. The other one is -- is, you know, for a short period of time -- which I think that's as far as we can go, a couple years -- is just to try to control the -- or have a restriction that controls the amount that the person can sell it for, which will take us out of the investor speculator situation. Because if you say for two years you can only get a five percent -- probably the wrong word -- inflation factor each year in your sales price, plus any improvements you make, I don't think you're going to have people that are speculating in the real estate market getting into that. I think you're going to be selling those units to people that you want to have in them. Page 153 ...-..... -_._--,_-..-..,~,-~.- June 2, 2005 But beyond that time period, legally, when it's a marketplace, a market priced product, it -- I don't know any legal way to restrict it, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One way to do it is make some more of them low. But I want to share with Mark this was a really important point. And I think to come here with no way to guarantee that the affordable housing units will stay affordable housing could be a problem. MR. VARNADOE: Well, let me tell you -- you know, we are mandated by -- you know, the state law is to have affordable housing. You guarantee them 15 years of affordability on rental income, on rental properties, and the state law on for sale property is that it only be affordable at the time you sell it. I mean that's -- that's the rule. MR. WHITE: And to embellish the answers before, what you're dealing with is a circumstance where you're trying to assure, by potentially agreement, a circumstance that a court would review later in time and not find that there had been a restraint on alienation. Kind of a preclusion of sale. And what you'd be looking to do and why I think Mr. Varnadoe and I, as well, and other attorneys who've kind of walked across this ground find it difficult is because you're attempting to balance, essentially, what are two very important and competing public policy issues. The idea that you provide affordable housing is, of course, imperative. But on the other hand, the notion that somehow you preclude or restrain people from selling property that they otherwise were entitled to purchase and have a right to sell it -- at whatever price, subj ecting that to an agreement that constrains it where you don't have some other good public policy reason to do so is -- is a difficult future to envision. So, we start the process by getting this commission to make a recommendation to our Board indicating that they believe that the Page 154 - -----..,-- June 2, 2005 balancing of those public policy issues is one that ought be struck in favor of affordable housing, even in a circumstance where it may be possible that someone could down the road challenge, i.e. we cannot today guarantee, that there wouldn't be a judge in a court that'd find in fact what we had done was an impermissible restraint on alienation. Now, that's probably more legalese and analysis than -- than most of you care to have to consider as part of your recommendation today, but since we've gone down this ground this far, I thought it was important to share with you for -- for the interests of those and the record that will flow from today's hearing. I hope it helps. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one question of Cormac. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Cormac, you've got a program that seems to handle affordable housing really well. What would it take to bring these 1900 units into your program? MR. GIBLIN: By program, you mean-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your management of affordable housing. You seem to have ways to keep affordable housing alive, keep it going for as long as it's supposed to go for. How do you do that? And if you -- whatever way you do it, why don't you just take these 1900 into your program, if that's possible? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. We record a deed restriction against each unit that is built as affordable housing, guaranteeing its affordability, capping its appreciation rate, and instituting a penalty if you sell it before the end of that affordability period. That's -- that's permissible -- I think what we're hearing is that's permissible when there is a -- some kind of subsidy through the way of a density bonus or some other monetary subsidy to the buyer, in -- which can be implemented on these low and very low income units in Ave Maria. It's those thousand moderate income units that really don't have the -- the benefit applied to them that is cumbersome in trying to Page 155 ~^"-"'_._"'.- June 2, 2005 impose that type of restriction. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Unless there was something added to delay impact fees on those moderate income units -- MR. GIBLIN: Of course. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- then all of the sudden you've created a nexus to allow them to be brought into your program. MR. GIBLIN: Of course. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Because half of the low income houses are going to be owner oc -- owned, not just rental units, so why is it easier to do it on the low and not the moderate? I'm not getting -- MR. V ARNADOE: Because with the low, Ms. Caron, the -- there will be -- we'll be selling those at below market value, so we have a rational nexus for -- for restraining the -- the amount of appreciation that can -- but with the moderate we just don't have the that. They are going to be selling at market rates. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why, under those circumstance, where you are actually selling the homes at less than the actual value, can't you put a statement on the deed where the home must be owned by that owner for a period of say three years or five years or whatever figure that would operate, because you are giving them something actually that they cannot buy, except for their status in society? I would think that would be perfectly legal. MR. V ARNADOE: I think you can do that. I think the better approach really is rather than tell the guy he can't get move if he gets transferred or loses his job or does something else is to simply cap for five years what the -- what the appreciation -- and that's not -- that's not a problem with the low. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The problem is ifhe sells it, you lose the prospective of what the next buyer can do. My point would be that if we went into this situation and we said you couldn't Page 156 June 2, 2005 sell it for five years, however, we can pay you the difference in what it is worth now against what you bought it but you will transfer the deed -- the deed will stay in your name rather than in the name of a buyer. MR. V ARNADOE: Tell him what your experience is. MR. GIBLIN: I'll tell that the program that we operate now actually operates in the reverse of that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. What's that? MR. GIBLIN: If he sells it before the affordability period is over, for an amount greater than the capped appreciation rate, that money -- half that money comes back to the county as a penalty. And we then use that money to assist in the creation of a new affordable unit. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But the answer is that home is gone. MR. GIBLIN: That home is gone, but we've gotten the -- the input of money to try to create a new one. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The idea in this area was to keep those affordable housing in the hands of affordable people -- people who need affordable housing. And I would think that to just give them their profit and maintain the deed in your name or in Ave Maria's name to sell to another person who is in the affordable housing need, would make it much better than worrying about the few thousand bucks you're going to gain over what you can do by maintaining the house in the hands of the right people. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Other questions on the affordable housing issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, on the issue. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, have you analyzed this as to -- of the workers that will be working in this place, how many affordable housing units would be needed and how many would be provided? Is that an equal match? In other words, my point is that the Page 157 June 2, 2005 workers are going to be paid wages that would essentially make them need affordable housing. Is there enough affordable housing in the town to provide them housing? MR. GIBLIN: I can tell you I haven't done the analysis, but on a comparative basis, this development has -- has done much more than any other DRI we've reviewed in the past. The state -- the state requires them to go through the methodology, southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, basically, throughout the methodology for any DRI's reviewed in this area and is -- is happy, as is our department, with what they have come up with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question really is, is there going to be -- this is going to put a demand on affordable housing. Because 10,000 jobs, plus 10,000 -- there's 2,000 units, that's about five -- I mean if the ratio is 80 percent, then there's four -- four people living in each of those units. Which means this could be a -- a big need for affordable housing that this town could cause. I mean I'm sure they're doing more than everybody else, but this is a whole new town, a whole new strata of jobs. Is this going to cause a problem? MR. GIBLIN: I really can't answer that question specifically. But we're looking at a new town where at least -- about 20 percent of all the units will be affordable in some way, and I -- and I still believe that that is a significant commitment. Are they going to have a house for everyone who needs it? I can't answer that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thanks. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Cormac, the only thing you don't know is that if these are bought and sold, turned around, turned over pretty quickly, you don't have the affordability there. And that's the only puzzle I think we've been trying to understand. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: We're heading toward our afternoon break, and I don't want to open up any new topics. Before break, is there any further question on affordable housing? There are none, there's no time like the present. We'll break and reconvene at 3:00. Page 158 .,,,,,--,,,,,-,,--~""-'~.'-"'--'- June 2, 2005 (A brief recess was taken.) COMMISSIONER BUDD: We'll call the Planning Commission back to order. And before we resume our questions, I just wanted to follow up on an issue that came to light about 40 minutes ago. And it's taken the past 40 minutes for me to calm down so I can respond somewhat calmly and rationally. And that is the realization that eight out of the nine of the Planning Commissioners don't have this binder that Mr. Strain had. I can say honestly that right now I'm just extremely irritated, having overcome the state of mind a few minutes ago where I was just flat pissed off. I can't imagine the insult to our integrity as Volunteer Planning Commissioners that we're involved in a process where we volunteer our time and try to convey, try to articulate an opinion on behalf of the community, and we're kept in the dark and covered with crap. This is the largest, most complicated DR! ever to come through Collier County. And if there was ever a proj ect that needs to be done right, this is it, and we're just not even given a whole substantial section. Now, on the flip side, I don't think there's anything in there that I would have found that Mr. Strain, in his incredibly meticulous fashion hasn't already found. So I don't think there was any oversight or any lack of due diligence. But in all the time I've served on the Planning Commission, I'm glad this happened in the last few months of my term and not in the first few, or I would have quit a long time ago. I'm not in a state of mind to reverse my opinion or to not render an opinion on this thing, but I just wanted to express my extreme disappointment and what I think is an insult and really a question to our integrity that in some point in the future, it's not going to be offered as blatant evidence of a rubber stamp opinion by this Board. And I hope we can overcome that appearance. I don't think it's true. Page 159 <~'''---'''''-'~~'''"''---- June 2, 2005 So now that I've had my say, are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just say something about that. Ray, are we going to get the book or something today? I mean I wouldn't -- Mark is right, I really shouldn't review his marked up book. Is there an unmarked up book that we could pass around? Before we assume that it is no problem, I wouldn't mind seeing what is there. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anybody in the room? MR. BELLOWS: The omission of the ADA document to you was not a purposeful act. It was -- there were packets put together, for some reason mailing didn't get done right. Mr. Strain picked up his packet and got all the information. My staff is working on putting together or finding copies that weren't dropped off to you, and we'll -- should have some, if not all, today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is there a copy in the room that hasn't been written on or -- MR. WHITE: May I address that point, Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: I don't believe there's any real concern with one or more of the planning commissioners reviewing Commissioner Strain's book, even with the markups in it. The problem comes if you were to review those things outside this room, for example, and have a discussion about them. This is no different than being at a meeting somewhere else when two or more of the planning commissioners are present and one of them makes a statement. So long as whatever the results of hearing that statement are debated in an open forum such as this, then there is no Sunshine violation. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My problem is that the EAC staff report had some recommendations, and we're supposedly going to be forwarding those recommendations, and I don't know what they are. Page 160 .---,,,......_-~.__.'._._.-._,,. June 2, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: We'll get you a copy of that. MR. V ARNADOE: Mr. Midney, the EAC staff recommendations were the same recommendations that were in the wetlands section of the Regional Planning Council staff report, from best of my recollection. I'll get somebody to check that right now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You mean they just adopted everything without any changes? MR. BELLOWS: This is the staffreport. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Strain, are you prepared to move forward in your questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, a couple sentences, maybe. George, this isn't really about affordable housing, but it is. In the Southwest Regional Planning Council report, on page IA2 and IA4, and it talks about applicant -- applicant's commitments, and then the staff assessment. And in both cases it says students are not permitted to live off campus. Thus, the applicant states that the dorms are counted towards the affordable housing for people with low income. Now, I thought I heard previously that is not true, and I think this is probably why the question came up originally. Is it -- are you -- I mean is this wrong, what was written in the Southwest Regional Planning Council report? MR. V ARNADOE: Students are required to live in the dorms, unless they live with their parents, but those are not -- those dorm rooms we are not counting towards the 1900 affordable housing units that we've been discussing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Just so you -- for the record then, because that -- that does say just the opposite in this report, so -- the next question I have is for Mr. Scott, ifhe's available. Don, the Southwest Regional Planning Council report had a couple references to future conditions with the project that are found on page ID 16 and ID 17. And, basically -- it's a short paragraph and it reads, in a memo dated February 9th, 2005, FDOT offered final Page 161 , ,-" . -.,.- June 2, 2005 comments regarding the Ave Maria RI. In the memo, FDO states -- FDOT states the documentation submitted by the applicant for question one, 20 -- transportation. In the town of A ve Maria development of regional impact does not provide sufficient information or quantify the impact with project traffic on the state highway system. The two most significant points of deficiency are the estimentation of project generated traffic -- traffic volumes on SHS roadway segments impacted by this project -- I'm sorry -- and the level of service analysis documentation provided is not adequate to estimate the anticipated impacts of the project on the SHS to a reasonable degree of accuracy. And therefore, they recommended approval conditional on actual traffic impacts of the town of Ave Maria and monitoring. Are you familiar with what they're referring to when they're talking about the state highway system in the impacts? MR. SCOTT: If it's referring to I75, maybe, but not the rest of the system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The reason I'm asking is because in previous discussions with Hank Fishkind, we found out that the impacts on the state system is not factored into the fiscal neutrality of the economic model. MR. SCOTT: But it is from analysis that we do, you know, throughout the system. Besides the interstate system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, these two things that the state asks for, the two most significant points of deficiency, have you addressed those or have you researched these? Have you responded to those in any manner whatsoever, or do you -- I mean can you recall doing anything about them? MR. SCOTT: Well, I -- I know that we had raised some issues previously. I guess they might have had correspondence with the applicant. I did go to the RPC meeting, and they didn't -- they -- they didn't raise any issues at that point. I believe, at that point they were Page 162 June 2, 2005 satisfied with what they got. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, there are going to be -- they did request monitoring of the SHS at 50, 75, and 100 percent build out levels. How is that implemented? Or has it been implemented? Are you doing that or are they doing that? MR. SCOTT: I do that on everything besides the interstate system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Back to their point then. How does that get done? MR. SCOTT: Well, I would assume that they would be doing it on the interstate system. I guess if -- if they don't, then maybe I should be doing it, but -- I don't have control on setting the level of service on the interstate system. That's why we do everything besides the interstate system, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Don, since this is a request during this review and it's in this document and it was a recommendation or it was a statement, I can't even say -- well, it did say recommendation. How -- how does this get to a point where someone now says, okay, we're going to do that recommendation? Do you tell the state, does the state tell the applicant, do we tell the applicant, how does that happen? MR. SCOTT: I think that we can -- when we talk about, you know, what we're doing for monitoring and -- and the time frames that we're looking at, we can get that data from them and pass that on to the state. Besides what we can provide ourselves. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, if we -- if we were to bring that up as a stipulation, it's something that can be monitored and done? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That was my question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question, if I can. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Scott, I guess similarly on Page 163 June 2, 2005 page ten, on item G, the last sentence there, it -- therefore, in the event the external trips counted entering and exiting the DRA (sic) exceeds the predicted number by ten percent or more at the end of phase one, a reanalysis of the DR! shall be conducted, using most up-to-date transportation model. That would be something that would fall under your purview again? MR. SCOTT: I don't believe that's a stipulation that -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that ended up in the final recommendation by the RPC. But obviously I'm going to have that data if we exceed that. I mean essentially going to have year by year data or even could have daily, if we wanted to get to that level. I think that was a recommendation, but I don't believe that was a stipulation that was provided at the end. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But they do -- you do take note of it, in any event. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, yes, I do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, I'm trying to -- while you're standing there, I wanted to catch a few things that -- so you don't have to keep popping back up and down. Under the transportation department review, which was your department, you stated that all significantly impacted road segments will experience an acceptable level of service by 2008 with the traffic added by the proposed town of Ave Maria. So in the next, approximately, two years, three maybe, Oil Well Road's going to be acceptable in all those intersections that they're having significant impact on, you feel they're going to be improved? MR. SCOTT: Well, they're not -- I mean their impact starts, what, next year sometime? It's not going to be at the level that Oil Well will be failing. And also we're doing -- you know, obviously I assume Immokalee Road improvements, because it's under construction right now, the intersection improvements with that. Page 164 ~."",,",._-~~,,,'~"~--_..""-- June 2, 2005 Essentially, the road all the way back to 175. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And that's -- how contingent are those improvements on the generation of impact fee revenues from the absorptions and sales proj ected by Ave Maria? MR. SCOTT: Okay. Besides Oil Well Road itself, the intersection and everything else, that's all funded, doesn't -- I don't care about their impact fees at that point. Oil Well Road widening is contingent probably -- let's say beyond the Orange Tree area on the impact fees and -- but obviously their impact on that section that-- which is low traffic right now, by 2008 we're okay, obviously is more towards the future. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Got a few more to go. MR. SCOTT: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oil Well has -- before you get to Ave Maria, if you're traveling east, I believe, you're going to hit this Big Cypress receiving -- this Big Cypress -- MR. SCOTT: Big Cypress is the one you were referring to earlier. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's larger than Ave Maria in land mass, from what I understand. MR. SCOTT: It's very large and remains to be seen what it will be developed out to, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it's developable? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And what I understand from a comment I heard from staff -- I don't remember who, one of the engineers -- was that it could be developed from anywhere between 20 thousand to 60 thousand homes. MR. SCOTT: That was a reference that was made previously. I don't know what was assumed in the build out study for that, for that Page 165 June 2, 2005 level of growth, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's two to six times Ave Maria. MR. SCOTT: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How is it -- I mean what's the capacity of Oil Well Road? If they think it's bad now, and Fred Thomas thinks he's going to drive down Oil Well Road to get here quicker, he may not want to do that in the future. MR. SCOTT: Obviously I'm concerned by those numbers, too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wow. MR. SCOTT: It hasn't been approved, let's put it that way. You know, we're planning on four laning at this point, but I -- but by the end of the year, I'll have the new model and can change the design to six lane, if necessary, to six lane. You know, I deal with it as it comes, but that's -- that's what we're trying to -- you know, we're -- I'm not only modeling for 2030 now, but also modeling the build out to try to address some of those future things that you're talking about, too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You had said at one time that the standard for the county now is to six lane, not four lane. Is that still the standard? MR. SCOTT: It is. But -- and I won't say that it won't change by the end of -- by the end of the year, it might change. When I look at the numbers, I mean I -- I want -- you have to have some justification back towards it, too. I don't want to say, hey, it's six lane lanes because, you know -- I think it's going to grow, too, but I'm going to need the numbers that go with it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What's the cost of Immokalee Road? I mean -- not -- Oil Well Road, what's the total cost? MR. SCOTT: It's around 56 million. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Where are the funds -- I mean the -- the applicant's only paying impact fees as it moves along, and we're going to have to bond the rest. But how are you paying -- where are the funds -- are other parts of the county being reduced in their, say, Page 166 - .-"-'--""'--'-'"'---- June 2, 2005 immediate need of road expansion to put money out here to get this done? MR. SCOTT: Well, you can -- you can only -- most of our funding comes from impact fees, so I'll just specifically talk about impact fees. You can only go in that -- take money from that district or an adjacent district. So you're not talking about south Naples being able to use impact fees out in that area. So you can only talk about that, you know, specific area for those impact fees. Obviously there's other roads in there that are also in the program. We're starting the phase of Everglades, things like that. The -- proj ecting out, based on what we're getting in impact fees, based on our gas taxes, based on everything else, we have funding to do that within the five years, and other -- other projects, too. One of the other things that we will be going after out here is grant funding to try to offset some of it. But that's not guaranteed, but that is another area of funding that will be -- because the Growth Management Bill provides some more funding that we can go after, compete with other counties to get, and we will try to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I've got for a minute or two. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question, Don. MR. SCOTT: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If Ave Maria town grows to be a population of 50 thousand people instead of the 25 thousand we're thinking now, and since it will have invested for transportation, will that preclude other developments in that area? MR. SCOTT: Well, it's hard to answer everything around the area developable-wise. At some point will some development get stopped or have to wait for other improvements? That would probably happen at some point. Say all the way on Immokalee towards 41. The internal-- I mean -- there's assumptions built into the whole thing. You know, internal capture rate, things like that. As long as Page 167 "_.~_.'''--"-''---'_._'""'.''-' June 2, 2005 they -- as -- is built as planned, we're -- you know, we're looking at it as okay. Now, we did model lower internal capture rate, trying to look at some worst case scenarios, conservative look at things. Some of the things we were talking about in the financial model, why certain numbers were used, it was more conservative than using what we really -- you know, what -- we don't speculate that might happen, versus using, you know, some numbers that might be built over time that are -- we don't really know about yet. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I can even see a situation where traffic -- traffic going from Immokalee to the coast could be strangled even more if there's such a bottleneck because of all of the cars that are entering from Ave Maria Town that we won't be able to get around it at all to go to Naples. MR. SCOTT: Well, in some of the -- you know, my big picture of this is if -- if you take all the developable land east of 951 and we made it all residential housing, our network isn't going to handle it. So the -- the one positive aspect of -- of this community is having internal capture, having commercial, having services out there that not everybody has to come into urban area. Immokalee area itself is a rule of economic -- area of economic concern. I believe that even with the announcement it's helped in that area, but beyond that -- you know, like the airport area, some of those things, commercial jobs, trying to get more of a hub so you really do get to a split commute is where we're trying to get to. Obviously, when Big Cypress comes, if they built just 60 thousand units and didn't have some of the other things we're talking about now, that is -- that's a very big concern that -- if they just built housing. That's what I'm looking at from -- trying to really get to attraction areas that everybody that's out there doesn't have to come to the coast for services or jobs. I mean as much as all the other things, you know, I'm sure people Page 168 ^ -,~-"-_..- June 2, 2005 out there don't appreciate they have to drive all the way into town for pharmacy, but that's not really a road aspect thing unless they're going during the p.m. or the a.m. peak. Our problem right now is everybody coming in this area to work. Try to get jobs out in that area, split the commute, that's what I'm trying go embrace, trying to move towards. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, I have one more question. Soon -- I think maybe the middle of June or if not, the next meeting -- the Orange Tree PUD, I believe, is coming in for an amendment. Not too long ago, we approved -- I think it's called the Orange Blossom PUD, which was kind of part of Orange Tree. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was, I think, 940 units, with some commercial. That one was right on Oil Well Road. MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The Orange Tree PUD straddles Oil Well Road. Orange Blossom hasn't been built yet. Now that we've reserved the right on Oil Well for Ave Maria, how will that affect the project life of Orange Blossom in -- say they were to come out a year from now or -- it's going to take a while to get their permitting, but say about the same time A ve Maria got going with its first couple years of sales now and this Orange Blossom starts coming out to come in for building permits and things, would they be given permits on Oil Well Road. MR. SCOTT: Orange Blossom Ranch, in at least the area we're talking about Oil Well being widened, some of the other things, I believe, is probably -- you know, I -- when you're talking about later phases of it, I think that's okay. Increase in density in Orange Tree, I don't know at this point. It's -- you know, obviously take them as it comes in and looks at the -- the levels of concurrency. I believe the Orange Tree actually is being delayed a little bit longer but -- I know it was on a previous board agenda. Page 169 ~'''-'"'~''~_""'cC,_"._..,,,~__.....,,_,, June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. It's-- MR. SCOTT: It's not ready. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's -- for the record, Ray Bellows. There's two Orange Tree amendments. One is for the Collier County Utilities Department, that's on track coming up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: But, yeah, the other one -- MR. BELLOWS: The other one is going probably after October or later. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Don. That's all I have of Don. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. Moving on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My next question gets into a couple water questions. This one is under the wastewater treatment, and it's about South Florida Water Management District. And it says -- it's in the south -- south -- Southwest Regional Planning Council report. One of the district's main concerns relates to their concern that there may not be sufficient water available in the lower Tamiami aquifer to meet the proj ect demands. The district states that the applicant may need to evaluate other water supply sources as the project approaches build out. How have you responded to that, George? Do you know? I mean I've read your report, but I wasn't sure what you're planning to do, besides draw water from the aquifer. MR. V ARNADOE: I'm not being nonresponsive, I'm trying to get somebody that can respond. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand. MR. PAGER: My name is Craig Pager with Wilson Miller. I am a Senior Project Manager with a specialty in water and wastewater . englneenng. In response to your question, the requirements in permitting the consumptive use of water for the water treatment plants require the Page 170 - -.-" -"'.'.'"""..,,"~--,,,,<~~,-,,...- June 2, 2005 modeling of the aquifers from which the water's withdrawn. And in the process of permitting the consumptive use, the applicant is required to prove that the water is available and that it has no detrimental impact on surrounding areas. That has been done for the first phase of the water treatment plant. And as additional expansions occur, that same modeling will occur as additional requests for additional water consumption is requested. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But as far as alternatives go, you haven't come up with any? MR. PAGER: Well, should -- should it be inadequate, the alternative would be to go to deeper saline aquifers where, instead of having freshwater as the source, the water would be brackish in nature and a reverse osmosis method of treatment would be utilized for producing the potable water demands. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How would you get rid of the grime? MR. PAGER: With deep injection wells. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Down deeper, I would suppose? MR. PAGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Three thousand feet, something-- MR. PAGER: Typically, in that process -- and this is a -- the same process that Collier County uses for their reverse osmosis water treatment plants is that the concentrated or the reject water is disposed through deep injection wells into deeper aquifers in the Boulder Zone, where the water quality is such that it's really of little value because it's so brackish. And so that's a -- an accepted method of concentrate disposal for reverse osmosis technology. And, again, that's the same thing that con -- Collier County is doing in both their north and south water treatment plants. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You said you did modeling? MR. PAGER: We did not do that. CH2M Hill is the engineering Page 171 O.__'_M*~ June 2, 2005 consultant that did that work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are they here today? MR. PAGER: They're not here today, no, they're not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know anybody in your company that was involved in dealing with them on the water model? MR. PAGER: I was the coordinator with them as a consultant. And I did not personally do the modeling, but that was a requirement that they had in order to get the treatment plant permitted. I'm familiar with the process and what they needed to go through. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know what they used for data to understand the historical modeling? MR. PAGER: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know ifpump package data was available to them? MR. PAGER: I know that there are some existing wells that-- that were in existence. I don't know if they used that information or not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's all I've got on the water question so far. Thank you. MR. PAGER: Okay. Welcome. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Let's go back to this whole general water issue. Please tell me and explain to me that there is a reason we shouldn't expect the same problems out of the Ave Maria utility company as we're getting now with the Orange Tree utility. MR. V ARNADOE: The -- I think the -- the difference is that you have is -- I want to say the people involved, and that's very true. The companies that are involved. But this is a, you know, a utility company that's going to have to produce in order for the town to grow. If it doesn't have the capacity and it doesn't have the water and wastewater treatment facilities that -- that are needed, then we're not going to be able to grow. And, therefore, it's going to be in -- in the Page 1 72 '"' .~.,~ --.-.-...-- --_._-.---~,- June 2, 2005 owner's best interest to make sure that the utility is -- is functioning properly and is providing the facilities as needed. COMMISSIONER CARON: In here it talks about special best management practices as it relates to the water management system. What are special about -- MR. V ARNADOE: Ms. Caron, where are you, please? COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me try to find it for you, George. MR. V ARNADOE: Are you in the Regional Planning Council report? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. V ARNADOE: Under water management? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. But I'm not sure whether it's under potable water or -- I shouldn't have written it down on a separate sheet of paper. MR. VARNADOE: Maybe we can go on, and if you find it, we can come back to that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thanks. MR. V ARNADOE: I don't want to -- I'm not trying to pressure you, I'm just trying to get the -- some reference so I can answer the question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Mr. Varnadoe, while she's looking for that, perhaps I could ask a question relating to it. If the utility, the water utility, is a separate entity and it appears that there's no plan to introduce a desalinization plant at this point, which would be a significant capital outlay, what means is there -- that should that be determined, that there is a degradation of the water at the lower Tamiami, what means is there of the capitalization, the funding to be able to bring that on line? As you said, it's the hinge pin for the whole thing, isn't it? MR. V ARNADOE: It is. And when you've got $350 million going into the first phase of A ve Maria, I think you can be assured that Page 1 73 ~.,~." . ,.~"..- June 2, 2005 since the same owner's a utility company, they're going to find a way to have water and wastewater service out there to cap -- recoup their capital investment in the -- in the project, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, but there's no -- there's no actual plan at the moment, but I appreciate that, that that investment would. MR. VARNADOE: No. We think because of the -- the amount of -- the permeated water withdrawal that we have now and the fact that -- for irrigation and the fact that we're going to be using less water than is authorized now in the development that we're going to have sufficient water supplies in the area. And don't forget that this owner has amazing other land -- amount of other land that's in proximity to this from which water could be withdrawn, if we have a problem. So -- I just don't see that as a real problem, I guess, is my point. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I wanted to get that on the record. MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You just said something, unfortunately, that forces me to ask another question. You said that they'll be withdrawing less water. I earlier thought -- MR. V ARNADOE: No, no. Mark, let me -- I hope I was very clear. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: At the inception. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Let me hear it again then. MR. VARNADOE: Okay. We have permits for X million gallons of water per day. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. V ARNADOE: That's how much we can legally withdraw today. Our utilization in the development will be less than that amount. But I -- what I did not say was it's less than the amount we're withdrawing on an average basis today, because I don't have that data. Page 174 June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's more along what I thought we had talked about earlier. And I think that pumpage data is critical. And I do remember reviewing this week -- and I will -- tonight I will try to find it -- some documents provided to me that isolated the South Florida Water Management consumptive use permit to the farmlands in question for Ave Maria, and it was about -- that one said about 30 million gallons. What brought my question up was that in the other document, it showed the existing pumpage was about 11 and that the proposed was going to be 12.2 I was wondering how all those numbers fit together. MR. V ARNADOE: I think we can answer. Alan can you answer this? 11 million gallons per day and -- MR. REYNOLDS: Go back to your previous question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the DR!. MR. REYNOLDS: George needed a break anyway, so it's time for me to get up. The 11 million gallons that are referenced in the DR! is that portion of the overall permitted withdrawal that would apply to the footprint of this town. There's a larger permit in place, I think that -- if you'll recall, that I think is about 30. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One I had found. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MR. REYNOLDS: So 11 of that is the allocation that would be proportionate to the footprint of Ave Maria. So what -- what George is saying about the difference between what we're permitted to withdraw and what we will actually consume is less than half of what that allocation is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if the 30 million applies to areas outside the town of Ave Maria, then how do you know you're not going to be using irrigation water outside the town for the other Page 175 _, _< ~_.__~"..O~___ June 2, 2005 farmlands that would be permitted for that consumptive use? MR. REYNOLDS: When we -- when we permit the consumptive use for the town, there will be a new permit from the water management district that will deal with the consumptive use for the town. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And how much will it reduce the consumptive use and the balance of the farm fields that the permit for the whole thing is for? Meaning the three million one. MR. REYNOLDS: Well, again, if -- if the portion that has been allocated to the footprint of the town is 11 million gallons, the actual demand that we're projecting is about 42 percent of that at build out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your actual demand is 12.2, including -- MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- potable and irrigation. MR. REYNOLDS: But we withdraw the water once, we use it for potable, then we treat it, and then we use it for irrigation. So the reduction is because we're reusing the water for irrigation purposes, as opposed to withdrawing it for both potable and irrigation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will reread it. I didn't have a question about it, but I guess by tomorrow I will. I thought that the irrigation value that you purported at 5.8, I think it was, included the use of effluent. So if it does, then the net is 5.8 and you add the 6.2 or three, then you're at 12.2, which is your gross volume you intend to use, which is more than what you're withdrawing now. MR. REYNOLDS: You withdraw the water for potable purposes and then you reuse it for irrigation. So it's withdrawn once. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're not going to use a hundred percent of your irrigation water being effluent. MR. REYNOLDS: We believe that it will be close to 100 percent, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you won't need any more Page 176 June 2, 2005 irrigation water, other than what you refined as effluent? MR. REYNOLDS: That's -- that's what we believe will be the case, maybe with a small supplement from the lakes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then your occupancy rate is going to be a lot higher during off season to generate the effluent needed to keep everything irrigated. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You've got a lower occupancy rate on this project based on the off season. You have seasonal residents. They're not there; they're not generating the effluent that you need to irrigate, where are you going to get the irritation water from? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, your irrigation demand goes down in the summer when it rains. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, people leave about April or March here. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Strain, the point is this, is that under any set of assessment, the -- the water that will actually be consumed by this project is going to be a magnitude less than what is allowed to be withdrawn today for the agricultural purposes. I'm not sure where-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I -- I-- MR. REYNOLDS: -- where you're trying to go. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I haven't seen -- I'm trying to find out where that -- where it says -- where your analysis shows that. I understand what you're saying. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But that's the documentation I'm reading, and I will refine this question for tomorrow. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because we could spend the next hour on it, and we're probably going to go back and forth. MR. REYNOLDS: I think you'll find it in the section under Page 1 77 _...~__u_' June 2, 2005 water supply, where there is a table I think that you referred to earlier that said here is the existing allocation of 11 million gallons. And then over time, what will happen is that agricultural consumption will be replaced by the consumption to provide the potable water as the agriculture is phased out. So then at the end of that period of time, the actual consumption that you're going to have is going to be approximately half or give or take some percentage of what you started with. That's -- that's why we're saying that the -- the consumption is reduced. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: And that's because we're able to -- we're using a dual water system, and we're going to use the treated effluent for irrigation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'll certainly look at it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Mr. Reynolds? The phasing out that you're referring to is on the land that is going to be trans -- changed to the town -- MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- not the surrounding land? MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So the total consumption -- because on your presentation this morning, one of the first things you had on there is to maintain agricultural lands? MR. REYNOLDS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then the town? MR. REYNOLDS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And so you do have the responsibility overall to make sure both work. I do understand by using the water twice it -- it does preserve what you have available, and it appears it is enough. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. The equation that we're balancing Page 178 June 2, 2005 there was just we only use the allocation that would be attributable to the footprint of development. Because the balance of the permitted allegation -- allocation, which is another 20 -- approximately 20 million gallons, is still available to continue to serve agriculture under that permit. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I thought I understood that. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. It -- I guess while I got up, if I -- could I just backtrack to one question or one point that Mr. Midney made about the transportation? Because I think it was -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Please. MR. REYNOLDS: I didn't hear it said, but I think the concern was that if this proj ect goes forward and we have, through our contributions and the things we've done, gotten a reservation of capacity and the next project comes along, what happens to them? Well, anybody that comes along and tries to do something similar under this program is going to have to go through this same process that we went through, including meeting the test of providing the infrastructure, making a proportionate share contribution to infrastructure, and making sure that there is going to be capacity. So, really, it -- it's, I think to a certain extent, safeguarded in that fashion. So -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I guess my concern was the arterial roads, because they can only be expanded up to a certain point. You have Immokalee Road and you have Oil Well and Camp Keais roads. I don't see any other big arterial roads coming through there. And if you have a town of 50 thousand people in the way, so to speak, between Immokalee and Naples, I can foresee a situation where it would become very difficult -- even if they six laned Immokalee Road and Oil Well and Camp Keais, I just don't see the capacity on the arterials there to handle all that. MR. REYNOLDS: Understood. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Abernathy? Page 179 -.-..,'.-........" June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Alan, at several places in these documents the point is made that water for fighting fire should always be potable water. Why would you fight a brush fire with potable water? MR. REYNOLDS: That's a good question. I'm not sure I have an answer for that. I think the reason that the potable is used for fire fighting is that to the extent that it's going to be introduced into buildings, I think was the intent there, that you're using potable water in the buildings and in the hydrants and in that system. But if you have a brush fire, I would presume that the fire district would probably do what they do in most rural cases and pump out of pumper trucks and lakes and other kinds of things. So I don't think that that statement precludes them from using whatever available source would be available. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, what is the degree to which you clean up the water before -- when it becomes gray water? I mean is it really a worry to spray a building with it that's on fire? MR. REYNOLDS: I'll tell you to the limit of my knowledge, because I'm -- I'm not an expert on that. But -- but the quality of the water is -- is what they refer to as an advanced secondary treatment. Which means that it is of a quality that it's put into the lake system and then basically able to be blended -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: -- with lake water and then withdrawn for irrigation purposes. So it's a -- it is a high quality of water. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's not to that point where people would -- could drink it, if they would drink it, it's not that -- MR. REYNOLDS: I've heard stories of people actually showing their comfort with it by drinking it, but I never have. Can you answer the question on the fire? MR. PAGER: My name is Craig Pager with Wilson Miller. The quality of the effluent from the waste water treatment plant Page 180 .___._..,_.m<"... "_,__,"",~____"m_~..,.,,,~_,.._._.'"'' .'. June 2, 2005 is such that bacteria is removed and killed with disinfectant chlorine in this case, and also the viruses are removed through a filtration process. So that effluent is free of bacteria and viruses so that it's safe for public access. For example, if you irrigate on a golf course, there will not be viruses, bacteria on the golf course that would contaminate golf balls or golf clubs or whatever would be on there, but it's -- from a health perspective, it's safe. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, then if the golf course clubhouse caught fire, you couldn't use it on that? MR. PAGER: You could use anything -- it isn't unsafe to use effluent to fight a fire, but normally it's cost effective to have the potable system provide the fire protection because that system's always going to be under pressure. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. PAGER: It has backup generators, in case power goes out, so that the water pressure's always available from a health standpoint, and it is also then always available for a fire fighting need. And that's why the systems are usually the same. If they were separate systems, you'd have to have those redundant backup systems for both, and in the interest of safety it's usually one system. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I see. That's a salient difference, so I'll accept that. Alan, now we both know. MR. REYNOLDS: Learn something every day. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Alan, on the -- I have a package that was provided to me with staff that includes Environmental Advisory Council staff report meeting of May 4th, 2005. And in there, they have a site description. I know this has been brought up before, but they keep referring back to the 4,995 acres. Did the AEC -- EAC review the 5,027 acres or the 4,995 acre package? Do we know? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Page 181 "~---,-",... June 2, 2005 They did review the revised plans. The staff report was generated early on and -- and didn't get updated. Those early figures didn't get updated the way they should, but during the presentation it was clear to them that we're dealing with the 5 thousand. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: By the way, that 32 acres that was added consists of a farm field that has no natural vegetation on it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. In the same staffreport, they're talking about site description, and the applicant has provided an analysis of potential water quality impact for the project. The summary of the results shows that the post-development load rate summary is less than the predevelopment. However, the supporting documentation contained in this report does not appear to support the summary information. Now, I don't have the supporting documentation with my package, so I'm wondering what it is they were talking about and if it has gotten resolved. I mean does anybody know? MR. ENGLISH: Yeah, it's resolved. For the record, John English with --licensed professional engineering with Wilson Miller. The water quality issue -- upon review, we -- we were requested to look at the water quality analysis that was required that we provide to the South Florida Water Management District for review with the RP. We provided that. Upon review, the county found one error in routing of lakes, interconnects between lakes. That was the -- the item in question. We met with them determined -- we -- that came to our -- we became aware of that, we revised the calculations, resubmitted the new model results, which the numbers changed but the results were the same, net reduction pollutant loading, and we all agreed that was acceptable. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And, Ray, was there a second report issued acknowledging this, or is this just something that went in -- that occurred during the meeting, is on record? Page 182 ""._-, -..,-.'--" June 2, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: We have Bill Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director. Yes, Wilson Miller presented a -- developed a -- a supplemental report. We passed that report out to EAC. I placed it on the record that that analysis, that additional analysis conformed -- conformed with the requirement that the post loading be less than the preloading. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bill, while you're up there -- your timing is just great. In the GMP and in the LDC, there are references a WRAs. In both documents, WRA is such as -- permitted as a retention area by South Florida Water management District. Now, I have asked over the past week or two for copies of the South Florida permit that shows that these were permitted retention areas, because the SRA uses the WRAs for outflow. I haven't got a copy of that permit yet. And I've asked your department, and to my knowledge you haven't got it yet. What is the situation? And the reason this is so important is Ave Maria, on the north side, is -- supposedly that's a WRA. It appears as any other natural, untouched area. But if it's a WRA, there's no setback distance. Whereas if it's ever classified in the future as an HSA, it's going to be setback of 300 feet. That will radically affect this plan. So how is anybody classifying this WRA as a WRA at this point if they haven't seen the permit? MR. LORENZ: As we discussed earlier, staff is accepting the WRA designation through the Growth Management Plan. Those-- those areas were designated in the Growth Management Plan within the rural stewardship lands overlay as WRAs. We did not -- we did not verify that those WRAs, as adopted by the Growth Management Plan, do indeed have those agricultural use permits, that -- that essentially have made them a WRA. So we -- we have provided that information to Wilson Miller. I'm not sure whether they've got information to present to you today or not on that. Page 183 ---"""-'-~ __ _" m___~__~ June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, we can shortchange this whole thing by asking them. Do we have a South Florida permit showing those WRAs as water retention areas? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Can we get a copy of it for the record? MR. REYNOLDS: Yep. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can I have it before I go home tonight, so I can read it as well? MR. REYNOLDS: Ifwe let you have it, can we get it back? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will make a copy and I'll bring it back to you in the morning, if I could, but I -- I think you need to submit one for the record, too, to keep it on file. At least I would think so. MR. V ARNADOE: Let me jump back. Mr. Midney asked us about the EAC recommendations. And they are -- I do have the official recommendations. They are the same as the Regional Planning Council. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Do you have those now, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have it now. MR. V ARNADOE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if you're going to provide that to me, then I'll just read it and I won't carry on a conversation on that matter until -- but I do need to talk to Bill Lorenz, as he walks away. Bill, we got into a discussion -- and I know that we disagree on this point, but I want to walk through it for the record. I'm going to need the county attorney's help, and he just loves to help with these things. And it's the definition of listed species habitat indices. In this entire 5 thousand acres, there apparently is no indices -- or no total indices above 1.2. To be above 1.2 means they can't develop it, and they have to put buffers around it and it's open space or Page 184 ..-.-.,~.-.-~.,~-_....".._...,.<.- June 2, 2005 something like that. So it's nice not to have one above that. There are at least plenty of aerials in the two documents that I have that indicate what the flux codes are, what the water management areas are, what the types of soils are, and what the listed species are. By the way, the listed species surveys in the DR! differ from the listed species survey that's in the SRA. Which one did your department review? MR. LORENZ: I would have to ask Susan Mason to -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because they do have -- I don't know why they're different, but they're different. So that's something -- they have different species found in different areas, which is different. I'm surprised, there should have been overlay. Flux code group one has a certain indices value. And generally the wet material, the depressions, the gator sands are in that higher classification. Listed species have a certain value, if coupled with panther, preferred or tolerated habitat. And then you've got your soils for the flux code, and then there's -- there was three of them in the water management areas. But what you've got in this listed species indices definition is the following. It says one of the indices comprising the natural resource index value with the values assigned, based upon the habitat value of the land for listed species, index values are based upon documentation of occupied habitat as established by the intersect of documented and verifiable observations of listed species with land cover identified as preferred or tolerated habitat for that species. Now, let's start with that sentence and that definition, because there's two more that are pretty weighty. That particular sentence to me reads that if you've got a species, ibis or birds or whatever you got out there that are in a certain area, it could be classified as habitat for that bird and would receive a certain gradient in the indices. Is that a fair assumption of that sentence? I'm not to the telemetry yet. I know that's where you want to go, but we're not there yet. I want to walk Page 185 ,.._----_._-...-.- . . _.,-" -----.,-_.~--,_.~"~ - ~-- June 2, 2005 into this, if you don't mind. MR. LORENZ: The -- I have to look at the -- the calculation matrix or the -- but the matrix indicates that -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's right here. MR. LORENZ: -- if you have a -- if you have a habitat with a observation, then that's how you get the score for that subcomponent of the natural resource index. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Now, there's two -- and, you know -- is that thing working? That overhead? MR. BELLOWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ifwe could put this over there so that we get these over the overhead. Ray, if you could raise it up, because it's the bottom three that I think we're going to be focusing on here. Bottom four. Oh, well. We need to go down a little bit. One more, one more, keep going, right there. Can you make it smaller so we can fit more on the screen? There. MR. BELLOWS: Too small? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's fine for me. It says -- and this is the one that has the rating. If it's got other documented listed species habitat, it's .4. If it's panther occupied habitat parentheses, preferred or tolerated, .5 and then panther occupied habitat, parentheses, preferred or tolerated, plus other listed species, .8. Now, I just wanted to establish that the listed species presence has -- establishes some format of a rating. If it's going to habitat that that species frequents and there's a habitat -- there's a listing of habitats for each species found on site in the DR! application. So let's just move on to the next one. I'm just going to make some statements, and then I'll let you, if you wanted to -- MR. LORENZ: Well, the-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm trying to think what's the easiest way. Page 186 June 2, 2005 MR. LORENZ: I think it -- this becomes some -- I mean this is -- starts to get a little bit technical in terms of how you apply it. When you have a listed species observation, I mean you're looking at that listed species observation within a particular habitat type. So you need to have -- when you're -- when you're looking at -- let's call it two layers of information. The listed species document -- documented point, whether it's a panther point, a telemetry point, or some other documentation of another listed species, you overlay that with -- with a particular habitat code, the flux code. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. LORENZ: And those -- that combination, that and combination, has to exist to call that occupied habitat. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And then at the next level of-- next sentence in here, it says land mapping using flux codes as 310, 321 -- and it goes through a series of about a dozen flux codes. And after it finishes those numerics, it says is deemed to be preferred or tolerated habitat for panthers for the purpose of assigning a value for these indices. Now, it's not saying that you have to show the panther's there. You just have to have one of those habitats in its preferred or tolerated habitat. Is that what it says? MR. LORENZ: Well, to get -- to get that score where you've got panther occupied habitat, you have to have both conditions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What are the both? MR. LORENZ: The panther telemetry point that exists within one of those habitat codes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Where does it say that? MR. LORENZ: It talks about -- the last sentence. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Which I was getting to. MR. LORENZ: An intersection of at least one data point establishing the presence of a listed species within the GIS polygon of preferred or tolerated habitat. Where it says within, look at Page 187 June 2, 2005 within as being and. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wait a minute. Back up. Where-- where -- okay. Let's start -- the last sentence in my book reads an intersection of at least one data point establishing the presence of a listed species within a geographic information system polygon, a preferred or tolerated habitat for that species shall result in the entire polygon being scored as an occupied habitat. Is that the same one you have? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And, Bill, what I -- my concern here is that that sentence follows the one that already deems the habitat as preferred or tolerated based on its flux code. So now you're saying it's -- that it's in addition to, but that's not the way the definition reads. MR. LORENZ: That's how we -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It reads -- MR. LORENZ: That's how we've always understood it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Always? MR. LORENZ: That's how -- that's how the index score has been mapped through the whole process, beginning with the Growth Management Plan, the overlay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you have assumed that it's referred to in this definition to mean panther telemetry right from the beginning, and that's just the way it is? MR. LORENZ: Correct. It has -- it's an and condition. It's -- it's -- in the case of panther, it's the telemetry point within those preferred habitat types. Both conditions have to exist. If you just have -- if you just have a telemetry point without any of those preferred habitats, it does not get an occupied habitat rating, either. If it just has a preferred habitat without the telemetry point, it's not the -- it's not the occupied habitat rating. You have to have both conditions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So but if it's deemed to be Page 188 June 2, 2005 preferred or tolerated, it's not really deemed to be preferred or tolerated unless it's matched up with the telemetry point. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: Because you could have those habitat types all over the county and have nothing to do with -- with -- with -- with the area that the panthers are occupying. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But wasn't there a value established to saving habitat that could be preferred or tolerated by panthers? And if so, why would -- MR. LORENZ: The land cover -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- we need-- MR. LORENZ: The land -- the land cover index, it's the last-- where my pen is pointing towards the kinds of land cover that existed within those groups have a -- a value, a natural resource value, according to that scoring system. And those cover conditions are also existing in the Land Development Code because that specifies that. So -- so you do get a score for different kinds of natural vegetative communities within the scoring system. To those, you add the listed species component that again talks about the -- a point, a listed species observation, in those preferred habitats, which is the and condition. So that's when you add that scoring to the land cover sub- index. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And then the difference in this whole discussion is simply that if the telemetry issue that is not mentioned in this definition did not apply as you say it did, from what I understand and from Mac Hatcher in discussion, it would certainly change the land plan that we have here today. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. If you -- if you -- if you didn't apply that and condition, then you would be adding some additional scoring to those -- to those index values. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Why wouldn't have we included-- Page 189 June 2, 2005 if this is so important -- and it obviously is because it affects everything. I mean it affects that entire land plan. Why wouldn't it have been more clear in that definition? It's the same people that wrote the definition, I believe, here making this presentation today. MR. LORENZ: Well, I think from staffs perspective it is, it is clear. Weare using that and condition, that combination of the telemetry point plus the -- the habitat types that are listed there, at least for panthers, as what the preferred or tolerated habitat type is for panthers. And as a -- I mean the first sentence talks about both conditions, the last sentence talks about both conditions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Bill, I heard what you said, so I appreciate that. Thank you. And I will move on to some more questions. I'm not sure they're yours, Bill, so don't go home yet. I think this is for actually -- well, actually, Bill, I hate to do that. I have one more question for you. The LDC has a section 40807 that says concerning the natural resource index assessment, which is what we were just talking about, the verification -- verify that the index value scores assigned during the RLSA study are still valid through recent aerial photography or satellite imagery or agency approved mapping or other documentation, as verified by field inspections. Did you do any field inspections, or did any of your people do field -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- inspections for this project? MR. LORENZ: Yes. I think Mac Hatcher, Susan Mason, possibly Barbara Burgeson did some inspections. Mac Hatcher was also our GIS analyst, so he matched up those kinds of verification -- field inspections with -- with the data that was presented, as well. So he was spot checking everything. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's the last time I think I'll bother you for a little while here, Bill. Page 190 " c_ _. ___~",_ ~._._-' - June 2, 2005 Ray -- oh, I'm sorry, do you have to get -- MR. BELLOWS: I was trying to figure out what that-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You did a good job, Ray. There's a section in the LDC, 40807, that references that any vary -- proposed variations or deviations from the requirements of the LDC are supposed to be including -- you're supposed to list them, basically. They're supposed to be -- the document -- supposed to provide a document identifying, locating, and quantifying the full range uses and shall include, as applicable, the following. All proposed variations and deviations to the LDC. Now, I've read the documents. And I didn't go back and turn every page to make sure there weren't any. And I heard Mr. White's comment earlier that we need to stipulate or get the applicant to stipulate that their documents have no deviations from the LDC, and so that's kind of where I'm at next. Because otherwise I believe by this language somehow we were supposed to be highlighted or notified, like we are in every PUD, that there are deviations involved. I know this isn't a PUD, but it's the same -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's the difference, this isn't a PUD. And the SRA document serves as a design book, is my understanding and how I approached the review of the -- of this project, and we did not review it under the criteria for PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand that. But did you review it to notice -- review it in contrast to the LDC? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. All of our review staff -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: -- from environmental to landscaping, architecture, they all reviewed it, consistency with the LDC, plus the SRA design documents, and comments by staffwere worked out with the applicant. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any deviations or variations from the LDC in the SRA document? Page 191 ^.-...--- _.,,- June 2, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: I believe there are deviations, but the exact may vary from architecture review to the landscape review. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well-- MR. BELLOWS: Probably the best to have the petitioner outline those. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because we -- we -- there is another section of the LDC that talks about request for deviations from the LDC. The SRA development document may provide for non-procedural deviations from the LDC. I'm just wondering what are your deviations? If Ray feels there are some there, I don't know how to sort those out. MR. VARNADOE: Well, I think we can -- there are not many, I think we can sort through those very quickly for you, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. V ARNADOE: While I'm up here, I do have the South Florida Water Management District permits for the WRAs that surround Ave Maria. And I'll put one in the record, and I'll give one to you for your review tonight. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I appreciate it. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: For the record, Anita Jenkins with Wilson Miller. Mr. Strain, we do have a few minor deviations, and I'll just list them for you. We have some deviations in a sidewalk width in the town centers, and that would happen just narrowing it at some point where you may have a column or something, the pedestrian width would be narrowed. We have some deviations on block perimeters, on maximum setbacks. The LDC requires a maximum setback in town centers often feet, and we deviated from that specifically to provide more areas for public plazas. The oratory plaza would be an example of that. There are some requirements in there for street scape areas of a -- five-foot minimum. We have -- do have three-foot minimums in some Page 192 ~,--""'-""~'-- ,__,_"_,,_"h.~~~.__"_,~~_,.'"_'""_"__ ",--- June 2, 2005 situations, and we do specify that street tree barriers are required or that those are only for shrub areas. We deviated in some areas from the maximum heights of three and a half stories to four stories for multifamily. We also deviated in the front setbacks for multifamily. The code requires that -- a minimum ten-foot setback, we provided for a zero-foot setback on multifamily to create the pedestrian environment in some situations, to allow for that. And we also allow for some parking and front setbacks in town centers two and three because of the uses that are anticipated to be there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that all the deviations that you-- MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- want on record? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can think of one more but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, we haven't got to that book yet, but, yeah, go ahead. MS. JENKINS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well the cul-de-sac's longer than -- MS. JENKINS: There's no -- in the LDC for the stewardship receiving areas for a town, there are no specifications for the length of a cul-de-sac. You may be referring to the length of a cul-de-sac in the -- the urban area Land Development Code, but in the -- in the town design standards, there are no specific lengths for a cul-de-sac. And so, therefore, it's -- we're not deviating from the town design standards that Mr. Strain is referring to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not worried about it because the fire prevention code will get them so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I wasn't referring to the town design standards. I was referring to the entire Land Development Code. Page 193 .-.........."."""...-...---..-- June 2, 2005 MS. JENKINS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know that there are specifics when you hit the RLSA area, but then if they're failed to be described under the standards for the RLSA, then you'd revert back to the balance of the LDC for those pieces that aren't addressed in the RLSA. So at least if you think that's wrong, tell me. Because what standard then are you applying for? MS. JENKINS: No. We are -- I was specifically going through the standards that are deviated from the town center design standards for the town of Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. In those areas where the town center design standards do not address particular criteria and its addressed somewhere else in the LDC, are any of those standards being deviated from? MS. JENKINS: Let me note that and get back to you on that, Mark. I think that there is a specific paragraph in the design standards, in the rural lands that addresses that issue. And if you'll give me just a minute, I'll come back to that and -- and see if we can -- we can find it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You can -- you can have a whole evening, how's that? MS. JENKINS: I don't think I'll need that long. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We can address it tomorrow. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Mark, could I just -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Anita, I would just ask you, in these deviations, are they -- will they be applicable across the board? In other words, have we reassigned design standards, or are there going to be deviations in certain cases? MS. JENKINS: No. These deviations are specific. When you say across the board, across the board for the rural lands? Page 194 , _..._,_._-_._--~.,-- - _,' ^.'~.._._n~..",,_ .. .---_.._--,-,_.._.~.,,--..._,- June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For the height, for instance, you went to four stories instead of three and a half. Is that -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah. That's -- that is in neighbor -- in the neighborhoods for multifamily. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So, in other words whatever had been essentially established earlier is gone now and -- so the new standards would be the four, if it's accepted as the deviation? MS. JENKINS: Well, the standard for Ave Maria, yes, sir. Not the standard for all of the rural lands, but the standard for Ave Maria. And -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm only talking about Ave Maria. MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Would that -- I guess that will remain a deviation but probably should be an adjustment at some point to the -- to the code itself. Wouldn't that make sense? MS. JENKINS: Well, I don't know that it-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you determined you need new standards. MS. JENKINS: Well, I think what is difficult is trying to apply a generalized set of design standards that is anticipated to be for every single project. And that's why the Land Development Code and -- and the rural land stewardship allows for deviations. Because certainly there's going to be unique situations in every project that comes before you. To create the character that you're trying to create in any town or village, there's going to be certain need for flexibility there. And so where one village may not need a deviation, another mayor a town may. So I wouldn't say that it would be a need to go back and change the LDC, it's just a recognition of a unique circumstances or a unique condition and it -- in a town or village that is needed to create that particular town or village. Page 195 ".-.._'^ _..._."~' .~~..~,- _..,...__.~_.'"._.._,,_.----*...._~~- June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That's a good qualification for me. Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, now that there are deviations and the review by staff doesn't seem to be avail -- there. How would staff -- is staff going to look at these deviations, or where are we going to be with this now? MR. BELLOWS: The staff has reviewed the deviations as part of the SRA document. When they review the SRA document, the design standards, the deviations that are in the code are discussed and the differences. Like I said, this is not a typical process where PUD document's submitted. This has been an ongoing mutual design effort between staff and -- and the petitioner, explaining concerns about where they are different from the LDC and -- and an agreement is reached on the document that's before you today, and all of the review staff has signed off on -- on the PUD -- or the SRA document. So the deviations are -- have been discussed by the individual professionals reviewing the document. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There was a sufficiency review done on September 10th, 2003. And in that review there was some criteria. And I was able to figure out that most of them are addressed or have been addressed, but there's a few that I still have a question on. And I -- maybe you can enlighten me on some of these. I think we talked about this, but at one point -- and I'll read the paragraph. County Manager Requirements. Furthermore, of special interest to the Collier County Public Utilities Division is the consideration by Ave Maria University of several key issues related to solid waste and recycling. As documented on May 27th, 2003 letter, County Manager Jim Mudd to Nicholas Healy, president of Ave Maria University. County public utilities is requesting assessment of the following issues in the SRA's impact assessment report and in the planned unit development. Now, I'm not sure what they meant by planned unit development Page 196 ._-- .~_..---- . "._,~...,-_._~---_._"._-- June 2, 2005 because this isn't a PUD, but at the time it may have been assumed to be similar to a PUD. So they're asking for an on site transfer station to avoid double handling of solid waste. Now, we talked about this earlier, and the answer was that we wouldn't want an on site transfer station because it would require the double handling of waste because they wanted to truck it directly to the landfill. What is the situation there? Are we having an on site transfer station as requested in the sufficiency report, or is one not being provided now? And if it's not being provided now, who knows the right answer as to why it's not? A volunteer. MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that there is not a transfer station. MR. V ARNADOE: There is not a transfer station proposed, Mr. Strain. What we did was in the -- agreed to look at it in the DR!, and we did. For example, the Immokalee transfer station's going to be approximately 150-ton capability, which is a small to medium size transfer station. The solid waste at Ave Maria is going to be in -- approximate 26 tons per day. So you wouldn't -- you don't even have enough to -- to go from small trucks to big truck, so it's -- it's just -- it's going to go to the -- to the Immokalee transfer station. All that information was provided to the utilities department, and you've got their sign off in your staff report. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, I still-- I'm going to be asking -- I just need -- I understand what you said if it -- I got their sign off, but I want to know how these things were addressed. An integrated biocycle program, including the possible use of a county contracted compost facility. Has that been -- MR. VARNADOE: We agreed to do that, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry, I just lost my-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm assuming you addressed these, I just couldn't recognize -- and all I wanted to do was confirm for the Page 197 . ~'^'~"--"-"~-- . -,...~,.,,".__.,_._._.'. - ,.-..,.----- June 2, 2005 record they were addressed. The creation of an ongoing maintenance of an integrated solid waste reduction and recycling program. MR. V ARNADOE: For Ave Maria University. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MR. V ARNADOE: That has been drafted by CDM, and it's ready for distribution and review by the appropriate staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So it's not completed? MR. V ARNADOE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is a copy available to read to MR. V ARNADOE: I think I do have one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd appreciate, when we leave, if I could grab a copy. Incorporation of a hazardous waste management plant as part of the solid waste plant, including the recycling of electronic products. MR. GOREY: Again, Jason Gorey with CDM. As I recall, that letter was addressed specifically to the university, and the university is in the process of developing those documents. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was -- it was sufficiency review comments, it wasn't -- it said the Ave Maria stewardship receiving area, AR4578, sufficiency review comments dated September 10th, 2003. I just want to make sure that somebody followed up, acknowledged it was met, sufficiency is there, and it's been checked off. MR. GOREY: There -- there was indeed a letter. I don't have the date with me. I believe I have a copy, if you'd like it, addressing each of those issues back to Collier County. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then the only last -- the last comment on this paper that I have is the -- they asked for some specific language to be included. They said the PUD, I'm not sure if they meant SRA because there was no PUD. It says all educational and support facilities shall provide Page 198 ~~---_. -- -<--_._-_....~-_.~~....._-_. .. .._._-~.._._--"-~-_..~_..-...__.~~- June 2, 2005 opportunities for and accommodate collection and recycling of office paper, cardboard, newspapers, electronics, aluminum, and plastic food and drink containers, as well as encourage the collection and recycling of other recyclable materials. Ave Maria University shall provide educational materials to be utilized in the creation and continuation of facility-wide recycling. That language was requested to be in the planned unit development document. If it isn't in the SRA, do you have a problem including that in the SRA? Is it a program, for example, that you're going to implement? MR. GOREY: That is the document that's being created right now and is under review that the university is creating directly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could we get a record -- could we get a copy of it -- and you can stamp it draft -- of that document to enter into the record so that we have it by tomorrow at the closure of this meeting? MR. GOREY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it's a draft document, so it's subject to change, but at least it shows that there's been some movement forward to reach these conclusions. MR. GOREY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. That's all I have on that issue, I think. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would just like to ask for a clarification of Mr. Bellows. In a PUD situation, of which this is not, we would have staff report, and it would make its recommendations and call attention to deviations and the like. That is not in this packet; am I right? You basically -- this is a petitioner activity and the staff is deemed to have agreed to all of the things that are contained therein? MR. BELLOWS: The process is not that of a PUD document, that's correct. The staff review has comments and stipulations for changes to the SRA which the petitioner has made, and therefore there Page 199 -- - "-.__.."-...._~~."-'_.._- _.~..._.._----" June 2, 2005 was no need to reference in the staff report those items that are in disagreement because there is no disagreement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So all of the items that Mr. Strain is calling attention to are deemed acceptable and -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- okay by the county? MR. BELLOWS: (Nodding head.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all the solid waste I have. Does anybody else have any? No. Okay. Mr. Budd left for a few minutes. Mr. Scott, I hate to make you walk all the way back up here again, but I have another. One of the traffic operations comments made in a prior document -- and I haven't found where this is addressed, but I think you started talking about it earlier today -- is based on unique characteristics of the town and proximity to Naples. Transportation staff recommends the installation of two permanent traffic counters. One at the main roadway entrance of the town, AMU Boulevard, and the other, Oil Well Road, just east of the entry -- entry -- entranceway to separate background traffic. Are those being done by the applicant? I mean you made this recommendation, have they accept it? MR. SCOTT: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Let me see if I've got any more then. Sorry to get you up here just for that one, but that's it. MR. SCOTT: That's okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Anita, in an older report for the -- from the utilities department, you supplied a memorandum on December 9th of 2003. And in it -- it was response to the county SRA review items. The applicant expressed the intent to apply for deviations to the minimum dimensions for maneuvering solid waste collection vehicles. It is not Page 200 ._____".,___.w_~__.._ _..u,,~"o,._~, "^O_..~_ June 2, 2005 only the county and waste management staff who need to be involved in reviewing these deviations, but staff from the Immokalee Disposable District must also be involved. They want an affirmation that this is going to be accomplished. Was that all done? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're getting through the books. For the rest of you, the document that you did get, I -- we've got right here. This is the SRA document, so we all should have that. We can start on this document now, or we could break, come back in the morning. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Go until 5:00. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's fine. I just didn't know what you-all wanted to do. Because we had previously talked about a break point. Some of these may be answered anyway, so we just -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Are you looking at the exhibits? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While you're looking that up -- Ray, this is the copy of the book we didn't get, correct? MR. BELLOWS: No. He's reading from the one that you did get. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is the one you did get. MR. BELLOWS: It's called SRA. The one you have there is DR! ADA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there something else coming or -- MR. BELLOWS: No. That's -- you should have already received -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. He's asking about this one that we just got. MR. BELLOWS: Mark went through that earlier today. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. But the one you just got is the one I started with today. Page 201 ,-_._,._--~..--.~-~--"_.'--- ---~, ___....__""~___.__._..__M_W_."_"..~____~~_'_.__ June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it doesn't have all the -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's the one we -- that's -- the rest of us not -- did not receive. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point is -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It doesn't have the cover on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it also doesn't have all the maps. MR. BELLOWS: The maps take longer to reproduce, and those . are comIng. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Some of the basic on the maps are in the one you got, though, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think so. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My questions on the SRA, quite a few of them have been responded to already. I've just got some architectural comments. Brad, I'm not sure if you reviewed that area or not so-- , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I haven't got into that too much because I had assumed you would. I had one question, Anita, that I asked you during our meeting involving the sidewalk distance, the setback of 15 foot in the front yard of the single-family townhouses. And we normally look at 23 feet and those are 15 feet. You were going to take a look at that. MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What was the result? MS. JENKINS: I did. The result is -- is you have to look at a combination between the residential product sheets and the cross-sections. And the combination of those two things together will result in a setback of 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk to the front of the garage. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So when it says 15-foot Page 202 ..--,-,..~---<-_.~ ,..-.....,., ._-~_.- June 2, 2005. minimum front yard setback, it's not 15 feet then? MS. JENKINS: It's not 15 -- it's 15 feet front yard setback, but it does not say that it's -- it's not 23 feet from the back of the -- the sidewalk. Because in some of those cross-sections there's room in back of the sidewalk greater than that property line. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm not sure -- I'm sorry if it's -- if I don't seem to understand, but -- the detail I'm looking at is on page 47. MS. JENKINS: I understand. And -- and, again, you have to-- you have to look at the -- the residential detail with the street cross-section of the particular neighborhood to understand that there -- there is a distance of 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk to the front of the garage. We do meet that criteria. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And some of it then is off property? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So in all cases you-- MS. JENKINS: In the right of way. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- will you have 23 feet-- MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- sidewalks? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's where I was trying to get. Brad, if you want to go forward, I'm -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean I actually looked, and I didn't really find a whole lot of problems. I mean the concern I had most of anything is in the town center, is the parking. You reduced it quite a bit. And I understand the logic of -- you know, you're blending a lot of parking in. As a matter of fact, the -- if it becomes a parking problem, people tend to walk to it. Do you think there will be a lot of outside people? That was my concern, that there will be a lot of -- you know, if it comes out as nice as you expect it, won't there be a lot of Page 203 --." June 2, 2005 people coming to the site as an attraction? MS. JENKINS: We hope so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm not sure -- then I think you might start to have a parking problem in the downtown center. MS. JENKINS: And that's why it is important to design the pedestrian networks to a very high detail, to make sure that the residents that live inside the town have the ability to walk and to bicycle rather than having to park. And at the time that it does become a problem for parking, there is standards in the town plan in the town centers to allow for parking structures where the -- the surface parking is now. So as -- as the parking needs may grow, the town can accommodate that in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, I did look through it. I mean I think the person that put it together is actually smart. They have a three-foot one setback, ten-foot between structures. If they left it at three, there would be a fire code issue that they wouldn't want. So whoever put that one inch in there knew what he was doing. So that gave me great trust in the rest of the documents. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Boy, if that's not a hint for anybody else who comes in here for a PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, well, it only works once. The other problem I do have is the cul-de-sac on page 158. I do think you have to be careful of the length of that. And the problem with that is that's in case an emergency vehicle goes down the wrong trail, it doesn't want to have to go half a mile to come back. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The last question I have is, Anita -- and I think I mentioned this to you. Maybe, again, Mr. Scott could unfortunately respond to it for me. Your statement in the transportation network says that MUMS, which is, I understand, a Florida green book, deals primarily with design of public streets and highways, not private developments. For that reason, there's a chapter Page 204 , _.~--------,.,..,.. ...~.M June 2, 2005 in MUMS related specifically to private land development. And as we discussed, since you are a special district, the loop roads and the main roads that are being financed by that district are public roads. The MUMS design then would apply, I would assume, to those roads. And that's kind of my question to Don Scott is in the design of those roads, what dominates -- if it's a -- since they are public roads, Don, in the sense that they're a special district, does the green book prevail in the -- as for public roadway, or does it go to -- fall back to a private land development? MR. SCOTT: Well, I don't have an easy answer to that one. Because I know there are certain standards that we have and that -- that -- or the green book has that roadways get built that don't meet those standards at certain times. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I mean, how did you review it? MR. SCOTT: Well, I didn't -- internal -- CDS staff actually reviews internal to the project. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So none of those loop roads were reviewed by your department. MR. SCOTT: No. I mean we had some -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: -- statements regarding, like, pathways along the main road inside of it, but not -- not specifically. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you approved the town core design standards and the graphics under the GMP, did you review those in your department? MR. SCOTT: We did. And when we go back to the typical sections, back to what I was talking about earlier, those were reviewed by staff at that time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Testimony we heard today from the applicant was that the only deviations they have are those six Page 205 "."-'" ---~..._- ".~- -_...._~~- June 2, 2005 listed, and they didn't list any deviations from those graphics, other than any of those that might apply. So as long as those graphics apply, they're going to be consistent with what you reviewed with the GMP. MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would that be a fair statement? MR. SCOTT: Yeah, that's fair. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I don't have any questions. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Further questions, Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, I'm -- I'm there. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Any other questions by other planning commissioners? Any summary comments by the petitioner? MR. V ARNADOE: I wouldn't know where to begin, but I do want to thank you for your time and the efforts you've put into reviewing this petition. Or these petitions, I should say. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: George, to wrap up, so that if we get into a discussion, everything doesn't get all bent out of shape as we discuss, I have a list of stipulations that I've been writing down since this meeting started. And out of fairness, I would like to just run them by you, you let me know where you stand on them. MR. VARNADOE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: First of all, typical ones, recommendations that pursuant to the Southwest Regional Planning Council recommendations. Pursuant-- MR. SCHMITT: Excuse me. This is for the DR!? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: For the DR!, yes. Well, these will be for both. You can sort out and pick and choose you as you want, but I mean it's the same -- same project, two documents. And also the recommendations of the EAC. And then the school sites will be provided, per the letter dated 6/1/05 from the school board to you, that Page 206 -.-.--- _.. ~____..,'_.__".___._,__,_.".o~__.__~__,__ June 2, 2005 a permanent SO facility will be provided to a minimum size of three acres, a site for a fire, sheriffs facility, and EMS, minimum acreage of three. And then-- MR. SCHMITT: Three acres? Three acres? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, minimum three. As far as the school sites go, it will be a 60-acre site acceptable to the school board. MR. VARNADOE: That's off site, isn't it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right, that's off site. MR. V ARNADOE: Just so we're clear. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll write it down as off site. That you'll agree to yearly monitoring of the persons per household, the capture rate, unit sales prices, and the absorptions. MR. VARNADOE: We won't agree to that, but your stipulation may -- may be what it is, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry? MR. V ARNADOE: I said your stipulation can be what it is -- I mean your motion -- but that's not agreeable to the petitioner. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That means when it gets to the next level up, you're going to recommend -- you're going to request that not be enforced or empowered or whatever you want to call it. MR. VARNADOE: (Nodding head.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There will be a mechanism, in the form of something that's agreeable to our affordable housing department, to retain the low and very low units over a period of time to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. MR. VARNADOE: I'm happy, Mr. Strain, if you want to make it a little more specific, that the rental housing will be retained for the life of the Development Order, which is 15 years. I'm also very happy with the very low -- excuse me, the low owner occupied with a deed restriction that restricts the amount of sales -- sales price for a five year period with a five percent per annum increase -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Appreciation. Page 207 ~---.,..._.-- June 2, 2005 MR. VARNADOE: -- appreciation, plus any improvements. And I think that's consistent with -- that's consistent with what the county does, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So as far as low and very low goes and the rental goes, you're going to be consistent with the county processes. MR. V ARNADOE: (Nodding head.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Between now and the time of the BCC, something needs to be worked out on the middle income. I don't know what, but I think we need to recommend to them that they -- something -- MR. V ARNADOE: I'm -- as I told you, I'm very happy to work with Cormac. We've discussed at least two potentials that I think would -- would keep speculators and investors out and -- and have the units remain in a moderate position for some period of time, and I'm happy to work with him between -- on that between now and the board. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Also, that the student dorms will not be counted towards the volume or quantity of affordable housing on site. MR. V ARNADOE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That there will be monitoring of the state highway system pursuant to the recommendation of the Southwest Regional Planning Council. That's a discussion-- MR. V ARNADOE: That's -- yes, sir, that's in our final report. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You requested only six deviations from the Land Development Code, and they are involving the following elements. The sidewalk width in the town center, deviation on block perimeters and maximum setbacks, street -- street scape areas, the maximum height of 3.5 to four story for multifamily, the front setbacks of multifamily will have a zero setback or can have a zero setback, and the parking in front setbacks in town center two and Page 208 '---'--.'--" June 2, 2005 three, there's some deviations requested there. I'm assuming they're all documented as such in the SRA, and so those are the only ones that you have on record. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. Those are -- those are -- they're documented in the sense that those are written into the SRA development document as the standard for town of Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And that included with the package that goes to the Board of County Commissioners, will be a draft recycling document that you're working on, and that there -- will retain a 23- foot setback to the garage from the back of the sidewalks. MR. V ARNADOE: That's -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's the list of stipulations that I had made notes on since we started the meeting today. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Question. In the discussion this morning, there were two schools, an elementary school and a high school; is that correct? MR. V ARNADOE: No, sir. There are three schools. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Three. MR. V ARNADOE: On -- on site there's an elementary and a middle school, and they're side by side on a 47-point something acre parcel. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Now there was also a parochial school; was there not? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. Parochial is part of the university, yes, SIr. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I -- I didn't hear it mentioned during the -- MR. V ARNADOE: And that may have been our -- it was mentioned, but just skipped over in the presentation. There's a -- university's goings to have a school that's -- will start offK through eight and finally go through K through 12. And the projected Page 209 _...'n" _. ._-----~-" -- June 2, 2005 enrollment at build out is 900 students. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I just wanted to make sure you got that in because I didn't hear it today. MR. V ARNADOE: It's in the development document, yes, sir. And so the other -- the school-- with respect to the school, there's -- there's site for two public schools, elementary and middle school on site. There's a commitment to provide a 60-acre site in a location to be mutually determined between the school board and us off site. Mr. Strain -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And the parochial school will be there, too? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Further questions? Any further summary comments? MR. V ARNADOE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BUDD: There being none, we'll close the public hearing. We're going to be looking for two separate motions, taking first item 8A, that is Development of Regional Impact. Do we have a motion on that item, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion. I make a motion to forward to the commission with the conditions that Mark said for approval. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Motion by Schiffer, a second by Mr. Midney. Discussion? For my own part, I think the yearly monitoring is in excess of the LDC requirements and not necessary, but I'm going to vote for the petition, even with those restrictions that I think are not necessary . And, second, I just wanted to point out that the Development of Regional Impact information that I got so angry about has been provided to us, and on a break I had a separate conversation with Page 210 _..~-- _ ___",,_,,_,___"__""'_"..n_._,.._._ June 2, 2005 County Commissioner Henning regarding this item. And I am confident in the diligence that has always been exhibited by Mr. Strain, and I am going to go with -- on his research on that document and support the motion, even though I didn't have a chance to review it prior to this hearing. Further discussion. Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. This whole business of the monitoring, Mr. Fishkind suggested that we perhaps go with five years to begin with and then every year after that. Is that something that would be a compromise here between petitioner and the Board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: That's to the motion maker. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: George, let me ask you. The concern -- I mean every -- at the fifth year is the year in which, you know, if there's a deficit, the developer would be required to pay. Is the intention, Mark, that every year that would be the condition, or is it only at the fifth year that -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it data for four years and then the fifth year is the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Brad, I'm skeptical of the financial impact analysis and whether those conditions can be met. And when I asked Hank, he said that in Lee County, they're having the Brooks do -- do what -- do the one year reporting. At least that's what I believe he said. And if it can be done there and it didn't seem like it was a big deal, I didn't see the reason for the resistance to it. And when I see that kind of resistance, it concerns me. So I mean my suggestion is -- I don't -- you guys can change it any way you want. I have serious concerns with the fiscal impact model, the concurrency issues related to that, because the roads are basically responsive to the fiscal impact model, and the listed species indices discussion that 1 had with Mr. Lorenz. So my situation on this is maybe different than yours. Page 211 --_....,- . _........~..--.._.- -,-,--"".,~~-~.'-----'-"'--- June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think that we have to be cautious. Because if there are any negative impacts, it's not necessarily the developer who will pay for it. It can be assessed to the people who have bought into this community. So I think we have to be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they're not going to be there in the first couple years. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's -- that's why I suggest what I had suggested. I don't know that -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: So on the topic, does the motion maker, Mr. Schiffer, want to modify or stick with your current motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me hear what George -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. MR. V ARNADOE: I don't mean to get involved in your deliberations, I just -- I do have a suggestion. What I would suggest is -- I like Mrs. Caron's idea with one -- one maybe suggestion. Ifwe do it at the -- five years I think is rational for a town to get established and have these -- this synergism. The Brooks is a residential proj ect, it's quite different. If we do it five years and it's negative, I have no objection to doing it yearly thereafter. I mean absolutely none. It's going to be in our best interest to do that if -- if it's negative so that we don't get too far behind the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd accept that. But what -- could you provide data every year, and then at the fifth year the responsibility of payment would -- would kick in? MR. V ARNADOE: We will be providing data -- excuse me -- every -- every -- the DR! requires us to do a DR! monitoring report every two years that we -- that has the transportation impacts, has the number of units sold. I think probably what it doesn't have that we -- that would -- we'd have to supplement would be the -- the price per Page 212 ~,,~-~"---,-,,---""""""-' ..__".____..._.M,.__..,._.."_____._,~_..,~,,.,'_,..,_'_..___.__.~___ June 2, 2005 unit mark, and that -- that would not be in -- in that report. But -- but certainly we could supplement that report to include that if that's the -- the direction. What I just don't want to do is -- is -- I'm very confident -- or we wouldn't be doing this -- at the end of five years we're going to be positive. What I don't want to do is do it one year we're negative, we have to pay, then we have to come back to the county to get our money back, at the end of the fifth year, when we're so positive that we've recouped -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with that. I'll accept the amendment. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. We have a motion for approval with stipulations. The motion maker modifies the fiscal reporting to be done at the fifth year, and if it is fiscally negative, every year on to the tenth year. Is the second in agreement? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Motion is seconded. Further discussion? Any further comments? Call the question. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Opposed. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Motion carries, eight to one. Moving on to the next item, which is 8B, that is the stewardship receiving area. Do we have a motion on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the same motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. Page 213 June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Motion for approval by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr. Adelstein. With the same-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stipulations. COMMISSIONER BUDD: -- stipulations that were accepted in the first motion. And it's clarified by the second as being acceptable, Mr. Adelstein? Discussion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. In the -- on the last page of that document, there was a statement that said regardless CCCP (sic) should recommend the use of the Fishkind model by BCC approval as part of the SRA development review process. And it was asked that that be made as an amendment. We didn't discuss it. I'm bringing it up as whether or not we should insert that, but the paperwork said it would be a good idea to do so. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. Is that something the motion maker wants to add in? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Say it again. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Reference where that came from. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. It's the last page, it's the memorandum Bellows -- the -- Bellows gave us this. The CCCP should recommend the use of the Fishkind model and the BCC approve its use as part of the SRA development review process. MR. V ARNADOE: Again, let me jump in when I probably shouldn't be, but I think if you're going to do that, that ought to be a separate item. That really has nothing to do with the approval of our SRA. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's just a commercial, isn't 't? I . COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't know. MR. V ARNADOE: I don't know whether Hank wrote that for the staff or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When I read that in the review, it appeared to me that that was a suggestion to make that the model of Page 214 --.--,..-., .---.~,.,","._"---,,----_...,..,~--,---~,. ~,_..~----_._.._,._- June 2, 2005 choice for the county. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. White, do you think that's a candidate for a separate action and best not included in this SRA? MR. WHITE: Yes. And you may desire to await the workshop that was extended to you today until such time as making that further recommendation. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. So with that in mind, the motion maker does not include that, and the second is in agreement? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right, yes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I will be-- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will be disagreeing for the motion for the previously stated reasons. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. Any further discussion. We'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Those opposed? I assume that was in opposition, Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Opposed. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Motion carries, eight to one. And with time to spare, our business this evening is concluded. MR. V ARNADOE: Once again, I really appreciate your attention. And, Mark, I appreciate your review. It was very thorough. Page 215 .,_,,_.__,_n__, June 2, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: That's it, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 4:43 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Russell A. Budd, Chairman Page 216 _.~-_.,- _...__.~,..___,___,..,,_~.~" <..._.,_~u___.__' . _...-----~._--_.__._~-"_.-----