Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/03/2019October 3, 2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 3, 2019 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 89 October 3, 2019 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Ja -- yeah, January. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You wish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- October 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt has an excused absence, and Mr. Fry is -- I think he's hung up with the people downstairs. We'll fmd out when he gets here. Anyway, that's the -- addenda to the agenda. I carefully want to go over the proposed agenda today and for the rest of October, because we need to make some changes, and I have come up with some ideas that I need the rest of you to weigh in on and see if you agree and see if we have a quorum. I've got to remind everybody, a quorum is four people. So as long as we've got four, we can move forward on some of these. So someone has duties that they have committed to, then so be it. I wish Karl was here to hear this because I'm going to need his input. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, he should be here momentarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Sometimes, momentarily, if you're trying to bring things through the door you shouldn't be bringing, could take a while. COMMISSIONER FRYER: An AR15 will stop you every time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not Karl. He's got screwdrivers, I guess, or something they found. So, anyway. So let's start out with what we've got today. We had four items on today's agenda and -- there he is. Karl, do you have a screwdriver we could use to fix something up here? COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm fresh out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, what we're doing is we're starting to talk about the agenda for the rest of October. , We have three items on -- four items on today's agenda. First item up and the commitment that was made that Rivergrass would be the first item today to start the meeting, and they will be. The second item up, Hammock Park GMPA. Normally we put items that are continued fust. The applicant for Hammock Park agreed to come after Rivergrass. Well, Rivergrass isn't probably -- well, it isn't going to get done today that I can see. It may not get done on the 17th, and it may end up going to the 3rd. So Hammock Park may have to fall into a different slot. Page 2 of 89 October 3, 2019 The Logan/Immokalee CPDD, I made a commitment to the applicant they will be heard at 1 o'clock today. That is only a one -word change or actually one number change on a PUD, and that hopefully will go fast with this board, then we'll assume Rivergrass after that. The AUIR is something we don't need to discuss at the meeting today. There's a little bit more time involved. It actually needs to be discussed this month, though. I checked with staff, and in the past we've had AUIR meetings over at Development Services in the Room 609/610. Part of that's because that document is -- if there are questions, staff is heavily involved, and that's -- a lot of staff is right there. So I suggested doing an evening meeting starting around 5:00 in that building, in that big conference room. And I wanted to see if -- and I would suggest for planning purposes we avoid Wednesdays because that's before our Thursday meetings. For the most part, Friday's obviously -- Thursday, if we've got a meeting, we're going to be pretty booked to get through that. The weekend's not going to count, so we're really looking at Monday and Tuesday. Since it's in that room, we're not going to have a conflict with the BCC using this room. So if the Monday or Tuesday works for you guys, I need to first see if Mondays and Tuesdays are okay, and then we'll start looking at the dates of the Monday and Tuesday. Is there any Monday and Tuesdays you all know that you can't be available for the AUIR? COMMISSIONER FRY: Are we talking an evening meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, starting at 5:00. Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: What month are we talking about, Mr: Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: October only. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I coach youth sports, and it's an obligation. I'm the head coach, and I cannot miss, and we practice Monday, Tuesdays, evenings, 5:00 to 7:30, 7:45. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's about the time we'd be meeting. So, yeah, you will not be able to make that one but, then again -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sony about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. We have -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. I would not be available on October 14 as a result of a commitment that I have the second Monday of every month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have, it looks like, almost every meeting -- I mean Monday and Tuesday open. So, with that, so you can't do it on the 14th, and Patrick won't be here no matter which day it is. The only Monday we have to work around is the 14th, but we can also do any of the Mondays or Tuesdays in between. So here's what I'll do. And does anybody -- I'll assume, then, we have a consensus on that issue and that at least four people will attend whatever meeting date we set up for one of those Mondays or Tuesdays. And I don't know who in staff is organizing the AUIR meeting, but whoever is, they need to come back and pick the Monday or Tuesday that works best for the majority of the staff, the directors, or anybody else that would be at that meeting for the Planning Commission to discuss one item; that's the AUIR. We'll open and finish with it that night, then move it on to the Board. So I'll leave that in staffs hands from this point, and they'll notify everybody by email once we pick a date. So now that takes us to the October 17th meeting. We've received a total of 1,527 pages just for the SRA that we're discussing today. And I've also tried to lay it out on the agenda a schedule similar to what we drafted last time we talked. The order's a little different because in talking with the applicant, they needed some -- they needed to make sure their traffic guy got in in the morning. And I talked to staff about -- they've got a specialist coming in to talk about traffic and economics. So I put those two first, and then the environment, and then moved into the SRA document. I don't see how we're going to get through the traffic, economic, and environmental today. We'll Page 3 of 89 October 3, 2019 certainly give it the best shot we can. We'll move as fast as we can, but seeing that, that means October 17th may take a while to get through Rivergrass again. And now, remember, we're not going to hear public comments till after we get done. So I expect there might being some public comments on this based on some of the correspondence we received. With that in mind, we could even go to November with finishing up Rivergrass. So what I did is took a look at our calendar. And rather than tell the public we're going to hear the five or six items -- I think it's six now -- that are scheduled for October 17th in addition to the continuance of Rivergrass, I'm going to suggest that we take Hammock Park and those five or six items that are scheduled for October 16th -- October 17th other than Rivergrass and move all those to a special meeting on October 31st just for those items, not Rivergrass. So what we'll do is we'll clean up all the items that are being delayed because of the time it takes to hear Rivergrass and hear our Hammock Park fust on that date and all the rest of them that are in line behind it, and we'll clean up as many on that date as we can, and that will bring our schedule up to par by the end of this month, and we can start November afresh. And part of it, from discussions with the County Attorney's Office and the fact we're putting items on the agenda that we know we can't hear because of the time frames and, you know, the public could show up, and we'll never get to it. And it's out of deference to making sure the public is accurately told about dates. I'm suggesting this board to do what I just suggested: Move all those outstanding items that are going to be outstanding through October 17th to the 31 st, and we have a special meeting on the 31 st in this room at this regular time. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: My memory ain't what it used to be, but I kind of remember sometime within the last two weeks I got some kind of email wanting to set something up for October 31 st because I remember its Halloween, and I made a joke about, yeah, that's fitting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff at the county Development Services celebrates Halloween rather emphatically. They do a lot of decorating and stuff. There was an email going around about the theme for this year's -- I don't know -- I don't participate in it, but I know that was one email -- that's the only email I saw about the 31st. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. As long as they're not saying there's some kind of meeting on the 31 st, I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray was supposed to check by today -- or somebody was. Maybe it was somebody else. Ray, did you guys -- MR. BELLOWS: I have been coordinating with Judy Puig. We're looking at the availability of the room today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the 31 st? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no calendar that somebody can see if it's available or not? MR. BELLOWS: We're looking at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When will you think you'll have an answer? MR. BELLOWS: Maybe she'll email me during the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your mic's not picking you up too clearly. MR. BELLOWS: We'll see if we can get a response before the meeting's over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, as we take breaks or come back from lunch, or as soon as you find out, let us know. On the 31st, if we move forward with that as a date as we've just described, does anyone know if they can't make it? Now, that's a Thursday. It's the fifth Thursday of the month, so generally things aren't scheduled for the fifth Thursdays of the months because they rotate. So I was assuming that would be a clear day. Does anybody know if they can't make it on the 31st? Page 4 of 89 October 3, 2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, tentatively, working with staffs confirmation of that date, we'll proceed as we've just discussed in moving all those items. And on the agenda for the 17th, we will leave Rivergrass, and all the rest will have a notice they're all being moved to the 31st of October, assuming we get confirmation on that. And what I'll do is once we have confirmation today, I'll go back to the agenda and ask the Commission to acknowledge all these as continued items to that date so that we can have the agenda properly noticed so the public isn't sitting somewhere waiting for something that isn't going to happen. So that takes us past the agenda issues. As far as the Planning Commission absences, the next regular meeting is October 17th. Does anybody have any -- know if they're going to be here on October 17th or know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to approval of the minutes for September 5th. They were all sent electronically. Does anybody have any changes to those minutes? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ned. Seconded by Patrick. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONERFRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to 0 -- or is it 6? Yeah, we've got six of us, including me. Okay. BCC report and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On September 24th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the Allura PUD rezone and the companion Growth Management Plan, and that was approved 5-0; the Livingston Road Growth Management Plan amendment was approved 5-0; and on the summary agenda the Siena Lakes Orange Blossom PUD amendment was approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ray. That takes us to the chairman's report, and I have a couple -- actually one item. Terri and I communicated about things to make her job move easier and the record to be clearer. We're going into some long meetings for the next month or two, so I need you all to please remember the following items: Number one, please wait to be acknowledged to speak. Number 2, please speak into your mics. Some of us are sitting back like Ray was just doing, and if you could speak into your mic, it can be picked up by not only Terri, but I forgot, there's a person that -- and I don't know what Terri called it, but they actually type it in as the meeting's being portrayed. What's it called? COURT REPORTER: Closed captioning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Closed caption. Thank you. So we need to make sure that we handle all this so that the closed captioning can be accommodated. So the third one, do not talk over one another and over other speakers. That's been happening a lot because we get anxious, but we're going to have to slow it down and not do that. And then the last Page 5 of 89 October 3, 2019 thing, speaking about slowing down -- and Tem said I'm okay, but everybody else, do not speak fast. Slow everything to a very reasonable pace so she can type it as fast as we speak. So with that in mind, that would be helpful to have. And I also wanted to mention today's item up that we're going to be on most of the day is the Rivergrass Stewardship Receiving Area. I don't know of -- other than myself and Joe when he was administrator -- nobody else on this board had been involved with an SRA before, and the only one we were involved with is the Ave Maria town SRA. This is the first village SRA, first of -- I think there's four total, maybe five, in some kind of process at the county that's coming through. So it's imperative that we handle this one carefully and all the questions that you guys have, especially since we haven't been through it before, don't hesitate to ask your questions when we get to the items. I've tried to lay this out in a manner more for the presentation by staff and the applicant to address the issues in an orderly manner, and you'll see that on the agenda. That doesn't mean we're limited to asking questions about traffic only when we talk about -- only when the traffic presentations are done, because throughout the day, or the two days, whatever it takes, you all may come up with other questions. There's a catch-all. CCPC will be able to ask questions on any matter as we go through the whole thing. I was just trying to compartmentalize the agenda a bit so we could kind of count on when the specialists have to be here, the presentation people have to be here, and things like that, and that's for all parties involved. Then the public comments are going to be after ours and after the LDC staff report and all that stuff. And then through the public comment we may have more questions of anyone of the previous areas, and that's fine. I don't want you ever to think we're not going to go back and revisit things if we have more questions; that's the intent of looking at it thoroughly is to go back and ask everything. And the applicant is also -- I talked to Bob Mulhere, and he said he included in his presentations some of the history and uniqueness of the SRA, and the RLSA area. So rather than me get into those, we'll listen to Bob's presentation as a way to introduce ourselves to it. And the last caution is this is not as much of a zoning effort because the zoning is already in place. This is more of a placement of an SRA within an already approved overlay. And a lot of it, I don't know portions of it, but I know that its a simple majority vote for a resolution instead of a supermajority vote on whatever parts would apply to a resolution basis at the Board of County Commissioners. So that is a different twist. Uniquely different than a PUD, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I assume it's quasi-judicial in nature? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. We're going to go through all of the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Swearing in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- swearing in, and then all of the disclosures in a minute. So with that, does anybody else have anything they want to add at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no items for consent. We'll move right into our first public hearing. ***It's 9A1, and it's the -- it was continued from September 19th. It's the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area, and it's out in the RLSA overlay. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to talk about the RLSA, please stand up and be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, for the members of the public that's stood up, I appreciate you standing up in case we get to the public comment. I don't think we'll get to it today, but we're -- you're here -- you'll at least have the history of it so that when you do get up and speak you'll have been through the day or two that it takes to get there. So, with that, disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom on my right. Page 6 of 89 October 3, 2019 MR. EASTMAN: I had meetings and telephone calls with the applicant, and I also had a telephone call with county staff regarding this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just emails through the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Emails through the county; telephone conversation with Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a meeting with the applicant's team, I had a meeting -- several meetings with staff, I've had conversations with several of the Board of County Commissioners, I have also received correspondence that I've -- any of it I forwarded to the staff, I've had a meeting with the Conservancy, and I had a meeting with the Wildlife Federation. There have been periodic comments that I might have answered questions, I don't remember all the people, but nothing specific to what we're actually getting into today. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I neglected one disclosure. I had a telephone conversation with Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And, Mr. Chairman, I neglected. I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails through the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just the normal emails. Nothing neglected. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. I neglected to disclose a conversation I had with a county commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That is for disclosure, and then we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant. And I don't know how you're going to start off, but it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. I want to introduce our team and our experts and our representatives. From Collier Enterprises Management is Patrick Utter. He's the senior vice president for real estate; Christian Spilker is the senior vice president for land management, and Valerie Pike is the project manager for this particular project. The consulting team is, as you know, Mr. Mulhere; myself; Jake Cremer from Stearns, Weaver, and Miller. He's cocounseling with me on some of the issues mainly pertaining to transportation -related issues; Dominick Amico is our engineer for the project; Lucy Gallo has done the economic analysis; Kirk Martin is our water, science, and water expert; Ken Passarella and Heather from Passarella & Associates are our environmental consultants; and Mr. Trebilcock and Mr. Malaescu are our transportation experts for this particular project. The outline for today is as follows: I will -- I've already done the team, but I will take you through the history of the Rural Land Stewardship program, how it works, and then turn it over to Bob to get into the specifics of how our particular application meets the requirements of both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. We will address the deviations we've requested and address the staff report and recommendations. I will tell you we've had several meetings with Collier County staff since the staff report was written, and I will be honest with you, I think we're down to just one issue, and that one issue is how much of the Big Cypress right-of-way we will be providing to the county as part of the Rivergrass Village SRA application. All of the other staff recommendations or deviations were, at the time of the writing of the report, there might have been some disagreements; we've reached an agreement, and we'll discuss that with you Page 7 of 89 October 3, 2019 as we do our presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Rich, when we get into the reports, just to give you a heads -up, I received three different staff reports. So if you could tell us the dates of the reports you're working off of so we are all on the same page, I'd appreciate that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, I've only received one, and that's the one that staff and our team has been working off of, and that was the initial staff report. Now, you may have received some additional documents that deal with some acreage modifications due to finalizing the footprint for the Big Cypress right-of-way. And as you recall I mentioned that at the last meeting that there were some -- ifs roughly -- and it's in my presentations. It's a little over 2.4 acres of a reduction in our overall village size as a result of the -- reaching resolution on the right-of-way. That's -- I don't know of any other staff reports, but I do know there have been additional documentation related to that issue truing up the acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so you know, I only pulled them from the 1,500 pages we received. So that's the only source I had. So if you'd gotten those 1,500 pages, you'll find that in there there are three staff reports each with a different date, and that's the only thing I was trying to focus on. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. Well, we historically focus on the staff report that's in the front of the package that goes to you -all. If there's -- there's some backup attachments, yes, we've received them and, yes, we've addressed those issues with your staff. Up to the screen is the -- bear with me -- is the location of the proposed Rivergrass Village SRA. As you can see, its on the very western edge of the Rural Land Stewardship Area overlay basically immediately adjacent to Golden Gate Estates and immediately adjacent to what is the Hyde Park SRA. Their project now is 997.53 acres now that we resolved the acreage for Big Cypress Parkway. The number of units has remained the same at 2,500. The commercial that we're providing ranges from a minimum of 62,500 square feet to a maximum 80,000 square feet. The civic uses that we're providing is a minimum of 25,000 square feet. As Bob will show you, those are the required square footages pursuant to the Growth Management Plan and the LDC. The changes -- we just wanted to show you what the changes were. The yellow was the original boundary of the original submittal that was originally on your agenda. The right-of-way for Big Cypress -- MR. MULHERE: Do you want to show them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. What do I use as the pointer? Bob? It doesn't matter. Just show me what to use. There we go. Right here is what is Big Cypress Parkway. Big Cypress Parkway got a little wider from what it was originally proposed to be. As a result of it getting a little wider, we've made up some but not all of the lost acreage due to that on that little triangular piece that's being added to the PUD -- I'm sorry, it's SRA. As you can see, even I sometimes slip into the wrong terminology. This is not a rezone, as the Chairman has pointed out. This is an overlay where we're simply designating lands to be designated as an SRA. We're not rezoning the property. The property is already zoned for what we are requesting. As part of the SRA designation process, we are required to obtain credits. Those credits come from SSAs, stewardship sending areas, that are areas that are basically put aside for conservation purposes as part of this overall Rural Lands Stewardship program. We will be obtaining our credits from SSA -15, which is approved and is being held in escrow, and it consists of 5,259 acres. The way the credit system works is you -- for each acre in your SRA, you are required to obtain eight credits. Now, if you do more -- if you do more open space than is required in the program, you don't have to use credits for that additional area. But the bottom line is, we will be using 6,205.36 credits to entitle this SRA. That is roughly five times the acreage in conservation for the acreage of the village. So the intent of the program has always been to provide incentives for property owners to preserve land and entitle other land for development. Page 8 of 89 October 3, 2019 The history of the program is in 1999 it was a very contentious time in Collier County. There were several environmental groups that didn't think the Comprehensive Plan went far enough in protecting environmentally sensitive lands. There was a challenge to the county's Comprehensive Plan amendments that were going through the process at the time. Ultimately, the governor and cabinet issued a final order requiring the property owners to work together in a collaborative process to come up with a program to address several important issues. And that collaborative process basically started in 1999 and finished in 2002. But as this slide will indicate, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is approximately 195,000 acres and 300 square miles. That's the program you're dealing with today. As Bob pointed out at our last meeting when we were talking about a Comprehensive Plan amendment in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, that also was subject to the final order that Bob mentioned to you at that time. So the process was broken down into two separate areas. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, which is to the west of this property; and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. The governor's final order basically required that we deal with several issues at the same time, and it required that it be a collaborative community-based effort with broad-based public participation. The goals of that was to protect prime agricultural areas, direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and listed species habitat, and to assess the growth potential and the conversion of rural lands for development. And public participation was the hallmark of this planning effort, and public participation did, in fact, occur. There were -- a citizen committee was made up of landowners as well as staff, as well as environmental groups, and there were many, many meetings and a few years of hashing out what was ultimately the program in front of you today. In 2002 there were -- the recommendation of the Rural Lands Stewardship program was made to the Board of County Commissioners. The Department of Community Affairs was the state agency that was in effect at the time that had to review and bless this program. They, in fact, did review and bless this program and determined that it was consistent with the final order, and it was supported by all of the stakeholders for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. So I want -- and I'll show you some of those groups in a second. But 1 wanted to make it very clear that the Growth Management Plan amendments that you'll be looking at today and the Land Development Code provisions that you'll be looking at today are, in fact, consistent with the original final order that the governor and cabinet handed down to the Board of County Commissioners. Anybody who tells you that this program is not consistent with that final order is not factually correct. The groups that were involved and supported this program was Nancy Payton -- I don't know if any of you have worked with her. I know Mr. Strain and Mr. Chrzanowski have. I think she may have been retired since then. I think Ms. Homiak probably has seen her in public presentations. She and Brad Cornell and the Conservancy spearheaded the environmental aspects of this program and participated in this program. I just want -- Nancy Payton, at the adoption hearing of the Board of County Commissioners for the Growth Management Plan amendment, said, we appreciate the willingness and the responsiveness of county representatives and the Eastern Collier property owners to address our concerns. She goes on further to say, and I want to express again my appreciation personally and on behalf of my organization of each one of you, and I urge you to adopt this plan, move it on so we can get busy writing the Land Development Code and implementing this landmark plan. So Florida Wildlife Federation, big supporter of this program when it was adopted in 2002. Brad Cornell with Collier Audubon at the time says, we are very supportive of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area overlay amendments that you have before you. He goes on to say, you know, everybody has their say, everybody has their chips on the table, and we come to terms that are agreeable Page 9 of 89 October 3, 2019 to everyone. No one wins everything they want and, unfortunately, we have to recognize that. But we're very supportive of this -- these results, and we recommend adoption. And they weren't alone. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Gary Davis got up there and said, I can't let my colleagues be the only ones to support this. He goes on to say, no, I'll be brief because I did meet with a couple of you last week and shared some concerns that we still had, and I wanted to make it clear that these concerns have been worked out, and we now feel that we can fully support the plan as it's come to you today. And as Brad said, not everybody got what they wanted, but I think we're in good support of this plan as it is coming forward, and we urge you to adopt it today. In reliance upon the process and the Growth Management Plan amendments and ultimately the Land Development Code amendments to implement the Rural Land Stewardship program, the property owners worked with the environmental groups, Collier County staff to come up with a program that's an incentive -based program to put, in this particular case, five acres into preservation in exchange for one acre of development area. And that program has been in effect for 19, 17 years. A long time that this program has been in effect. From a history standpoint, there's only been one approved SRA, and that's the town of Ave Maria. I believe it required close to 17,000 acres of SSAs to have it work. The Big Cypress Stewardship District, which the Rivergrass Village property is in, was formed to further implement the Rural Land Stewardship program. 2006, Ave Maria starts construction. In 2007 and T, ave Maria is opened and more SSAs are approved as part of this overall goal to preserve lands out east in the Rural Land Stewardship Area. The five-year review process began. It's still underway. And then we all know the great recession hits, and development stops out east as well as it stopped in the urban area. This map is a very important and instructive map. The light pink area is the open stewardship area. What does that mean? That's the least environmentally sensitive lands, and that is where SRAs are supposed to be developed. You can see on the visualizer the outline of Rivergrass Village. We're in the open area where development is supposed to occur. The blue area, the darker blue area are Flowway Stewardship Areas. Thafs areas that are supposed to become SSAs and become preserved and credits taken to develop in the pink. The green areas are habitat stewardship areas. Those are the areas where you're supposed to do SSAs, take credits, and put it into preserve for the pink area. And then you have the lighter blue area where it says VRA, water retention areas. Those are areas where you are not to develop and you're to get credits to support development in the pink area. And that's what you have today; that's the critical map, that's the overlay, and that is the measurement of what we're here to do today. And what we're here to do today is to designate a portion of the pink area for a village. That's what we're here to do. And we'll take you through a pretty detailed process to show how we meet every one of the criteria in the Growth Management Plan as well as the LDC. I just want to show you one more map that highlights the Stewardship Sending Areas that are in place today. Bob, is this thing still on? As you can see in the -- I think that's pink is our proposed village. You can see these through here, these SSAs that are already adopted being held in escrow to further protect the environment. SSA -17, right here, is not yet adopted but going through the process to be approved by the County Commission. The Planning Commission doesn't see the SSAs. So what you could see, as this program is intended, there is a tremendous amount of Stewardship Sending Areas approved as part of this program to further the goal of protecting the environment. You asked us for a map of what's kind of going on out in the rural area. You asked us to provide you a map of villages that are currently being reviewed and some that might be coming forward in the Page 10 of 89 October 3, 2019 near future, and I want to just kind of briefly take you through those. In the pink is Hyde Park. That is -- that's going through the process. You should hear that sometime early next year, 2020. You obviously have Rivergrass, which you're hearing today. South of Rivergrass is Longwater, and south of that is Belhnar. Those are two villages that we've had pre -application meetings for and intend to submit in the near future for those villages -- well, those four villages that I spoke of within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. The Immokalee Road Village is not within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. That's within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that you learned about from Bob a few weeks ago. But that's the current state of applications as we know it. I think Bob and I are involved in all of those and are familiar with them. But that's the -- that's where we are today as far as pending applications is Rivergrass, Hyde Park, and Immokalee Road Village, and then Longwater and Bellmar should be coming in soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only one I don't see on here, it came in for a pre -application and hasn't done anything else that I can find, but it's the Hogan Island. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And that's not been submitted at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was submitted as a pre -app but not submitted as a plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, may we ask for these slides, assuming that this matter gets carried over from today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to ask that, after today's hearing, all this be sent to us so we have time to review it again before the next meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely, absolutely. So how does the program work? The program works through two overlays that exist. One is in the Growth Management Plan, and one is in the Land Development Code. The Growth Management Plan Overlay is within your agricultural area of your Future Land Use Element, and this overlay was intended to create an incentive -based land -use overlay system. It's based on the principles of Rural Land Stewardship as defined in Section 163.3177(11) of the Florida Statutes. And your Comprehensive Plan is broken into four groups of policies that are applicable to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. The fust set of policies deals with the overall organization and structure, overall land stewardship program, which I'm going over right now; the Group 2 policies relate to agriculture; the Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection. That's the stewardship sending area provisions. The Group 4 policies relate to converting land to other uses; that's what we're going through today with the SRA process. And the Group 5 policies deal with the baseline provisions if a property owner elects not to participate in this program. You have to choose to go into the program. You're not forced to go into this program. That's the Growth Management Plan. And I've got some of the provisions I want to highlight for you. And then in the Land Development Code, you're dealing with Section 4.08 of the Land Development Code. And I want to just highlight two of those. Section 4.08.02 is the actual establishment of the overlay that zones the property that allow -- that identifies the uses for the property, identifies the characteristics for the different types of SRAs that are allowed. And then 4.07 are the specific provisions as to how you qualify for each of those four different types of SRAs and what the designation process is. So you'll note in your staff report you have a very different review analysis for an SRA than you would have with your typical rezone to PUD or rezone to straight zoning. You note that you don't have the same findings and areas of review that you would have on a rezone because those decisions have already been made by adopting the overlay. The function of today at the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of County Commission is to determine whether this land should be designated as an SRA, Stewardship Receiving Page 11 of 89 October 3, 2019 Area, based upon the criteria in 4.08.07. You'll be focusing on suitability. That's, are we open lands? Which we are. And are we not impacting any lands that score greater than a 1.2 on the environmental scale? Ken Passarella will take you through that today to show you we meet those criteria. You will make sure that our master plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Development Code. You'll make sure that the public facilities will be available to serve the project. You'll make sure that we are fiscally neutral at the horizon year, and horizon year is at buildout. Lucy Gallo will take you through that process. And you'll make sure that we have the necessary SSA credits available to develop this land. You'll also review our SRA development document to make sure it complies with the Land Development Code. Your staff has done that analysis and has determined, based upon further discussions, that we meet all of the requirements of the 4.08.07 of the LDC and, therefore, we're entitled to have this land designated as an SRA village. I've already covered some of this in my presentation, but the program works based upon obtaining credits. That's the currency to develop SRA lands. We create SSAs to develop those credits. That SSA review goes through a very detailed review. Ken Passarella has formed several of the SSAs and can explain that process if you deem it necessary as part of this review process. But we go through an evaluation to determine the credits. Then we take those credits and we use them to establish stewardship receiving areas. We do another review of the environmental aspects of the SRA lands because, again, the way the program works is you have to make sure you're developing on open areas that score less than a 1.2 on the rating scale. And I've already shown you slides that we meet the requirement. We have enough credits in place to entitle all the land. Some of the Growth Management Plan policies I want to focus on is the Group 4 policies, and the purpose of those policies is to enable the conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations while discouraging urban sprawl. The SRA program itself, by definition, discourages urban sprawl. It was designed and adopted to dictate where development is allowed to occur and, by definition, it is not urban sprawl to develop in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. So if someone were to say to you, they're developing out east, this is urban sprawl, that is not correct. One of the goals and policies we had to deal with with a final order was to make sure we weren't creating urban sprawl. This program assures that we're not having urban sprawl. Policy 4.6 says the SRA characteristics shall be developed upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in 163.3168(2), Florida Statutes. These planning strategies and techniques include: Urban villages, new towns, and then it goes on, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing the cost effective -- I'm sorry -- cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl. What we're doing today is not urban sprawl. Policy 4.7 identifies the four types of SRAs, and those are towns, villages, hamlets, and compact rural development. The characteristics of each of those types of SRA are in Attachment C to your Growth Management Plan. Bob will take you through those, and then the specific policies for villages, 4.7.2. 4.7.2 clearly identifies villages as primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and a mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of that particular village. That's what we're doing. We have a diversity of housing types, and we have retail uses and services that meet the needs of our residents. They also meet the needs of Golden Gate Estates, which was another important aspect of the Rural Land Stewardship Program in the first place. Page 12 of 89 October 3, 2019 Policy 4.9, I want to highlight some of that. It says, the primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, Flowway Stewardship Areas; HSA, Habitat Stewardship Areas; and WRAs, to further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing, etcetera, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Then you'll see the conditional uses also are prohibited on lands that score greater than a 1.2. So how are the environmental aspects addressed in this program? You have the Group 3 policies that deal with SSAs; you have the Group 4 policies that tell you you can't have an SRA in a Habitat Stewardship Area, a Flowway Stewardship Area, or a wetland -- or a Water Retention Area, and any open lands that score greater than 1.2, you can't develop that land. The program is the program. It was blessed by the environmental groups. Those environmental groups recognized that the open lands are where you develop, but you can't develop anything that scores better than a 1.2. So if anybody tells you that we're not meeting the Growth Management Plan requirements for habitat protection, they're wrong. The program's the program. If you don't like the program, you go through the legislative process to change the program. But we are 100 percent consistent with the program as it was developed through extensive community involvement and 100 percent consistent with the program that was recommended for adoption by Florida Wildlife, Collier Audubon, and the Conservancy. You're going to hear some comments about a Water Retention Area and how they work and what they can be used for and what they can't be used for, and you even are going to hear something about what kind of credits you should be able to get in an SSA for impacting Water Retention Areas. Not relevant to today's discussion. We're not hereto talk about SSA -17. We're hereto talk about the Rivergrass Village SRA. Water Retention Areas, I showed them to you on the map, can be used to support the development of an SRA. Policy 4.8 says an SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as an SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. We don't have to bring the adjacent WRAs, which are going to be utilized as part of water management but also panther -- as basically a -- they're water bodies to protect panthers from coming into the project. Perfectly allowed under the Growth Management Plan. And under the LDC it says, during the permitting to serve -- during permitting to serve new uses within an SRA, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required including, but not limited to, changes to control elevations, discharge rate, stormwater pretreatment, grading, excavation, or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval of the South Florida Water Management District in accordance with best -management practices. Bottom line is, if anybody tells you we can't impact those WRAs as part of this process, they're wrong. We can, and we go through Water Management District permitting. That's the process. Not today. It's the Water Management District permitting process to address those impacts. I'm going to tum it over to Bob to get into the specifics about this project, but I just want to make sure I leave off with this program was established based upon tremendous community involvement. It was a cooperative effort by landowners who own lands out there. Many of those lands, when you look at that, they agreed to put into Stewardship Sending Areas in return for being able to move forward with development in these open areas. We're honoring that commitment that was made. We are 100 percent consistent with the program as has been agreed to by the property owners. And we -- at the end of our presentation, you will see that we are entitled to have this Rivergrass Village property designated as an SRA for the uses that we're requesting, and we're going to request that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the SRA village. If you'll bear with us, I think we'll answer a lot of your questions, or hopefully answer a lot of Page 13 of 89 October 3, 2019 your questions through our presentations, and we'd like to keep all questions to the end but, of course, you all have the discretion to ask questions whenever you want. So with that, that's the overview of how the program works. Bob will get into the specifics unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have anything that can't wait until they finish the next part of their presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere here on behalf of Collier Enterprises. So this is a fairly busy exhibit. I'll go over it for you. This is Attachment C, which is in the Growth Management Plan part of the RLSA program. It's also reflected in the LDC. I have additional slides, so don't strain your eyes, because we'll go over this again with a little more clarity. I just wanted to point out this slide which lists on the heading "typical characteristics," and moving down it has various typical characteristics such as size and residential units that are allowed, housing styles, maximum floor area ratios or intensities that apply to some uses, goods and services, and so forth. And then as you go across that top heading, it lists the four types of SRAs which Rich already discussed; one being a town, Rivergrass being a village, there's also a hamlet, and a compact rural development. Outlined in green are those standards that apply to village. This will be a little bit easier, I think, for you to see. Again, these typical characteristics are listed for a village now, specifically. Some of those are required and some of those are optional. So a village can be between 100 and 1,000 acres. We are just under 1,000 acres. A village may allow up -- between one and four dwelling units per gross acre, and our density is 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre. There is a diversity of single-family and multifamily housing styles required, and we are providing that. There are floor area ratios that are both required and optional. So for retail and office, there's a maximum floor area ratio of .5. For group housing, that's an optional use. But if you choose to do group housing, you would have the county's standard floor area ratio of .45. You are required to provide a certain level of civic, governmental, institutional uses, and they are limited to a floor area ratio of .6. Transient lodging is allowed up to 26 units per acre. It's not required. What is required? Well, you have to provide neighborhood goods and services using the formula that's provided herein of 25 square feet per gross building area per DUE, per dwelling unit, which translates to the minimum numbers that Rich went over of 62,500. That's the minimum. And then, of course, we've allowed up to 80,000 square feet. There has to be a centralized -- or decentralized community treatment system. In this case, Collier County's providing, basically, sewer and water services to this community. There are various requirements for parks and open space which we meet. Lakes. You must provide a minimum of 35 percent open space. We exceed that. I'll go over that in greater detail. You have to have an interconnected system of collector and local roads with connection to a collector or arterial. We connect to an existing arterial and a future proposed arterial. So I wanted to just show you the surrounding zoning and general location, which I know you're all familiar with. But the lands that are included within the Rivergrass and the lands surrounding Rivergrass to the east are zoned A/MHO/RLSAO. That's agricultural zoning with a Mobile Home Overlay, and a Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay. To the west there is -- the square that you see that reads "Hyde Park proposed SRA," that is part of the RLSA. It's just a section of land that sort of sticks out there but was included in the RLSA, and the other lands to the west are zoned Golden Gate Estates, "E" estates. There will be a separation between Rivergrass and all of those lands to the west which will be created by future Big Cypress Parkway. Page 14 of 89 October 3, 2019 I think Rich went over this, but I'll just do it again briefly. The existing -- or master plan that you received originally is on the left. The changes that you can see highlighted in red are on the right, the little triangle up towards the top on right. It took a fair amount of time to negotiate with the county on the actual and very detailed widths for Big Cypress -- cross-section for Big Cypress right-of-way, which we have now agreed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I had asked Rich to tell us what dated documents he's using. I don't recognize either -- I recognize the one on the left, but the one on the right I don't know what -- where's that -- where -- when did you provide that to us, or when did staff provide that to us? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It hasn't. MR. MULHERE: I don't know that staff has provided this to you. MS. GUNDLACH: We've provided it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tell me what page it's on. Honestly, I need to know what you -- I haven't seen that one. MR. MULHERE: I'll clarify. I don't believe that that has been provided. A very similar one was provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Let me tell you, we were ready. We provided you with the most recent, and staff provided you with the most recent master plan, but within the last two days there were some very minor changes to Big Cypress -- there were 1.15 additional acres needed to be included in the right-of-way beyond what you have in your package. There's nothing substantial in this change, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying there is. I just -- I'm trying to match it up to what was reviewed. That's all I'm tying to do. I'm not being critical. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just trying to match it up. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Bob, so you're saying that the master plan that you provided to Nancy that she provided under cover with the memo -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- is not the master plan you're using? MR. MULHERE: It's changed. It's reduced by 1.15 acres. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I haven't seen anything. MR. MULHERE: Right. And we understand that we have to provide all of that. We wanted to show you the most recent master plan that the county required us to change because of changing Big Cypress. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, all I ask is that you clarify those kind of points when you -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I see something and I don't recognize it, I just have to ask the question, so... MR. MULHERE: And I can state on the record there's nothing -- we didn't change any uses. It's not substantial. There are minor acreage changes which we will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think you would have. That's not the point. I just want to make sure I understand what document we're using. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I can't read this document that's on your display, and I can tell you that there were a lot of changes in the master plan that weren't specified in the package that went to Nancy. So I'm a little uncomfortable, but I guess we'll have time to review this before you approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we will, because I've asked them to provide this presentation to us. They're going to. We have at least two weeks, if not more, before we need to refine all this stuff and go for a vote. It might even be longer than that. So we'll have plenty of time to get the right one down -- nailed down. MR. MULHERE: And we also assumed that there would probably be some additional changes. So rather than submit a fourth revision after you make your recommendations, we thought, these are very Page 15 of 89 October 3, 2019 minor. Let's change it only one more time based on your recommendations. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But it's not minor, Bob, because all the numbers change, the open space, access changes. MR. MULHERE: Yes, they do change. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You know, so every time we have to recalculate. MR. MULHERE: They do change. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And we're getting things piecemeal. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's the problem, if I may. It wasn't until Monday afternoon that right-of-way finally told us their minimum necessary width of right-of-way which caused us to make another 1.15 -acre reduction to the project. We understand that there will need to be a lot of changes made to the original 9.9 -- nine hundred and ninety-nine point whatever acres it was originally because that's now down to 997. Heidi's been great. Staffs been great. We'll make sure that all the ripple effect of those changes are properly accounted for in all of the documents. What we're just showing you today is the yellow area got a little bit wider than what was previously there. The red triangle is identical to what you -- the updated document, but the yellow area got a little bit wider, which reduced our overall village by another 1.15 acres. It's a process. I apologize for the process, but we've been working for months on trying to finalize the right-of-way requirements, and it required us to shrink the village by 1.15 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Rich, what I'm trying to do as we build up to the vote, which could occur on the 17th or the 3rd of November, whatever date we hit. Prior to the vote I'd like to have a clean set of documents after all the discussion's occurred to whatever you guys settle on and what we've expected so we don't have this happen. I want to make sure that whatever's voted on is the right document, and that's the only reason I'm pointing these things out. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that. And we will resubmit to your staff the documents that need to be revised based upon the reduced acreage in the village to make sure that everything matches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll be looking, staff, both Comprehensive Planning and Zoning to make sure at that time that the document that's finally produced has been -- is reviewed by both of you to the extent you need to review it, so... MR. MULHERE: And I always submit both a redline and clean version so that it's easy to track. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's appreciated. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So this has just some general information. You've already -- this 997.53 -acre size is the current size. You can see the exhibit over there which shows the outline of Rivergrass RLSA as well as shows the future Big Cypress Parkway. I just want to point out there are no, zero, acres within the proposed Rivergrass SRA, Village SRA, that score a Natural Resource Index greater than 1.2. There are zero acres included in the village which fall within the Area of Critical State Concern Overlay. There are zero acres in the SRA that are designated as a WRA. There are -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob, excuse me. On this slide that you have -- and I'd had discussions with Mr. Yovanovich about to the extent, if any, to which this right-of-way was going to replace DeSoto or be next to DeSoto. Where is DeSoto on this map? MR. MULHERE: So DeSoto is just a little bit west. Give me a second and I'll sort of show you the general location here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Right here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's over to the right. He's got to get a little bit closer. MR. MULHERE: A little bit to the east. Page 16 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between the square and the rectangle green. Half an inch to the right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's that road that goes through Hyde Park? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It dead ends at Hyde Park. MR. MULHERE: It dead ends at Oil Well heading north. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So if one extended the road that one sees in Hyde Park south, that would tell you the displacement to the west of DeSoto from the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What road -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: --Big Cypress? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in Hyde Park? There's no road in Hyde Park. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What'sthis? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part of the excavation left in the ground. There's no roads in there. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. There are no roads in there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But that line is where the road would be? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. MULHERE: There won't -- this will not -- excuse me. DeSoto will not extend north. It will continue to tee at Oil Well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it, okay. MR. MULHERE: Lands to the northeast and south are all, as I mentioned, previously zoned agricultural. You can see on the exhibit the WRA designation along here. So thafs -- while it's zoned agriculture, there is a designated WRA. I have another exhibit that will show you that more clearly, but I just want to point it out to you. To the west, again, we'll directly abut the future Big Cypress Parkway; further to the west, Golden Gate Estates. And if you look at the exhibit there, the aerial, you'll see that all of the lands that are included in the SRA are in or have been in active agricultural production for many years. Let me clear that. A little bit of specifics on the village and the requirements. You are required to, in a village, have a minimum of two context zones, and the LDC provides specific requirements and information on those context zones. At a minimum you must have a village center as well as neighborhood general. Those are the two context zones that are required. You have -- and as you probably have already figured out, but the village center is right there. Villages are primarily residential communities. I already discussed the maximum dwelling units that we are requesting of 2,500. Villages are allowed to request a density of between I and 4. We are at 2.5. We will -- we have agreed to provide a minimum of 250 multifamily units. We are requiring -- we are providing -- and a variety of housing types is required, including specifically both single and multifamily. This village center is centrally located. It's required to be the focal point of the community's goods and services and, as I said before, it will have a minimum of 62,500 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of those types of uses. We are required to provide 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses, and as the project further evolves through the process, we will figure out what those institutional, governmental, or civic uses will be. I mentioned that the master utilities will be served by the Collier County Water and Sewer District. We have worked with Collier County Utility Department -- Public Utilities Department. They have plans for -- and specifically plans that relate to all of the villages that you saw that are proposed and serving those villages with significant enhancements and improvements and upgrades. We are including one golf course. You can see it on the master plan. And -- just in here. That, at Page 17 of 89 October 3, 2019 this point, is intended to be open to the public. It may not be forever open to the public, but we realize that will make the golf course trip subject to our trip cap if it is open to the public. As I mentioned, we are exceeding the minimum requirement of 35 percent open space. The minimum requirement's 349.16. That's 35 percent of the overall acreage of the village. We're providing 571.91 acres, which is driven by the lakes and by the golf course. Because of that open -space requirement -- and typically in the urban area you have a lesser open -space requirement of 25 percent or less, depending on the size of the project. Because of that open -space requirement, as you provide that 35 percent or more, that creates a more compact development. The development area is compacted by the open space. We are required to provide a minimum of 9.97 acres of parks. We will exceed that number. We'll meet or exceed that number. Presumably we'll exceed it. That number's been adjusted based on the slightly smaller size of the village as we discussed. So along the eastern perimeter is the WRA, and you can see that as it runs along here. And that has a dual purpose. It is, in part, serving a stormwater purpose for the project and for the larger area, but I'm going to let Dominick speak to the specifics of that. But it also has been designed to provide a wildlife deterrent, and that has been coordinated and, of course, Ken Passarella can speak to those issues. But that has been coordinated with the agencies. We do have a trip cap as all projects now are required to have in Collier County, and ours is 1,978 p.m. peak hour net external two-way trips. Norm has a presentation, so I don't want to spend a lot of time on their stuff. I think this is important. Both the county and a third -parry neutral consultant has reviewed our fiscal analysis and found that the project is fiscally neutral, and that's required. You have to demonstrate that. And Lucy Gallo will speak specifically to those issues. We talk about connectivity. This village has been designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation with an interconnected system of streets and sidewalks, mostly local streets. Obviously, the main entry roads will be larger. We do provide direct access to Oil Well, which is classified as an arterial in the locations depicted on the maps shown. I do want to clarify. This could be a little bit confusing, so I want to clarify something for you here. We have a -- reserved a small parcel right there that may be -- may be utilized by Collier County for various utility facilities, pump station, something like that; I'm certainly not the expert on what they may require that for. But in discussions with them, we've reserved a small parcel there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you point to it again. MR. MULHERE: Yes. It is -- let me just clear that. It is right -- this little parcel right there; right on the corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the colored master plan, that's labeled as a utility. MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is; yes. It's just on the corner -- would be the northeast corner of Oil Well and future Big Cypress. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see it. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: The reason I point that out to you is that this arrow that shows -- this one-way arrow here. It looks like there's two access points very close to each other, but one is only for that utility site and only if that is likely -- is needed in the future. You can see that there's an interconnection right here to Hyde Park, future Hyde Park, assuming it gets approved, and they will have a village center. There will be an interconnection so folks can get to that. And then the rest -- and there's interconnection in various other locations along the future Big Cypress here and here and here that line up with Estates streets, and then also to Oil Well into the village center and into the development, and there is an interconnection from the development here into the village center. Both pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle. All three. COMMISSIONER FRY: Bob? Page 18 of 89 October 3, 2019 MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: To the far right, that interconnection appears only to be to the north of Oil Well Road. No interconnection to the south? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. So this -- I think maybe Rich went over this. If I was listening closely, I think he did. So we're just repeating that the village is entitled with environmental stewardship credits. You can see SSA -15, which is where we are achieving those credits. That has a total of 7,261 credits, and we are -- by the current calculations, we'd be required to provide 6,205.36, and that will be part of what we go over with that slight acreage change. So the SSA -15 totals 5,209 acres. You can see by looking at the exhibit that about five times -- over five times of sending lands are being protected in exchange for designating the village as an SRA. So this is -- comes from that exhibit, that Attachment C, and it's just a quick checklist. You look at the village requirements on the left column, and the center column is Rivergrass, and then whether or not we meet those columns -- you'll see they're all checked because we do meet them all: Size, the density, the diversity of single and multifamily housing types. The -- our SRA document does establish a floor area ratio for both retail and civic and governmental consistent with what's required. We are providing the neighborhood goods and services. We are being providing -- we are -- Collier County's providing water and wastewater. We will provide parks and public green space to meet or exceed the 1 percent requirement. The project has over 200 acres of lakes. We exceed the open space. We'll meet the requirement for what's referenced as a moderate range of services; 10 square feet per dwelling unit of civic, governmental, and institutional uses. And as I just demonstrated to you, we do have an interconnected system of collector and local roads with connections to the arterial roadway system. I won't spend much time on this, but I just wanted to insert this slide so that you could see the land -use summary, the neighborhood general, which includes the 156 -and -change acres of golf courses, 538 acres. There's 105 acres -and -change of road right-of-way. There's the golf club amenities site, your lakes, other open space, and the perimeter buffers. The village center is just under 21 acres in size. That totals 997.53. There is a table that is provided on the SRA master plan that provides the calculation for our open space so that staff can review exactly how we calculated our open space. This is the proposed Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way exhibit. At this point including the changes that were made as of Monday, late Monday -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that's not orientated north/south. MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the rest were. Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think it's because of the length of the exhibit and the aerial. To show it all, it was hard to turn it up the other way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to make sure everybody -- MR. MULHERE: And I can't do it, but -- here. North is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: North is left to right, or to the right. Right, yeah. MR. MULHERE: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that s south. MR. MULHERE: Clear. Sorry. There's Oil Well -- here's Oil Well. Okay, so -- no, I did have it right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The two of them are different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the one to the top, north to the right. The one to the bottom is -- the north is to the left. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So let's do it this way. Here's Oil Well here, here's Oil Well there, and Page 19 of 89 October 3, 2019 here is Hyde Park, which is right here. Right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's between Oil Well Road and Golden Gate Estates on the top one, north of the Rivergrass double lotted -- dotted line. Where it says Hyde Park, right? MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for it. Right here. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Middle of the page. MR. MULHERE: Sothis is just the alignment. It just shows you that the proposed Rivergrass abuts, and we are providing acreage -- exceeding 45 acres? -- exceeding 45 acres for that right-of-way adjacent to the proposed Rivergrass. Sorry about that. I was confused, too. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Chairman? \ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many of those Golden Gate Estates roads are eventually going to tie to that Big Cypress? MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: All of them or just -- MR. MULHERE: I'd rather go back to it. Slide 33. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're on the master plan, I believe, aren't they? MR. MULHERE: It is a little bit hard to read. So 43rd -- how many was the question, rather than me -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why not all of them? MR. MULHERE: Well, no, I don't think all of them. I think there are two that will connect, and then you also have the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road which ultimately will connect. And, what, Golden Gate Parkway? And Randall. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It seems you're running past all of them almost right up to the edge of the road. It seems like it would be easy to connect them all. MR. MULHERE: Well, that will be up to the county. They -- you know, that will be up to the county whether they connect them or don't connect them. We know that some are connecting, and we do know that Randall is connecting. Vanderbilt Beach is connecting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, one thing you may want to consider, the more connections you make on a road we're trying to have -- streamline more or less for traffic, the slower it's going to make the traffic and more disruptive to the neighborhoods. And I can tell you Vanderbilt Beach Road ran into that just recently when they were trying to connect multiple roads going out to the Estates. It brings a lot of traffic into the local neighborhoods that most of the people don't want. Anyway, I'm hoping what you're suggesting will never happen. MR. MULHERE: So at this point, I have a little bit more to go over after the other experts that are with us here present their presentations. They're not extremely long, these other presentations, but I didn't know if you wanted to take a break now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to tell you we're going to break at 10:30, but we'll break -- if you're at a break point now, we'll just as soon break now, and it's 10 -- we'll come back in 15 minutes. We'll come back at 10:40. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Great, thank you. (A recess was had from 10:24 a.m. to 10:40 p.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from the break. And before we go into the continuation of the Rivergrass presentation, we're going to confirm some dates for future hearings for this board. Ray was nice enough to be able to iron it all out. And the AUIR will be heard on the 21 st, Page 20 of 89 October 3, 2019 that's a Monday in the evening, and it's at the Growth Management building at Horseshoe Drive. It will be Room 609/610. It's the big conference room there. It will not be televised. It will be transcribed and audio. So all of us will meet in that room on the 21st at 5:00, and the staff will be available to walk through the AUIR. COMMISSIONER FRY: What room? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 609/610. It's the big conference room at Developmental Services. And then on the 31 st Ray was able to confirm this room is open to us all day long. So we'll start at our regular time. The agenda will come out, and the staff reports will come out as necessary for that date. But on the 31 st we're going to hear all of the items that were previously scheduled for October 17th, and it will lead off with the Hammock Bay that's been continued from a couple other meetings, or will be by that time. So what I'd like from this board by motion is to accept those dates as continued dates for the items in question, and that way Judy Puig, when she writes up the agenda, can put all -- the little italicized sentence above the item that it's being continued to the 31 st or whatever date it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Yes, Karl COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we assume that we'll receive a packet in advance of the 3 I st meeting with all the agenda items up to date for that meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, you'll receive a packet in advance of the 17th, because that's when it was originally scheduled for. So just hold that packet. And your Hammock Park packet was already issued to you. So unless there's a supplement, hold that packet. And that will be the first thing up on the 31 st along with the following item from the 17th that we're moving there. COMMISSIONER FRY: The reason I ask is that when we're in this meeting and want to refer to a certain page number from the packet, if we have two or three different packets, its very difficult to all find the same spot. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I understand what. But when we have superceded documents, we're going to repeal the other ones or take them out of the pile so you don't have current documents and those that have been repealed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But for the 31st we should have two packets. We have issued already for Hammock Park or Hammock Commerce Park, whatever the name of that is. That's Packet 1, and that will be only used for that item. Packet 2 would be all the items that we originally have scheduled for the 17th that are now being moved to the 31 st. And that shouldn't be too cumbersome just to have two different ones. Okay. With that, then, Norm is here to entertain us for a while. MR. TREBELCOCK: Good morning, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I didn't ask for the vote. We made a motion. We had discussion. Is there a vote to allocate as noted as the motion for these new items? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6-0. Page 21 of 89 October 3, 2019 Okay, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock, professional engineer/certified planner with over 29 years of experience here locally. Also with me is Ciprian Malaescu who helped prepare the traffic studies for the project as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, just -- and I'm sorry. I just thought of something. We were going to take these in order, and now I guess then -- are you just making this presentation as part of the beginning discussion for traffic? Because if you are, I want to make sure we don't have any questions from the presenter on the issues that you just presented. We just got done with Bob and Rich presenting a series of issues. I want to make sure we are -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We are going to touch on -- you're going to hear from the following three professionals as part of our overall presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Norm. Then you'll hear from Ken Passarella, and you'll hear from Lucy Gallo. Bob will get back up for a couple of more issues. Then we'll be done with our presentation. We envision -- once we're complete with all of our presentations, I know you wanted to go back and deal with transportation specifically, environmental, and the economic analysis today and anything else. But we wanted to do this as part of our overall presentation first and then reserve specific -- we'll do it any way you want. We prefer that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: We prefer that you do the specific questions to experts after our complete presentation is done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's what I was looking for. If this is the traffic presentation by you and you'll finish out with the economic and possibly environmental, if we even get time to get into that today, but let's say those three as part of today's presentation by you -all, I've got -- county staff has people they -- outside consultants they brought down for this meeting. And we will then proceed into the traffic consultant from the county, unless Norm has more to say prior to that, and we'll get into the meat of the traffic issues. Then the next one up would be the economic one in which the county has someone here for economics, too. They'll present their side of their argument as staff, and you guys will jump in. And if you have more presentation to make at that time, you're more than welcome to, and then we'll get into questions and economics, and we'll do the same thing through environmental. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't envision that when Norm goes through his slides right now -- we would prefer to then move on to our next presenter and then our next presenter, finish our entire presentation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what -- I'm anticipating the same thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then you can call back up Norm, Ken, and Lucy as to those specific topics when we're complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what we'll probably do is after you get done, I'll fust call back the traffic consultant for the county, or the county's traffic people. They can make their presentations and comments, and at that time I would suggest the Planning Commission, after they've heard both input, then start discussing traffic. We'll finish up traffic to the extent we can today on what we know today, and then we'll move into the next one, which is economic. That's how I was anticipating it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Environmental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Economic's second, environment's third. MR. YOVANOVICH: We thought it was traffic, environmental, economic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you asked if I could make sure the traffic was heard this morning, so I switched the agenda around at your request, and at the same time I looked at the -- I talked to staff. They have someone from an economic perspective here that they need to get on, just like you did, so we were going to go economic second. Is there a reason you can't? Page 22 of 89 October 3, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Is there a reason why I can't? Because Mr. Passarella, I believe, has an issue with the following meeting, the 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. MR. YOVANOVICH: Since Lucy doesn't have an issue with coming back on the 17th, we'd like to wind her up today. Mr. Strain, I don't think the county has much of a presentation on those three topics, because I think we have agreement on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you -- there was a bunch of recommendations in the two staff reports, both comprehensive and zoning that seemed to have a lot of recommendations that weren't resolved. MR. YOVANOVICH: The ultimate -- when you see when we get to the end of the story, the end of the book, you'll see that we have resolved -- the only -- the only outstanding issue, as I opened up today -- based upon the staff report to the Planning Commission, the only outstanding issue that I'm aware of is not are we going to give the county Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way, it's when are we going to do it. We envision doing it in increments. As each village comes along, we would give the right-of-way. Staff is asking for all of it as part of this Rivergrass Village. The rest of the issues with regard to the staff recommendations at the end -- at the end of your report, we have met with staff and those have been resolved, and we're going to present that to you through Bob -- through Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only part I'm a little concerned about is the agenda was posted with the reorder to accommodate you and to accommodate our people. I'll just have to see. During lunch break, I'll ask whoever is doing the economics from our side and the environmental just to catch with me quickly after lunch or just before lunch starts, and I need to get a read on how that's going to work for everybody. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I mean, it would be a total shock to me if there's -- I mean, your independent reviewer found us to be fiscally neutral, and your environmental staff has found us to be consistent with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. I don't know how long of a presentation that will take, but maybe somebody knows something I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, environmental does have a PowerPoint -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that they're going to present, and I'm not sure what the other side -- what the other economic one is. Okay. Thank you. Norm, sorry to interrupt. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, do I understand, then, that other than the economic person who can't come back on the next meeting, that everybody else is available -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the environmental person. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Environmental person. Everybody else from both sides, I mean, the applicant and the county, the experts are able to be in attendance subsequently for the next two or three meetings if necessary? MR. YOVANOVICH: My experts? I will -- we would prefer -- the answer to your question is Heather will be here on the 17th, if necessary, to answer environmental concerns -- environmental questions you may have, and Chip will be here on the 17th. Norm is the main presenter, and Ken Passarella are the main presenters on the traffic and environmental topics. If we have to address concerns, we'll be able to do that. But we would like to -- those to be hold -over issues that may come up as a result of maybe public comment, not as a result of questions from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So am I correct that no one needs to be heard from beginning to end today? Page 23 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to hear from us beginning to end today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: From all of your experts? MR. YOVANOVICH: During my presentation in chief, yes. To the extent that you have questions when we're done with our presentation, they will be here. If you're quitting at 4, we'll be here till 4. If you're quitting at 6, we'll be here till 6. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're quitting at 4. So what about subsequent days? Are there any constraints? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll be prepared. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will be prepared. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the county's the same -- same situation with county's experts? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county has experts they brought in -- or consultants. I don't know -- and their schedules, I'm not sure they'll be as flexible, but we'll find out as we go through the day. Whatever it is, it is. We'll just work with it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, go ahead. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. I'll just review the -- give you an overview of our traffic analysis. You -all have the more detailed reports that we prepared, but I'll cover the -- excuse me -- the standards that we followed, the trip generation, distribution assignment, level -of -service impacts, intersection analysis we did, looking at the future planning for the future, and then review the conclusions of the studies. We did do our Traffic Impact Statement per county standards. The trip distribution, land -use codes, internal capture, pass -by rates were coordinated and agreed upon with staff as part of our methodology meeting coordination that we do. We are using the current 2018 AUIR criteria regarding the transportation planning issues for the project. The ITE, or Institute of Transportation Engineers', Trip Generation Manual latest edition is used in the studies as well. Background traffic is based on the 2018 AUK Annual Update and Inventory Report, using the county, Collier County data. Background traffic is grown per staff guidance of 2 percent minimum or historical rate of growth or trip bank, whichever is greater. Existing road network is based on the 2018 AUIR level of services. And then when we look at the future commitments where you're looking at the five-year work program, also because we are looking at a 10 -year planning horizon for this, we're looking at a snapshot of the 2040 cost -feasible plan but the improvements that are identified to be completed between 2021 and 2030 are considered committed, and then also some of the committed improvements from the one -cent sales tax as well. Impacts to the roadway links and intersections are evaluated based on applying our proposed project traffic onto the individual roadway links or segments of roadways as well on the background traffic. In terms of our proposed trip analysis, the proposed development program, we are looking at the single-family. Under multifamily, what that includes is the attached villas from a traffic perspective: Apartments, townhomes, and condominiums. Then we also run the governmental and commercial uses as well, and Bob had mentioned about the golf course, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know we weren't supposed to ask questions, but I just want to make sure. This is different numbers than you have in your proposal, the master -- or the SRA -- you have 250 multifamily. You're showing 1,086 here. Is there -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. So what I explained is that also includes attached villas. So from a zoning standpoint, they can be looked at as single-family; however, from a trip -- traffic analysis, the Page 24 of 89 October 3, 2019 attached villas are looked at as a multifamily product for trip generation purposes as a standard in the county. So that's why you have -- that's why I'll tend to present those different numbers and give you that footnote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- yeah. There's -- yeah -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it. There's been so much data, I want to make sure I understand it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Uh-huh. Then the trip generation buildout, again, it takes into account internal capture, pass -by rates, and it gives us that net external traffic in the lower right-hand corner of the 1,978 p.m. peak -hour trips. That becomes a trip cap for the project. We had an agreed-upon trip distribution. We looked at the percentages of splitting the traffic for the development. We also had a sub -split for the commercial with the understanding that some of the commercial may distribute a little differently than some of the residential because you're attracting some of the surrounding residential folks as well. So we identify that. And then that translates into actual -- the p.m. peak -hour trips. Those percentages get applied as well, and that's what we used for the analysis that we performed. In looking at the site access for the project -- so on Oil Well Road along here, we'd have three accesses for the project, and then Big Cypress Parkway. Along here we'd have four accesses. All of our access would be consistent with the access management resolution Collier County has, and we would adhere to those spacing standards for any of the access points on the project. In our intersection operational analysis, we were required by county staff to look at five intersections. And in that analysis what we did is looked at different conditions, existing conditions, and then 2030 conditions without project, with project, with improvements, and then with additional improvements needed caused by the project, and that's what we did. And so looking at 2030 without the project, just a couple of key intersections. This is Randall and Immokalee intersection. That's -- and at -grade improvements are currently under review for a PD&E, but those improvements would be committed and made, including the four-laning of Randall Boulevard to the east to at least Eighth Street. And there would be triple lefts, westbound lefts on Randall Boulevard. So that would improve that intersection. On Oil Well and DeSoto the four-laning widening that is committed to occur would include a westbound left -turn lane, eastbound right -turn lanes that would help in that area. And then we did identify an impacted intersection at Wilson -- at Immokalee and Wilson to add an additional westbound left improvement there. With the project in place and needed improvements would be at Oil Well and Immokalee and then also at hnmokalee and Wilson. And we identified there that there'd be an additional northbound right -turn lane on Immokalee Road. You'd have dual rights, and then also additional through capacity at the intersection of homokalee and Wilson. The conclusion is those analyzed intersections will operate at acceptable standards with the committed improvements and the project fair -share mitigation, us providing improvements as part of our fair -share mitigation as well. This is just to illustrate the improvement at Immokalee and Randall, the concept plan that's been proposed where you'd have a divided Randall Boulevard that currently is just a two-lane undivided road be divided, and then also you'd have the improvements at grade. The future improvements at this would be a grade -separated flyover. But that's -- these at -grade improvements will handle things for us on the project here. Another important planning tool to look at is in May of this year the Board of County Commissioners recommended the -- in the Randall Boulevard/Oil Well Road corridor study this Page 25 of 89 October 3, 2019 improvement plan, that's the two -plus future network plan. And what you can see is Randall Boulevard -- is some important improvements to Randall that would head out east, and also Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard. But kind of pinning along the side that's really important is future Big Cypress Parkway and how that kind of ties the network together when Vanderbilt Beach Road gets extended over, and it kind of creates an excellent network system for the county as well. So in planning for the future, that's really a key component of our project that I see from a transportation standpoint is providing that right-of-way and the stormwater management treatment for Big Cypress Parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to make sure we get sent a copy of this with the other presentations? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything shown today? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: So in conclusion, none of the roadways are forecasted to become deficient as a result of our additional project traffic. Collier County has planned funding of $117 million for Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, Oil Well Road widening, and Randall Boulevard widening intersection improvements that will help improve capacity but also will help in the overall circulation and relief of the roadways in the area as well. A detailed evaluation of our actual project access points will occur during site improvement process, turn lanes and signalization, and that occurs during the permitting, the platting process for the project. And the trip cap has been established for the project and agreed upon the 1,978 two-way p.m. peak -hour trips. The proposed intersection improvements, we identified would be subject to fair -share mitigation that we've agreed to. And then the right-of-way and stormwater management for future Big Cypress Parkway along our project's west boundary being an important collector arterial roadway. We've also agreed -- already provided, actually, right-of-way and water management for Oil Well Road at no cost to the county. And also per the landowner contribution agreement, the pending one, they're committed to providing right-of-way and water management for Immokalee Road at no cost to the county as well. Additional mitigation of the impact: Payment of roadway impact fees for the project as building permits are issued, and it's -- $17 million is estimated in road impact fees for the project. With that, I'll turn things over to Ken Passarella with Passarella to talk about the environmental. MR. MULHERE: I just need to pull up that presentation for him. MR. PASSARELLA: That isn't it. MR. MULHERE: What do you mean that isn't it? I just had it up. Let's try it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure you use the mic, Bob, even for the comments. MR. MULHERE: I'm just getting the -- I see. Here it is right here. I'm sorry. I am so sorry. It's coming up now. MR. PASSARELLA: For the record, Ken Passarella with Passarella & Associates. I'm president and principal ecologist with Passarella & Associates, and I have Heather from my office here in support as well. And I'm going to be providing an overview of the NRI Assessment for the project. The NRI Assessment is the Natural Resource Index Assessment. And one of the things I want to touch upon is Rich had gone over some of this in his presentation, but I also wanted to reiterate this in my presentation as well, is you're going to hear a lot of acronyms as I go through my presentation, so I wanted you to be aware of what all those acronyms stand for, because they start getting confusing after a while because Page 26 of 89 October 3, 2019 there's so many of them. Again, I'm going to be talking about the NRI Assessment, and NRI stands Natural Resource Index. And within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, which we refer to as the RLSA, there's various areas that have been designated. Rich went over this. These are the Flowway Stewardship Area or FSA. The Flowway Stewardship Area are areas of high natural resource value that were identified during the development of the RLSA area. In particular, the Flowway Stewardship Areas are related to wetland areas. In particular, those are the Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough that you see on the map here. The Camp Keais Strand located on the left-hand side, the blue areas, and the Okaloacoochee Slough, the blue areas located on the right-hand side there. Habitat Stewardship Areas, or HSA, are native habitat areas or areas that may contribute to habitat for listed species in the area and are designated with a high natural resource value. Those are shown on this map in the areas in green. So those areas are adjacent to or contiguous to the FSAs. They build upon larger areas of natural habitat within the RLSA. As I mentioned, they may be natural or Native Habitat Areas such as pine flats, but they may also be strategic farm fields that are located within an FSA area or adjacent to an FSA that, if restored, would create significant habitat for listed species and wildlife in the area. We also have Water Retention Areas, or WRAs. As Rich mentioned, those WRAs are permitted agricultural reservoirs located within the RLSA. So those areas are typically bermed and diked off from the surrounding farm fields and used for water storage as part of the agricultural operations. Now, WRAs could have natural wetlands, and many of them do. So those areas are identified on the map as well. Most of the areas we're talking about are the pink areas, which are the open lands on that previous map that Rich had. They're shown in kind of a light yellow here. Those are where the Stewardship Receiving Areas, or SRAs, would be located, and Steward Sending Areas, or SSAs, are the areas from which you draw the credits, as Rich had previously explained. So what I'm going to be doing is going over the Natural Resource Index Assessment that was done for the Rivergrass SRA, and this Natural Resource Index Assessment includes documentations that refines the NRI values that were assigned during the original Collier County RLSA Assessment Study. As Rich had mentioned in his presentation, back in 2000 and 2002 there were studies that were done which came up with the development of the RLSA and the RLSA program, and that's also the same time when the Natural Resource Index Assessment was developed at that time as well. This assessment is a GIS analysis where resource values are calculated for every acre in the study area using a Raster model. So this is a model. It's a GIS model, Geographical Information System model, that is done to create these scores. This model was previously developed as part of the program back in 2002. We did not create this model, Passarella & Associates. We're simply implementing the model and running the model on this particular project for Rivergrass SRA. The Raster model uses one -acre grid cells that receive a score value based on the six Natural Resource Indices. So in this graphic you see here in front of you, this is an overlay showing the grid pattern that develops these one -acre cells. So each one of these one -acre cells will be scored for each one of these six indices. So on this map, if you were to count them, this site being 998 acres, there would be 998 cells there. And as I go through this presentation, I'm also going to address some of the comments that were received, I believe, from Mr. Frankenberger for the Natural Resources Service, Inc., had provided some comments to the county regarding the NRI Assessment. So I will try to address some of those comments as I go through my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, some of us may have questions involving all that. Page 27 of 89 October 3, 2019 We've had a lot of different documentation come in. I'm going to -- at least from my part, and I'll ask the others. You'll finish your presentation. We'll reserve our comments and questions about those hopefully till after we get back into the full environmental discussion. MR. PASSARELLA: Okay. The reason I brought that up was from the Natural Resource Services, Inc., one of the comments they had addressed was that we didn't provide a scoring sheet for this in paper format, and I'm going to explain to this (sic) why we would not do that, because we would simply be adding an additional 998 pages of information into that large package that I believe was mentioned was already 1,500 pages. So in order to reduce the amount of paperwork, we provided this in all electronic format to the county staff for the review so we didn't generate another 998 pages of paper that somebody has to look at. So for SRAs, lands greater than one acre with an NRI score greater than 1.2 shall be retained in a natural state. And I'll go through how we scored each one of these grids. As I mentioned, this NRI methodology's already been used to establish Stewardship Receiving Areas such as Ave Maria and also 16 SSAs that are already in place. So this scoring is nothing -- is not anything new. It's simply being applied now to the Rivergrass SRA. So this is the stewardship credit worksheet that is part of the Comp Plan. This was originally developed back in 2002. It was part of the report and recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee. It was dated 2002. This worksheet was carried over and made part of the Comp Plan, from my understanding. So this is the worksheet that applies to both SRAs and SSAs. What you see over here on the -- this part you see right here, that is the Natural Resource Index scoring. The other portions of this document, here, this is related to the SSA calculation of credits and removing land -use layers. So what we're going to focus on is this part here today, which is used to determine the NRI value within the SRA. Now, again, I mentioned about the number of sheets of pages. So this left-hand side here, the NRI scoring thing, this is done electronically in the model. So instead of printing out for every one of those cell grades this worksheet, that's all contained within the model itself electronically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have this worksheet -- you do have the worksheet. You just have it electronically. MR. PASSARELLA: Yes. It's in the model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you send us the presentations, can you send us the electronic? It will be readable by us? MR. PASSARELLA: No. It's a GIS model. So if you had GIS, you go ahead go in there -- if you have that software, you could go in there and open it up and run the model and see the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you save it as a PDF? Because, I mean, the public should have a right to have it as well as us. MR. PASSARELLA: Well, again, we'd have to -- if you want this in paper format -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, electronic. MR. PASSARELLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't convert that to PDF? MR. PASSARELLA: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I'll explore that more with staff, see what we can get. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask? Ken, how did you get that on that page right there? Isn't that a printout from something that you did? MR. PASSARELLA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can you do one electronically for each page? MR. PASSARELLA: We could generate one of those -- that right there, we could generate one of those for every one of those cells, and that would be 998 pages. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But without printing it out, can you do it electronically as Page 28 of 89 a PDF? October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my question. MR. PASSARELLA: Well, no. That -- we'd have to create 998 of these and then scan them, and give you the PDF. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. PASSARELLA: Okay. Because it's in the model. It's in the GIS model. The model has shade files and creates these. And as I go through this, I'll show you how it's done, so... Maybe after I've finished my presentation, you'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm sorry. I just was -- I'm trying to make sure that anything you guys have that we -- might help us understand, that we get a copy of it. That's why I asked for it. But if we can't get it, we'll have to see what the next alternative is. Thank you. MR. PASSARELLA: So starting with the first indices, the first indices is the stewardship overlay designation. That's the one at the top there. And then for the Rivergrass Village, Rivergrass SRA, the data source we used for this overlay is the Collier County stewardship areas, and those -- that is information that we attained from the county. So you can see on the right-hand side there where the SRA boundary is. We're not within an W -- we're not within an FSA. We're not within a HSA. We're not within a WRA, and we're not within an area of critical concern. So as such, if we were to show -- this is the model output. So this is what the model would output if you were looking in GIS. If you look at the model output for this particular indice (sic), you'll see that it's all scored in a zero. So, again, we're not in a.7. We're not in a.6. We're not in a.6 for WRA. We're not in an area of critical state concern. So this whole area scores a zero. And I did a sample grid cell. So right here, this is a grid cell right here. That's a one -acre grid cell. And as we go through this whole calculation, I'll keep referring to that one grid cell. And at the time we're done, we'll add up the score for that grid cell and show how you get your total NRI value for that grid cell. Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Thank you. MR. PASSARELLA: Yep. So next indices, there's a total of six indices. The second indice is the proximity indice. And the proximity indice, again, we use the Collier County's data for stewardship areas, and the scoring is based on if you're enclosed by an FSA, HSA, or WRA. If you're within 300 feet of an FSA or HSA, or you're within 300 feet of public or provide --'or private preserve land or none of the above, you would score a zero. So it says, so additional value shall be added under the proximity indices or lands that is within an FSA, HSA, WRA, or public -- or public or private preserve. So for this project, for the Rivergrass SRA -- and I'll go back to this map. You can see we're not enclosed by an FSA; those are the blue areas. We're not enclosed by an HSA; those are the green areas. And we're not enclosed by a WRA, which are the brown areas. We're not within 300 feet of an FSA or HSA, and we're not within 300 feet of public or private preserve lands. So in the model, the output is a zero for that indices score and, again, going back to our particular grid cell, you can see that grid cell would then score a zero for that particular indice. The next indice is the listed species habitat indices. And for Rivergrass Village, the data source that we used for that is our FLUCFCS mapping that we had prepared for the project. Listed species surveys that we have done for the project that had been reviewed by the county and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This also includes the available information from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on documented occurrences of listed species. So we had a lot of data that we used to look at potential listed species on this particular project. One of the comments that the county received, I believe, from Mr. Frankenberger was related to -- that Page 29 of 89 October 3, 2019 the survey was not sufficient. It was only done at one point in the year. While we did do a listed species survey as part of the SRA submittal to the county, that was done at one time -- point in the year; however, the data that we provided was from numerous listed species surveys that we've done over the years on this particular project. So we've done listed species surveys out here on this project in March through July of 2007, we did October 2007, we did November 2007, we did May through June of 2014, we did a June in 2015 through October 2015, we did November 2016, and we've now recently done one in March 2019. And all these listed species data that we collected during these surveys all went into this NRI Assessment. So even though we're required by code to do a listed species survey for the SRA application, we did that species survey, but we went back and included all the listed species data that we've done on all these surveys we've done over the years on this site. This is very comprehensive as far as listed species data for a particular site. In addition to that, we've done species -- specific listed species surveys out there as well. We've done crested caracara surveys in 2007, 2009, and 2016. We've done RCW surveys in 2007 and 2014. We've done a burrowing owl survey in 2008. We've done a southeastern American Kestrel survey in 2017, a Big Cypress fox squirrel in 2007/2008, and an Everglades mink survey in 2017. So you can see we've done more surveys on this site probably than any other site in Collier County. And all that information went into this listed species habitat index for the county as part of this NRI Assessment. So we have that listed species data. All this data's been reviewed by the agencies, and that went into the model to generate the scoring for the -- for the Rivergrass SRA. Now, scoring is -- panther occupied habitat plus other listed species is a. 8; panther -occupied habitat, a .5; occupied habitat by other listed species, a .4; and none of the above is a zero. Now, what's to keep in mind here is that panther -occupied habitat is a very specific definition in the Land Development Code. And when we're scoring, we've got to follow that particular definition. So index values are based on 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. So over on the right-hand side here you can see various points and documents. You can see -- thank you, Bob. You can see that there's various species from different times of years and different dates where we have documented those species on site. For instance, you'll see some blue dots. There's a blue dot here. That's actually Florida panther observations that we made on site while doing surveys over the years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl has a question for you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick question. You have a blue shaded area in the top half, light blue shaded area in the bottom half What does the overall shading mean? MR. PASSARELLA: On the next slide -- there's two slides from now I'm explain that to you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. PASSARELLA: Okay. Yep. So I'll go ahead and explain it. The light blue area to the bottom is a FLUCFCS code. So when you're doing a listed species indices, you've got to look at two things. You've got to look at the FLUCFCS code, the habitat, and then you've got to look at whether there's species documented in that FLUCFCS code or that habitat. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What's a FLUCFCS code? MR. PASSARELLA: And a FLUCFCS code is a Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System code. So its a land -use code. So the light blue down here is a 214 FLUCFCS code, which is row crop, and then the kind of purple or dark blue up top is a 210 FLUCFCS code, which is cropland or pasture land FLUCFCS code. So slightly different. Page 30 of 89 October 3, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. PASSARELLA: And that's important when we're doing this scoring, and I'll get into it. Because you've got -- again, you've got to have habitat, and then you've got to have the species location under the score. Okay. So one of the issues that had been raised was about Florida panther primary zone and secondary zone and why we did not address that. Well, in the NRI Assessment and in the Land Development Code, it's very specific about how you address panther habitat and scoring under this indices. So the LDC says that land mapped using FLUCFCS at 310, 321, 411, 425, 428, 438, 617, and I won't name the rest of them, is deemed to be preferred or tolerated habitat for panthers for the purposes of assigning a value for these indices. So what those FLUCFCS codes are, those are native habitats. Those are native wetlands habitats such as cypress or marsh or native -- native forested habitats for uplands such as, you know, pine flatwoods or even areas like palmetto prairies. So those are native habitats. So for -- in other words to be -- when we do the scoring, to be panther -occupied habitat plus other listed species, you have to have a FLUCFCS code that is a native upland FLUCFCS code or a forested wetland FLUCFCS code plus a panther telemetry to score a .8. So this is the output of the model. You can see we have zero down below, and we have .4 up above. So going through the scoring, if it's panther -occupied habitat plus other listed species it's a .8. The whole site being row crop and being agricultural land, by definition in the Land Development Code, it is not panther -preferred or tolerated habitat. So it doesn't score -- even though we had a panther telemetry point there, you've got to have the intersection of both. You've got to have the panther telemetry point plus the habitat to score a.8. So, again, panther -occupied habitat, simply those habitats that are preferred or tolerated. We don't have those there. Occupied habitat by other listed species, well, we do have that in this particular location, and that's this grid designated right here. This is this darker purple area. That is cropland and pasture land, and we had sandhill cranes in that area. So that is a habitat that sandhill cranes would use. You may expect to find them in pasture land as far as something that they would utilize. And, as such, we have a listed species documented out there from our surveys, being a sandhill crane, plus a habitat that they would use and so, therefore, it scored a.4. And then the rest would score a.0. Moving on. There was also mention -- hang on a second, Bob. There was also mentioned some comments about -- that the natural resource service -- that the indices didn't reference wood stork colonies and foraging areas as well as the snail kite consultation area. All of that is relative information for federal and state permitting, but it doesn't apply to the Land Development Code when you're doing an NRI Assessment. So it doesn't apply to the NRI Assessment score, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain why while we're on that? MR. PASSARELLA: Yeah. Again, the scoring is very specific for listed species. So you've got to have, you know, the preferred or tolerated habitat, which is defined in the code, and you've got to have the intersection of one of those species. So a simple zone identified by one of the federal agencies is not in the Land Development Code specifically identified as to be used to score these areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so I know when to reserve my questions, were you -- did you do any of the work on the original RLSA overlay for anybody? Not today, back in 2000, 2002, around that time. MR. PASSARELLA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PASSARELLA: So the next indices is the soils and service -water indices, and these are very straightforward. These are soils mapping data that's obtained from the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the NRCS. And the scoring is -- you know, open water and muck depression soil is a .4, sand depression soil is a .3, flats transitional soil's a .2, and non -hydric soil's score a zero. So in our particular -- at Rivergrass SRA, we had flatwoods, transitional soils, and flatwood soils Page 31 of 89 October 3, 2019 non -hydric. So in our scoring, all these score differently. So we had areas that scored a zero because we had non -hydric soils, we had areas that scored a .2 because those are flats or transitional soils, and we had areas that scored a .3 because that's sand depression soils. And that's showing graphically over here on the right-hand side by the different colors of the output of the model. The next item is the restoration potential indice. And for a scoring for an SRA, the restoration potential indice is not applicable. The restoration potential index is assigned during the SSA designations process if appropriate, and credit adjustments are made at that time. So as part of the SSA scoring, the NRI Assessment for doing SSA credits. So it doesn't apply to the SRA. The next indices is the land -use and land -cover indices. And I already had quite a bit of discussion about FLUCFCS mapping and FLUCFCS, but this is the FLUCFCS data so -- that we prepared for the project. When we did the FLUCFCS mapping, this FLUCFCS mapping has been presented to the county staff. It is also presented to the South Florida Water Management District staff as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff, and they have all agreed with our FLUCFCS mapping on the project site. So for FLUCFCS mapping, how you score it under the NRI Assessment is there's Group 1 FLUCFCS mapping, which is a.4. And down below in the text you can see Group 1 is FLUCFCS code 617, 621, 624. And I know those numbers probably don't mean anything to you -all, but those are basically native wetland habitats. Group 2 scores a.3, and down below the Group 2 codes are listed out: 321, 411, 425. Those are all native upland habitats, and they score a .3. Group 3 are a whole series of FLUCFCS codes in the 200s. Primarily, those are agricultural FLUCFCS codes, which is what we have on this particular project. And then Group 4 is other. Other is disturbed lands, you know, residential areas, stuff like that. They score a zero. So for our particular project, you can see we had FLUCFCS codes. This darker blue, as I mentioned before, cropland, pasture land. The lighter blue is row crops. So for the scoring, since these are all agricultural land -use codes, these are all 200 series, they all score a .2 for the NRI Assessment. So there was some comments about should it be scored a -- you know, a 212 or a 510? But if you look at those codes, all those codes are within the agricultural group code class. So whether it's a 210 or it's a 510, those are all agricultural codes and, therefore, they all fall within the .2, and there is no bearing on the NRI Assessment because those are basically the same scores. And some areas, you know, comments about, well, ifs not row crop. It's another type of crop. Again, those are all agricultural codes that fall under this Group 3 or .2 in the NRI Assessment. So in our example cell here we had -- if I were to go back through all of those slides we went through, the NRI score is determined by summing all of these scores assigned for each of the index factors. And so the outcome of the final Raster model shows overall weighted sum. And what you see here is the output of the final Raster model. So our particular cell that we were looking at here, if you look at the numbers, we had a zero, a zero, a .4, for NRI Assessment, a zero, and a .2, which comes up with a total .6. So you see that on the color here over here on the output. So you see scores ranging from .2 to .6 on the output over here. So the final NRI score map for the overall project you can see ranges from .2 to .6 on this output. And, again, that would make sense since the majority of the site is agriculture, and there's not any native habitats. You would particularly expect to see a scoring of a 1.2 or higher if you had some sort of native habitat on the project site. So that would be some remnant cypress areas or remnant pine flatwoods or something within the site. That's when you would get scoring that would go above the 1.2, and that's what it was meant to do was even though these areas are designated as open lands, if there were any native habitats remaining Page 32 of 89 October 3, 2019 within those areas designated as open lands, that those native habitats would be preserved or protected as part of this process. On this site, you have all agricultural lands, all row crop, areas that have been in production for ag for numerous years, and we don't have any of these native remnant natural areas that would possibly score higher than a 1.2 and would be preserved as part of this project. So basically what you have is this is a summary of the output. Again, you can see the scoring across the site. You can see .2. We had total acres of 586 acres of .2. We had 260 acres .4. We had 2 acres of .5 and 149 acres .6. We had -- none of those got above the 1.2 required for preservation of the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's because none of them intersect all three sensitive areas. MR. PASSARELLA: That's correct. Well, that and it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you don't have one acre that has .2, .4, and .6, because if you did, it would be 1.2. MR. PASSARELLA: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMhIISSIONER FRYER: I have a question before you leave. MR. PASSARELLA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It gets back to the documentation that could be available to us. First of all, what format -- you put up about 40 slides here that I know were generated from GIS. What format are they in now? MR. MULHERE: PowerPoint. MR. PASSARELLA: In a PowerPoint. COMNIISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it's a PowerPoint. Any reason why you couldn't provide an electronic copy of that PowerPoint as part of the official record so that we could have it between now -- MR. PASSARELLA: We provided our NRI study that provides those documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're giving us a copy of this PowerPoint. They're giving us a copy. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They are giving or have given? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they will give it to us. MR. YOVANOVICH: When we're done. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. PASSARELLA: But I also want to explain. It's in the document. You have some of this information already in the documents you have. The output -- COMNIISSIONER FRYER: I just want to be sure that we have access to all of it. MR. PASSARELLA: Yeah. This NRI score map and NRI Assessment, you have this map. You have the output map for each one of the individual indices for the overall site. So that's in our report that was submitted to the county. So you should have those maps already. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's say that these are 40 slides; we're going to have all 40 of them, aren't we? MR. PASSARELLA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So what comprises a survey? You have 998 Raster Mgrid acres, I guess you call them. How do you go out and survey -- do you survey each one for all these criteria? MR. PASSARELLA: We walk the entire site, and when we survey the entire site, we would identify where a listed species is. And what happens in this -- in this NRI Assessment -- and maybe I'll go back to this. I'll get back there for you. Page 33 of 89 October 3, 2019 So when we survey the site, we go out and we -- sir, we walk the site, and we walk transects across the site. We may not cover every square inch, but we cover the majority of it. And what happens in the scoring here is even though we don't cover every square inch, since we found listed species, and within this purple area, this area here, this 210 -- so even though we found a sandhill crane, we only documented the sandhill crane here and here. Those are two sandhill cranes we documented within two particular spots. But when you score it, the sandhill crane applies to this entire FLUCFCS code. So even though we only identified a listed species in one spot, it doesn't just apply to that one -acre square grid. It applies to that entire FLUCFCS code. So it's assumed that the sandhill crane could use any of this entire area and, therefore, that applies to that entire FLUCFCS code in the model, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're assuming that because that upper FLUCFCS code is all the same type of land -- MR. PASSARELLA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: --that species you find there would naturally go anywhere within that type of land -- MR. PASSARELLA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- but not necessarily into the different type of land to the south of it, which was the row crop fields? MR. PASSARELLA: Right. The row crop is a different category for the sandhill crane and considered different. But we observed them up here in this code (sic). We would anticipate to see sandhill cranes in pasture areas; therefore, it scored a higher in that area. COMMISSIONER FRY: So is a survey a single point in time? Is it -- I mean, I know it takes a long time, I'm sure, to walk all this -- transect all these areas? MR. PASSARELLA: We may spend four days in March of 2019 when we did this survey, four days out there walking and covering the entire property. But as I mentioned, we've done numerous surveys over the years on this particular property, and we've covered it many times. So if you see, like, for instance, all these species here we documented, those weren't documented in 2019. Those were all documented during surveys in 2007 and 2009. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're still counting them in the results? MR. PASSARELLA: Still counting them in this, because we've documented them out there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just previewing or thinking about what possible objection there might be or concerns. You did a survey in March of 2019, then the one previous to that was 2016, I believe you said. MR. PASSARELLA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: What are the chances that on the four days that you walked through in March there were species that would be there other times of the year that were not there that day that we might have missed something of critical habitat concern? MR. PASSARELLA: Well, what we did was -- again, if I can go back through the list of the dates we surveyed out here -- and bear in mind, you're only required by county code to go out there and do a listed species survey per county standards, which we did and provided. But we've gone above and beyond that as well. We've provided survey information from other surveys we've done at previous times. So, for instance, in 2007, we were out there in March through July. So covered the end of the spring, the summer. We were out there in October and November, so we covered the fall. In 2015, we were out there in May through June, again in the summer. November, fall. So those are, you know, different time periods, different years out there doing surveys. So this is a result of hundreds of hours of surveys out there, man-hours out there surveying the property. So, you know, we've covered what we did and we've documented what we found out there. Page 34 of 89 October 3, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: I only ask the question because, you know, it occurs to me we've had a lot of development within the county, and the species had to migrate around in order to respond to that development. We know bears are in areas where they weren't previously. So I was just trying to preview it if there are any potential issues with species that, you know, might not have been there in March of 2019 or in the previous studies but would be there now or moving forward naturally. MR. PASSARELLA: Well -- and bear in mind, when the original RLSA program was developed, all these species were considered, and that's why they developed the SSAs and the FSAs and the HSAs. So those were areas where they identified these species were most likely to occur and those areas that would be essential for these species to continue. So the designation of those areas as SSAs and being preserved are helping to address all the listed -species issues. That's why the farm fields were designated as open area, which were designated for development, because they had the least value as habitat for listed species while setting aside the areas that had the highest value for listed species. COMMISSIONER FRY: So one final question: Somewhere in an earlier exhibit it said, I believe, that only 2 percent of the total land mass of the RLSA was a 1.2 or above. Is that accurate? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That was -- there was less than -- sorry. Less than 2 percent of the open area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Of the open area. MR. YOVANOVICH: Of the open area would have scored greater than a 1.2, not only 2 percent of the entire 195,000 acres; 2 percent of the open area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Which would be the areas that --the SSAs would all be open area? MR. YOVANOVICH: The open area is where you do development. That was the pink that I showed you early on. Less than 2 percent of that pink area was going to score greater than a 1.2. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I see. MR. YOVANOVICH: All the other areas that Ken talked about, habitat stewardship, that's where you would expect to score well above -- 1.2 or well above. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So the areas that we can develop -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Less than 2 percent was anticipated to score better than 1.2. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you for the clarifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so you know, I'm sure the rest of us have environmental questions, too, but we're trying to get to the presentation provided by our staff as well, so some of those could be answered, and then we'll get through faster. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm going to hold off on mine. I think most of others will at this point. Where you going next, Bob, or Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to have Dom come up quick, and Lucy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Here's -- I want to break close to noon. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we can definitely get through the next two before noon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I also need to have staff -- the managers of the departments who are going to have a presentation just come up for a quick minute. I want to know what your time frames are. Matt, or whoever's going to -- environmental; economic; roads; are any of you people here? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're all right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would one of you who could represent the time frames you're going to need -- so I can try to figure out how the rest of the day's going to flow. And I'm -- it's going to be in conjunction with yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we set this up, you had asked to have your traffic guy first because Norm is so popular he may not be able to be here all day. Is he going to be able to be here in the afternoon? Page 35 of 89 October 3, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: He will be here all day. We made him less popular. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's becoming as popular as you are, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, that's not fair to say that. Norm's a much nicer guy. CHAII2MAN STRAIN: Who, Norm or you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Matt, can you tell me how long your personnel are going to need for their presentations approximately? MR. McLEAN: Malt McLean, director of Development Review. For the environmental portion, staff has about 10 minutes of presentation, and then we'll be available for any questions afterwards either today or any of the future meetings as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about Transportation? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. Rich asked for two minutes, but I'll need more than that. Probably about 20 or 25. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. We want a thorough understanding of that, because that is an issue that we're all well aware of in the road system. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then, I guess, Amy. MS. SCOTT: Also, our consultants for the transportation consultants are available for the 17th as well if we need to bring them back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to get transportation done today, and we're going to try to get economic; that's what I wanted to ask Amy about. Are your economic people here today? MS. PATTERSON: They are here today. They can be here again if needed. And we don't have a formal presentation, but we're here to answer questions after Lucy makes her presentation or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I needed to know. We've got about 45 minutes of staff presentations. And after lunch at one o'clock time -certain we're going to start with the -- we're going to quickly get through the Logan's Landing, and then we'll go right into the staff presentations, and then we'll start going into the questions. So with that... MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that we'll -- we're going to finish. I think Lucy and Dom could be done by noon. Then Bob's got a few more minutes. And then I would imagine we'll go to lunch, you'll hear your Logan's Landing, then Bob would probably finish it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as we can hit that time frame. Okay. Let's go. Dominick? MR. AMICO: Hi. Dom Amico, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage representing Collier Enterprises. Water management, I've got a slide prepared with what I thought would be important to the Commission. The first bullet point, as you've already heard from Ken, all the land that comprises Rivergrass is currently agricultural. It's an existing operational agricultural water management system. There are preexisting permits over all the agricultural land. They've been in compliance with their permits for years. This agricultural development has been there for years. In 2018 South Florida Water Management District issued a conceptual ERP for the RLW Town, of which Rivergrass is a piece of. Rivergrass is consistent and covered by that permit. It's essentially two basins of the RLW conceptual approval. There are no proposed or existing discharges of stonnwater to Golden Gate Estates. All the stormwater flows into the WRA areas and exits the property at the south end of the Big Cypress stewardship district. Rivergrass -- a key element of Rivergrass is to maintain existing drainage patterns. We use the WRAs for storage, thereby hydrating them, which was an important requirement from the water Page 36 of 89 October 3, 2019 management permit agencies. We've increased water -quality treatment within the project. Currently, the agricultural development doesn't provide water -quality treatment before it discharges into the WRAs. The WRAs are primarily wetlands. We achieve complete water -quality treatment before any discharges into the WRAs. The project, through the Water Management District review process, received considerable scrutiny with regards to our impact or lack thereof on the comprehensive Everglades restoration project locally known as the Picayune Strand project. We were deemed to be consistent with that design. We will not impact the Picayune Strand restoration effort. And from a water -use perspective, the project, as proposed, will considerably reduce water use once the land -use change has been made from agricultural. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all? MR. AMICO: That's all I've got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One question I have. You're addressing us now for water management, which wasn't -- I don't know where you -all thought it fit on the agenda items that we had. I1 isn't traffic. Is it because it's under -- you're coming under environmental? Is that what you're responding to? And the only reason is, we're not going to get a chance to talk to you, then, if we don't ask questions now; is that what it -- MR. AMICO: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. Can you tell me one thing about the map you just had up? The pink line -- well, the purple/pink line, the big long one, that, if I'm not mistaken, is the 21,700 -and -some -odd acres for the stewardship receiving -- for the stewardship district; is that correct? MR. AMICO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it goes all the way down to the Ford test track. MR. AMIGO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that notch going into it is an extension of the Ford test track up and around the boundaries of the test track, but it doesn't include the land outside the boundaries of that test track; is that the way it appears here? MR. AMICO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the applicant owns land almost all the way down to I-75? MR. AMICO: Yes. The area that doesn't get us to I-75 is the test track and the area owned by the federal government. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a related question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Collier Enterprises, does it own directly or indirectly the Rural Village, Bellmar, and Longwater or any of those? MR. AMICO: Well, I don't believe Collier Enterprises, per se, owns anything. There are several subsidiary - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Directly or indirectly? MR. AMICO: Indirectly, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All three of those? MR. AMICO: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it, Dominick, for now. But thank you. We'll know you'll be around if we need you, right? MR. AMICO: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: He'll be here. MS. GALLO: Good morning. My name is Lucy Gallo. I'm a principal with Development Page 37 of 89 October 3, 2019 Planning and Financing Group. We're a national real estate economic consulting firm with nine offices across the country. I prepare fiscal and economic impact analyses for large-scale development and redevelopment projects across the country. My office is based in Orlando. It's a pleasure to be here for the Collier Planning County Commission. There are two requirements that govern the economic assessment that was prepared for Rivergrass. One rests in the Growth Management Plan, which as this slide indicates, the requirement is that the analysis is prepared at the horizon year, which would -- another tern we would call that is the buildout year. The Land Development Code also includes requirement for the economic assessment, and under B you'll see that one of the requirements is if the county does not have a fiscal impact model, that the applicant may submit an alternative model which is approved with a methodology approved and advanced by the county. And the Rivergrass economic assessment was prepared under B because the county does not have a model. The approach from our firm's standpoint to fiscal impact analysis is of utmost importance. Our primary theme is that our analysis is both collaborative and transparent. That has been the approach from kickoff of the project all the way through working with staff and the third -party peer reviewers and their review. Again, we have been using a county -approved methodology and, thirdly, the county did have the analysis undergo a rigorous third -party peer review. The conclusion of the economic assessments indicate on all of the required categories that Rivergrass was either fiscally neutral or fiscally positive as required, and the projected -- this is just a schedule of the projected impact fee revenue that Rivergrass is projected to pay over the course of the buildout period. So that concludes my presentation. Just an overview. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just have a process question. MS. GALLO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In previous applications that we received where we had a fiscal analysis, we received the sheets that told us how the cells were generated; formulas. I didn't get any of that. Do you have a spreadsheet like in Excel or some format that I can go in and look at the cell and see what variables you use to calculate the cell? MS. GALLO: Absolutely. In fact, staffs review and the county's third -party peer reviewers, they have our complete Excel workbook, so they could look behind every number, have all of our supporting documentation. So that's been submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what staff has is now what we have. So could somehow we get a copy of your active spreadsheets so we can look at the cells and understand what variable multipliers you used to get to the numbers you got to? MS. GALLO: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care how it gets here. But before we have the next meeting, it would be nice if we had that. MS. GALLO: Absolutely. The county already has them, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was hard for me to understand how you got to your numbers, and I'd rather not have to ask you how you formulated each cell. MS. GALLO: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: This, I think, would be a good stopping point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. Write that down. It's the first time. MR. YOVANOVICH: If Terri wouldn't mind transcribing that before the lunch hour. Page 38 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. She will, and you'll use it every time. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's break now. We'll come back at 1:00. The time -certain for 1:00 is hopefully a rather short discussion on another application to get it through today's meeting. Thank you all, and see you at 1:00. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:55 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and Commissioner Chraanowski is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. If you'll take your seats, we'll resume the meeting. We're going a little bit out of the last order, as we talked about earlier. We had a time -certain today, and this is for Item 9. -- I'm getting there. 9A3. ***9A3 is for the Logan/Immokalee Planned Unit Development, and it's at the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Spoken with Mr. Hancock, or communicated with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had called Tim Hancock up a couple days ago suggesting he consider being here for this so that we can at least get one thing besides the Rivergrass heard today. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Hancock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's it. Tim -- oh, yeah, you were already sworn in. The presentation's all yours. I want to -- canyou provide about an hour on a one -word change? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chair, the first time in 30 years, I have nothing to add to the application before you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd be disappointed if there was anything you could possibly add. Anybody have any questions of that fine presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a staff report? Thank you, Tim. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there is a staff report. We recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you didn't belabor the point either. With that in mind, is there any member of the public here who would like to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. Seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. Page 39 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of us now to zero. Thank you. Tim, that was the quickest you've ever done. MR. HANCOCK: I make no promises for the other ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Now we'll go back in and we'll resume where we left off on the Rivergrass project. And we had finished up the presentation of the applicant. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we didn't. That's right. Bob was going to have closing comments for the presentation, and then we'll go back to staff for their presentations. Bob. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. So the last few things we want to talk about are the deviations and the juxtaposition of those deviations with respect to the staff position and also the conditions that were attached to your staff report, of which there were 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, these are part of the SRA document? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we have a separate time frame for that document to be discussed. So I'm going to withhold my questions to that, but I appreciate the briefing, because between now and that time it will give us a better understanding of it. MR. MULHERE: Maybe I'll just focus on -- we've been meeting with staff over the last, I'd say, three weeks. We've probably had three or four meetings to discuss where we were separated on some of these issues and clarify them. So under your -- under our SRA document, there are -- the deviations are listed by sort of topical area. Under village center standards, we had asked for a deviation that related to the location of the village center; however, after further reviewing the document and meeting with staff, they concur that the location is not a problem. It is consistent with the LDC. So we will withdraw that, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: This Deviation No. 1? MR. MULHERE: Yes. So we'll just withdraw that one. Deviations 2 and 3 are related, and they're in two separate sections under parking criteria. The LDC, if you look under village, it refers you back to the standards in a town center and town core. The section just refers you back up there. When you go back up to that section, that language appears, the majority of parking spaces shall be provided off street in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings. We'd ask for a deviation to allow that. Both of those deviations are very similar, 2 and 3. So these are Google Earth photos from Ave Maria. Number 1 is the Arthrex building, which you can clearly see has -- now, the terminology is in front of the building. It doesn't say the front yard. It says, no parking in front of the building. And there is parking right there in front of the building. The other photo is the Publix in Ave Maria. And, again, here you have the front of the building right here and, as you can see, there is a fairly substantial bay of parking in front of the building. This perspective down here under the No. 2 right here is a pedestrian perspective from this comer right here looking into the Publix, and the front access points are here and here. So we had a discussion with staff, I think it was day before yesterday, and -- Mr. Bellows, Nancy, and we've come up with an agreeable condition that staff could support this deviation that we are requesting, and that would be that the staff could support parking in front of the building for a retail Page 40 of 89 October 3, 2019 commercial development that includes a grocery anchor. And we're okay with that. CHA R] AN STRAIN: Now -- MR. MULHERE: Shopping center with a grocery store. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just to say, because if you say a retail shopping center with grocery anchor, that theoretically means the whole shopping center. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No, we assumed there would be other, you know, retail outlets or maybe a restaurant or something, but it would -- we anticipate having a grocery store. So getting to neighborhood general standards. Number 1, we're withdrawing that. You know, there actually is no requirement to provide neighborhood goods and services. They're allowed uses. They're not required in the neighborhood general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What number are you on? MR. MULHERE: I'm on 7.21. I'm sorry. Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back up on Number 1 then. Didn't you -- isn't that the one you're withdrawing? MR. MULHERE: We were withdrawing -- hold on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're withdrawing Deviation No. 1. You just explained Deviation 2 and 3. I thought you were going to go to 4. MR. MULHERE: Oh, I missed one. I probably missed one. You're right. Thank you. You're right. Appreciate it. I went one slide too far. There we go. Correct? MR, YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MR. MULHERE: Village Center 7.14. This deals with parking structures. We're going to withdraw that. I mean, just to clarify, the issue was if you built a multifamily -only residential structure, which is allowed, you know, there would be no reason, really, for you to have to put retail on that multifamily -only structure. And you had parking underneath that. It doesn't matter. We're not prepared -- we're not planning on doing that, so we're going to withdraw that deviation. Number 5, this is a significant deviation that is important to us. No one was really certain exactly what the genesis of this four -acre minimum was other than some general concept that it might create smaller buildings in a village. And it also applies in towns, however. You know, the RLSA regulations have block limitations, and they have floor area ratio limitations, and those are the limitations that reduce the mass of buildings and the mass of a grouping of buildings. This particular limitation presents a problem when you are wanting to do something such as tri -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But No. 5 is withdrawn it says, right? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. That's withdrawn, but the same standard is in the neighborhood general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If they're withdrawn, you don't need to explain them to us. MR. MULHERE: All right. No problem. Let's see. I already discussed No. 1. That's being withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should be No. 6. Let's go to 6. MR. YOVANOVICH: Four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four was what we just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. There's a difference between neighborhood general and village center. MR. MULHERE: So we're in Neighborhood General Standards 7.21. Do you have it? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It would be helpful if we could go by the number of the deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Can you tell us what deviation you're going to talk about now? MR. MULHERE: Okay. Number 6. Page 41 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happened to No. 4? MR. MULHERE: Let me get my SRA document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you guys confused yet? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're all confused, so I think we need to recoup. MR. MULHERE: I see where the confusion is. I actually number them in the SRA document this way. That's why -- as you see on the visualizer, that's why I used those numbers. But in the staff report there are different numbers. So I will use -- I will refer to the staff report number, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So can you tell us the ones that we've resolved so far, at least we heard your explanation so far? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where that stands. MR. YOVANOVICH: Based on staffs number or SRA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The document in front of us. Oh, this isn't the deviations that are in the staff report? MR. MULHERE: I'm going to use the staff report, okay? Is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Somehow we've got to tie it back. MR. MULHERE: So if you look at -- the numbers are cross-referenced here. If you look at Deviation No. 1 in the staff report which references -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you put that on the overhead if that's what we're going to use, please. Because No. 1 on here might be different than what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER FRYER: These are withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think so. He's withdrawn this Number 1, but I don't know if he's withdrawn the No. 1 he's now going to talk about. MR. MULHERE: Hold on. It's not that complicated. It's just that the staff report used a different numbering system than we did in the SRA document, and I didn't pick up on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're telling us it's Nancy's fault? MR. MULHERE: No, no. She cross-references them. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: So Deviation No. 1, which is cross-referenced to Section 7.11, which is what I show on the -- is withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about 2 and 3? MR. MULHERE: Two and 3, we have an agreement as I referenced with respect to a shopping center that has a grocery anchor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're still asking for a deviation, but you're just -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- phrasing it differently. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For both 2 and 3? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to give us the refinement of this before next meeting so we can focus on the issues you are going to do next meeting? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be great. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So we're on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four. MR. MULHERE: Deviation 4 is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Slide it up, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Sorry. Page 42 of 89 October 3, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: Withdrawn. MR. MULHERE: Is withdrawn, yeah. Hold on. Deviation 5, is that still in the 7.1.? That's withdrawn, yep. Now we go into neighborhood general standards. And so 7.2 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Deviation 6. MR. MULHERE: Deviation 6, 7.21 in the SRA document -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Withdrawn. MR. MULHERE: -- is withdrawn. Deviation 7 is supported by staff, and we -- so we're going to -- obviously, we feel like we don't really have to discuss that one. It's pretty self-explanatory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if all of us understand it. So even though you and staff come to an agreement, at some point down the road you might want to explain it to us. It doesn't have to be now, but I thought that's what you were going to do during your presentation. MR. MULHERE: I can do that. I have to look at my presentation. MR. BELLOWS: Do you want us to flip back? MR. MULHERE: No, that's all right. I've got it right here. Hold on. I'm looking for it right now. Neighborhood general. Okay. So deviation -- Deviation 7 is the deviation to allow a larger square footage for the village amenity center, and staff supports that. And we have a golf course, and we just need more square footage than 3,000 square feet or 15,000 square feet. It shouldn't be a problem, we don't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we get to our questions it might -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No, I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it might have more answered, so... MR. MIJLHERE: Anything less than that would probably require us to have more, you know, amenity spaces instead of a centralized location compact. Deviation 8 is a deviation from a required 10 -foot minimum side and rear yard setback to allow for a combined setback of either zero or five feet on each side yard in the case of multifamily, and staff was supporting that deviation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Doesn't that apply exclusively to townhomes, though? MR. MULHERE: It applies to that type of multifamily product. Townhome, maybe villas, yes. Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Deviation 9. Okay. So this is one we were talking about just a little while ago. This is the maximum multifamily lot size which the LDC limits to four acres. And again, this presents a bit of a problem in the same type of development that you just referenced, which would be townhomes or, you know, attached product or even four-plexes, six-plexes or eight-plexes. Because if you have to create four -acre lots to accommodate, say, a 24 -unit or a 34 -unit, you know, development, you now are inserting artificially additional side yards that otherwise wouldn't be required if the lot size was simply, you know, not restricted to four acres. So you're consuming more land, whereas in anywhere else you would not have to do that, and it doesn't really make any sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a graphic or something that -- I'm trying to picture what you're trying to say. MR. MULHERE: What I'm trying to say is if you have to build a four -acre maximum lot and you were intending to do, let's say, 16 acres, you would now have three -- four; four four -acre lots. And on those side lot lines, you would have to provide side yard setbacks. You would not have to do that if you simply came in for a Site Development Plan on the whole 16 acres. It doesn't change what the product is. It doesn't change the massing of the product. It only requires extra side -yard setbacks and buffers; buffers, landscape buffers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we get -- yeah. Page 43 of 89 October 3, 2019 MR. MULHERE: So, I mean, I can prepare a drawing for you to bring to the next meeting. It just seems -- it seems unwarranted, and staff agreed but with one condition, and what they agreed was that that relaxation could be up to 25 acres within a half mile of the village center. Because that's where the multifamily or the more intense residential development will occur. So you're supposed to go from the town center out to a more intense product, and on the edges would be the least intense. And so if you look at the site plan -- I've just got to get to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to go back a ways. Does anybody else understand what he's saying? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you explain it in laymen's terms? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Doesn't it have to do with buffers and setbacks? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: If we were to do a standard multifamily project, which would include apartments, you couldn't have an -- no apartment complex is going to be four acres. So staff told us they wanted us to provide a diversity of housing. We agreed to do a minimum of 250 multifamily units, which is the typical three or more in a complex. So if you wanted to have a condominium complex, you would have -- if you had to divide it into four -acre parcels, you would -- they would be four standalone acres. So you'd have side -yard setbacks, the buffers. So you would no longer have a condominium, multifamily project, or an apartment complex because you can't build those on four -acre parcels, was the concept. So we wanted to be able to provide that type of multifamily development within the village. Staff said, what you had asked for was unlimited. Would you agree to cap the maximum size of a development? We said, how about 25 acres? They said fine. They also said we wanted to be in closer proximity to the village center so we're at a half a mile within the village center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, basically, you want to do one multifamily parcel of 25 acres for 250 units, which is 10 units per acre, and you want to put it all on one location on the property; is that what you're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We want to have that option. It could be 125 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to understand how it can apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did anybody go back to consider that the RLSA and what it may have meant for this? Because you're coming from a series of buildings that would be smaller in stature to a massing. That may be why the four acres was limited against the 25. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the exact discussion we had with staff, and staff says they did not believe the intent was to prohibit apartment complexes from being built in a village. So they said that made sense to them. That's why they no longer opposed the deviation we had requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Well -- MR. MULHERE: I just want to also restate, there are a number of provisions that deal with massing. Remember, there are maximum block lengths. So you can't have huge blocks. They're limited by the SRA; we're consistent with those. There are other limitations that address the massing of either a group of structures or structures. I mean, this is a very rudimentary drawing, but what I was trying to show -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an understatement. MR. MULHERE: I know. I know. What I was trying to show you, if each of these is -- I know they don't look like it, but they were equal size at four acres, you would then -- and you had a lot line here, you would then have to provide buffers on each side of those lot lines as well as setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if those lines were gone, what could you do? MR. MULHERE: You do not have internal buffers if they're gone. You build your buildings, Page 44 of 89 October 3, 2019 and you only have a separation between structures. You don't have, you know, the standard setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the structure, though, could be four lots wide. All four lots. You could start out with the left end and go all the way to the right end. MR. MULHERE: Attached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the piece I was wondering about. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm glad I can provide some comic relief as well as, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you want to ask him which way was north? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not again. MR. MULHERE: So besides, I found this bolt and screw under my chair. I wonder if someone's been -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl brought his -- yeah, it's Karl again with his tools. He got something through downstairs. COMMISSIONER FRY: Retaliation. MR. MULHERE: All right. Let me get back to -- I'm way down this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should be on No. 10, I think. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm getting there. I have to use both presentations, Mr. Strain, because I need to know what -- we're close. Okay. No. 10 is transportation. That is a -- that has been coordinated with the fire district as well as the transportation staff. It is to allow cul-de-sacs up to 1,200 feet in length. That's the maximum that could be supported by the fire district, and so that's -- we reduced our request to 1,200, so that was supported. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the typical of what we do in the urban area too now, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. You could do longer, but you have to provide a turnaround. We just chose to go with the shorter cul-de-sac. Number 11, which is 732 in the SRA document, is a deviation from the typical cross-section provided in the SRA. There was a local street cross-section. We asked for a deviation, which reduced the planting area adjacent -- between the sidewalk and the travel lanes from six feet to five feet. We had a condition from the landscape reviewer to install root barriers for the larger trees if we plant larger trees in the -- street trees in that five feet. We agreed to that, and so that one is approved by staff. The travel lanes in our cross-section are I 1 feet versus 10 feet. That's the only difference. But the width is 48 feet. And I have an example of that cross-section. Do you want me to show you the cross-section? I see Mark thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- you -- this is going a little bit out of the sequence I expected, so I'm trying to figure out when is the best time for this board to ask you questions about these deviations. MR. MULHERE: I only have a few more to go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was waiting for the SRA document. We're not even going to get to that today. So that's the only reason I'm perplexed. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just have a couple more, and then we'll go over the staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for our -- for the board members here, if you guys have specific questions about these deviations, since we're getting into such a detailed discussion, then we might as well jump in and ask Bob any questions you may have. I know, Karl, you don't want -- you like to go out of sequence, but you're more than welcome to. Page 45 of 89 October 3, 2019 I have a lot of questions. I'm probably going to save them up like we had planned to, but you -all can do what you want. I didn't expect this much detail on this part of it, today on this issue, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's what I'd like to do. The rest of the deviations, if I ran ahead, staffs recommending approval on. So if we can hold off on detailed questions that the commission may have regarding the deviations, let's just do that. The last thing we would like to just finish our presentation was to go over the various staff recommendations where we agree or disagree or we've reached agreement over the last few weeks. Then we'll be done with our presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll go to staff presentations. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then we can go to staff reports and then do the sequence we had previously agreed to, which was traffic, environment, Lucy. And then if we're not -- if there's more time left, which if I'm a betting man, there won't be, we'll get into the questions you may have on the SRA document next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would expect that, yeah. That's what I thought this would -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have a specific presentation on the SRA document because it's basically the LDC requirements, unless there's a deviation. So that's probably where the deviation discussion will be combined, Mr. Strain. Does that make sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does. That's why -- I didn't know you were going to go this far with these, but that's fine. I think you should continue. So this will give us a better understanding, and when we read it over the next couple of weeks, we'll know what we're reading. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And what has been resolved or hasn't been resolved from the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so you know, it doesn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If staff agrees with something, it doesn't mean we're not going to have questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. I'm just talking about from a staff perspective we resolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then when you talk about the staff recommendations, make sure you talk about both comprehensive and zoning, please, if you're going to go that route. MR. MULHERE: Yep. That's where we're going now. So as Rich said, the rest of the deviations -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got to ask first. The staff report -- let me read you the date so I understand what you just said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You better not walk away from that mic and talk. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know, I know. Sorry, Terri. I apologize. I listened to the rules earlier. I just ignored it. There's a staff report dated September 19th, 2019. That's the staff report we're addressing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the date? MR. YOVANOVICH: September 19th, 2019. It was the staff report that you guys received. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'll tell you what we received. Calm down a minute. Let me -- we received -- MR. YOVANOVICH: My bad. My bad. I read you the hearing date. My mistake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is September 10th, 2019, is the date of the report. I read you the hearing date, which was originally -- it was prepared for the September 19th, 2019. That's the staff report that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Rich -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- were responding to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to tell you the three that I read. You just listen to me for a Page 46 of 89 October 3, 2019 minute. You can tell me which one you want me to use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8/19/19. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want you to use that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I received in the first staff report. The one after that, or before that, was 6/4/19 and another one was 9/15/19. So I've got three staff reports, and none of them match up with what you've got. MR. YOVANOVICH: The only one that I'm aware of is the, quote, final staff report for this project, is dated September 10th, 2019. MS. GUNDLACH: Mark, are you referring to SRA documents? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Not staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm referring -- yeah, the SRA documents dated differently than staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, they are, because we have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure we're talking the same language, because sometimes we don't. The recommendations that we're talking about would be found -- now, this is where I'm sure we'll all get confused is Page 38 of 40 and Page 39 of 40 of that September 10th report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are the recommendations we're going to go through, which I understand is a consolidation of all of the staff analysis that was done, and we're down to these 11 recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what we plan on going through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at some point between now and next -- the end of today, can you -all figure out which staff report we're supposed to be reading -- not staff report -- SRA document, since there are three of them in our packet. I'm not sure which one you're going to be using when you walk through and explain things, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: We will -- we will do that, Mr. Strain, so we're all reading from the same SRA document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next meeting I'll come prepared to talk from the right document. MR. YOVANOVICH: Nothing really changed except acreage between the different versions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So are we good? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand where you're coming from now, yeah. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So, again, we just want to go over the -- I think there was 11 recommendations attached to the staff report. The first was all formal SSAs have been approved and stewardship credits submitted before or current with the SRA. We have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, weren't you going to finish up the deviations first? MR. MULHERE: Oh, I thought we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You left off at No. 12. MR. MULHERE: Well, the rest of them all staff report (sic), so we'll just wait until you -all go over them and if you have your own questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the deviations from 12 on have been withdrawn. MR. MULHERE: No. They've been recommended for approval by staff. Page 47 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You don't want to explain those to us, though? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I thought you would prefer to have that discussion when we're in the SRA document itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you got back up, I thought you said we're going to finish describing the deviations and then we're going to go into the staff report recommendations. MR. YOVANOVICH: I actually said we're going to not talk about them anymore. We'll just deal with them as part of the SRA document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. We're going to get to them one way or another. Just trying to make sure I understand when. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Condition No. 2, the deviations, development standards, SRA statement of suitability listed under the consistency review findings above, this would be a Comprehensive Plan issue or comment, are removed or revised as discussed. We have met with staff, and based on those meetings, which was September 16th, Collier Enterprises and staff agree the development standards, the land uses, and the deviations meet the LDC requirements with the exception of a discussion that still remains to be had with a couple of the deviations where staff was still recommending denial, and I believe there's only really one of those, maybe two. There were just two issues where staff was still recommending denial where we didn't have concurrence, and I'm going to go over those in a little more detail. Three is the ratio of multifamily to single-family dwelling units has increased to a meaningful level. Again, we met with staff and asked what -- there is no requirement in the LDC. There is no definition of what is a meaningful level. This is also a Comprehensive Planning comment, I believe. And so -- and David Weeks was in the meeting that we had, so he's certainly free to, you know, just chime in on any of these things, obviously. But it was our understanding after that meeting that it was agreed that there is no definition of meaningful level. There has to be a mixture. We're providing a mixture. We have a minimum. And staff is in agreement with that. The companion developer agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. It is largely completed. I think there is still a little bit of refinement that has to occur within that document. But we did include the latest revision. The County Attorney had some revisions to that, and we provided a few edits back. So we are very close, and hopefully we'll have that finalized for your final review. Just to summarize, at no cost to the county, we agreed to provide 100 -foot of right-of-way for Oil Well Road widening and 100 foot of right-of-way for Immokalee Road plus the water management for both of those. So that's 45 acres of right-of-way adjacent to Rivergrass for Big Cypress Parkway and 170,000 for mitigation for the two intersections that are impacted by this project. So there is one issue that is outstanding, and the county has requested right-of-way extending beyond the adjacency of Big Cypress Parkway to Rivergrass, and we do not agree to provide that right-of-way at this point in time. And it's really, I suppose, a legal discussion, so if you want some further comments, there's a few lawyers here that can speak to that, but that's our position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be talking about traffic as soon as you get done. So we'll get into it with the traffic issue. I want to see what staffs position is on it. MR. MULHERE: This is the other -- I mentioned there was a couple of points of disagreement. This maybe is another one. And 1 believe this is primarily coming from the transportation review. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, I'm going to ask if we can go back to the previous subject just to be sure -- MR. MULHERE: Sure. Page 48 of 89 October 3, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: This has to do with the right-of-way. It's the applicant's position that they would be willing to provide the right-of-way to the extent that it is adjacent to Rivergrass. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, the right-of-way would be 100 feet; is that right? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's actually wider than that, and that's why the acreage in the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Went down. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- village went down, because you needed more width. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. But 100 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an average of 148 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is this going to be contributed -- donated to the county or sold to the county? MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be -- the county will either give us impact fee credits or pay us cash depending on the timing of when this occurs based on two appraisals. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: The expectation is impact fee credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it will be based on two independent appraisers coming up with the proper value for the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So I'm getting back to this question of interconnection. We -- I had discussed the interconnection previously and showed you all of the locations where we had internal interconnection and external interconnection either, you know, to Oil Well Road or to the proposed Big Cypress Parkway connecting to those Estates streets that we mentioned. This request is to provide interconnection to the north, east, and south. And as we discussed with you, and you can see on the exhibit on the right here, there are Water Retention Areas. See if I can -- right along here all the way around. And there is also a proposed SRA -- MR. YOVANOVICH: SSA. MR. MULHERE: Excuse me -- SSA, thank you, in this region abutting that. So we don't really think it makes any sense to extend the roadway through those Water Retention Areas that also have habitat protection values, and through a -- potentially through an SRA -- SSA. Excuse me. So our position is that it really doesn't make any sense. There's really no significant benefit to that. You will have, ultimately, an extension of Big Cypress Parkway that will extend north and south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just said you weren't going to provide this. MR. MULHERE: Not as part of this project, but ultimately that will occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if something disagrees in the future and we don't build it, how will that work? Say you -- we don't -- something -- the deal doesn't work. Say we -- neither parties come to a conclusion. MR. MULHERE: Well, there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you control the stewardship area. Why wouldn't we just solve it all now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Two different issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What are they? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's interconnection other than Big Cypress Parkway, which the staff is saying they want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean there's interconnection? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're asking us -- Page 49 of 89 this. October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Give me a different color. Give me yellow. They're asking us to connect CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And connect this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And connect this way. And we're -- what we're saying is: The real connection happens this way, which is Big Cypress Parkway, and we're fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the interconnecting through WRAs to other farmlands that we're saying, why would we go through those environmentally sensitive lands to make that happen when this piece can just simply connect there to Oil Well Road? That's -- thafs that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That clears it up. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're welcome. MR. MULHERE: So No. 6 is a condition that says prior to issuance of the first DO, a Listed Species Management Plan must be provided for review, and in response, those are covered by the federal and state agencies. We have to comply with that. We will have management plans as required when we go through that process, and we will provide those to the county. Number 7, this has already been corrected. This was, I guess, an older comment. We did correct the table to reflect the 105,000 square feet versus the original report. Both the economic assessment and the public facilities report had reflected 200,000. Those have been corrected. We've addressed this issue, and staff agrees. Okay. So this gets to the cross-section that I mentioned before. I'm just reading the comments to make sure. I think there's some -- these are just some minor corrections to this cross-section which staff has blessed, and we can make those minor changes. As I said, the width of the cross-section right here is 48 feet. Travel lanes are 11; here and here. You have -- I think the original cross-section did not anticipate SRAs being served by county utilities. And there are separation requirements between various types of utility lines. So this cross-section addresses those issues and, again, has 11 -foot travel lanes rather than 12 -foot. So we've addressed those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are various figures in the LDC relating to street cross-sections. Which one of those are you suggesting to modify? MR. MULHERE: This is the local cross-section. I think it's No. 7 under neighborhood general with a 46 -foot right-of-way cross-section total width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're actually increasing it to 48? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Bob, are these standards for the roadways inside the SRA? Is that what you're showing? MR. MULHERE: These are. This is for local -- only local roads. The only deviation -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Inside the village? MR. MULHERE: Yes, correct. This is just -- No. 9 is just some language that needs to be slightly corrected. I think we've already addressed this, but we will make sure that if we haven't we certainly will. I believe we did already address that issue. So because the LDC prohibits separate potable water and reuse water lines, we are asking for a deviation to allow reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances to not necessarily be maintained by Collier County. And, actually, it was the county utilities that asked us to put this deviation in because that language exists. So we've done that. Page 50 of 89 October 3, 2019 Number 10 is -- it references the negotiated interlocal agreement between the Collier County Water and Sewer District and Big Cypress Stewardship District, which has to be adopted along with the SRA ordinance, and we understand that. And No. 11, this appeared -- this is a staff comment that indicates -- or it conditions us to do a housing needs analysis -- whoops. I'm sorry. I don't know why that went off. It's on silent -- a housing needs analysis to estimate -- all right. I don't know whafs going on with that. I'm sorry. MS. GUNDLACH: You want me to take it? MR. MULHERE: Can anything else happen? It's on silent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're triggering Siri to respond to something. MR. MULHERE: Aye, yai, yai. So let me get back to what I was doing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe she could do the presentation. MR. MULHERE: Maybe better, huh? A housing needs analysis be -- the recommendation is that a housing needs analysis be performed to estimate the affordable housing demand and to create a plan to address that supply of affordable housing units for Rivergrass. There is no requirement to do that. There's no requirement to provide affordable housing in an SRA. There's no requirement to do an affordable housing study. So we met with staff, and they concur. There is no requirement. Now, staff is certainly free to recommend something, but it should not be a condition of approval since it isn't a requirement. We met with David Weeks and Ray Bellows and Nancy, and David concurred that staff should not be conditioning approval based on this requirement. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You do have a diversity responsibility. MR. MULHERE: We do have a requirement to have a diverse -- yes -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We meet that. MR. MULHERE: -- and we meet that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And you have an obligation to be innovative in reaching solutions to problems? MR. MULHERE: Yes. And -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But we don't have an obligation to provide affordable housing, and the code is clear. The only time we have to do affordable housing is if we try to do a density bonus above four units per acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just pointing that out. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have no issue with the diversity, and staff has determined that we do meet the diversity requirement based upon what we're providing, and staff also acknowledges they can't condition a recommendation of approval upon our doing a housing needs analysis and addressing affordable housing. CHAIRMANSTRAIN: And just so you're --and I don't know if you recall or not, Ave Maria did provide affordable housing. In fact, quite a bit. Both --at least a couple different forms of mitigation. But I'm trying to think. I think that was because of the way they did their economic feasibility. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. What happened was Ave Maria used to be a DRI, and when it was a DRI -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, you're right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- you have a different review under DRI. And if you remember, we've abandoned -- Ave Maria abandoned the DRI, and the affordable housing requirement went away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tbey did use the affordable housing segment, though, in their FIAM to justify some of their financial impact. MR. YOVANOVICH: They may have, but it was also because it was a DRI, it went through a different review process. And as you know, SRAs are no longer subject to a DRI review. So the tie was Page 51 of 89 October 3, 2019 through the DRI process, not through the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Terri, please don't transcribe this. You're right again. MR. YOVANOVICH: Twice today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twice. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't hear that again (sic). Could you repeat that? MR. MULBERE: So I did just want to comment on the innovation. The final order called for innovative planning techniques. Rich went over those. He talked about various -- including, but not limited to, various types of things. And subsequent to the Comp Plan being amended to adopt the RLSA program, the LDC amendments were amended -- were adopted. So the way it works is the LDC implements the Comp Plan, and that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that wraps up your presentation -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on all the subjects so far. And we're going to have some of this repeated when we get into the individual section that we're going to be talking about. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand that, Mr. Strain. And, you know, just to quickly summarize, you know, the review process is different because we're an SRA for designation, and it's a very -- it's a more limited review based upon the Growth Management Plan and the LDC between the submittal documents and our presentation, and I'm sure future questions -- we believe -- actually, we don't believe. We know we meet all the requirements in the Growth Management Plan and the LDC and, again, we'll request that you recommend approval of the SRA document as reviewed and presented with the modifications that we've talked about today. MR. KLATZKOW: And just for the record, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with the issue being raised with affordable housing. It does require diversity. The Board of County Commissioners could very easily rule that diversity means different types of housing, including affordable, not just, well, single-family, multifamily type of housing. So that -- ultimately, that will be an issue for the Board of County Commissioners whether or not it's required to put in affordable housing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so -- the part that I suggested he was right on was the fact it was done under the DRI originally. So certainly that's where I was limiting my correction. With that, we'll move to -- unless anybody has any questions of the applicant at this time. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go next to -- since we're going to start with the traffic, before we ask the applicant our traffic questions, I'd like to get staff to provide the information that they have prepared, and that will at least answer some of our questions, so -- or either create more. We'll see where it goes. And members of the Planning Commission, at this point, from here forward, as each presenter's presenting or finishes, whatever they prefer, let's start asking our questions, because we've got the bulk of it, and we're ready to go into it, if you want to, so -- including you, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you for inviting me into the conversation. I decline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trinity? MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon. Once again, for the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. And I want to start by saying thank you to Mr. Mulhere for giving me a little informational session on how to use the visualizer up here, so hopefully I won't muck it up and I'll know where north is. Let me start by -- by the way, don't take directions from him, obviously. Page 52 of 89 October 3, 2019 Let me start by introducing the team that I have with me today. I have Mike Sawyer from our Capital Project Planning team; you see him frequently. Greg Root from AIM Engineering; he was responsible for reviewing the Traffic Impact Statement. And I also have Bill Grainer from Jacobs Engineering who worked very closely with staff with regard to the Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way. So I'm going to take the items out of sequence from our staff report, but -- so I could go into the landowner contribution agreement and stay within that. So I'm going to touch on the interconnection first and foremost, and then we'll dive into the landowner contribution agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to be talking to us about the relevant routing and traffic impacts on the potential new roads and that kind of stuff, too? MS. SCOTT: I'm going to be going through that, yes. I'll be talking about Randall Boulevard, some studies that we've done as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: So Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element encourages us or requires us to look for interconnections. Within the Master Mobility Plan that the county undertook probably about five or six years ago, there was a specific section within the Master Mobility Plan, Section 4, where there was sub -area modeling that was completed by Tindale Oliver, who was the consultant who completed that study, to look at the RLSA and if it would be beneficial to have interconnections within that area. And so this was a specific sub -area transportation model, and the results of that model so that there would be a decrease in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled if we provided interconnections between the villages and the towns. These interconnections are invaluable to us. And once the environment's built, we can't get them back. If you look at Immokalee Road, you look at Airport Road, any of our major arterials here in the urban area, we have communities right next to each other. And if they want to go to the commercial that's next door, they're forced out onto that main arterial roadway, even for those very short localized trips. So that's why we're asking for the interconnections. So this is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you -- did you -- would you prefer to get through your presentation or if we have questions along the way, what would you like? MS. SCOTT: Maybe we could do it by sections, because I have a little bit more to talk about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll stop when you get to a section, and we'll see if we have questions. I don't want to miss anything. MS. SCOTT: So this is the Big Cypress Stewardship District area in red. You've seen this as part of the applicant's presentation. But I also want to bring up the prior plan that was provided to us, which is Rural Lands West. Rural Lands West was definitely a town, but it had an interconnection, you'll notice, in this area as well as to the south. And as was shown by the applicant earlier this morning, this is Rivergrass, the next village, and the next village, and these are exhibits that they've provided to us through various meetings. So if I put these side by side, we were able to traverse this area as part of the town. It was still going to be the WRA and all of that but -- so we feel that there's still the value there. And if you zoom into the aerial, it looks like there's maybe an old farm road that's there, so it's disturbed within that area as well as it looks like as well here in the aerials. So we think that those are valuable to be able to allow the folks that are in the adjacent town or, I'm sorry, the adjacent villages to be able to get to the commercial that's within this area and vice versa, because there'll be commercial there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which one was that? Was that Bellmar or -- Bellmar. MS. SCOTT: Bellmar. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Is the same thing true in the case of Longwater? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Longwater is the northern one. MS. SCOTT: I'm sorry. This one's Longwater. So it would be Longwater. Page 53 of 89 October 3, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. SCOTT: Bellmar, I think, is a bit more difficult, but we will move through that with the next village as it comes in. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So, in other words, for our purposes of considering this project, we can assume that Longwater, that's the north one, and Rivergass are going to be interconnected at least on the south side of Oil Well? MS. SCOTT: That's what staff is seeking is that there be an interconnection. COMMISSIONER FRYER: To me that's fundamental. Just an observation. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MS. SCOTT: And that completes the discussion on the interconnection section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: And then I get into the next item is the land contribution agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's make sure -- any other questions on the interconnection? Ned, did you have, do you say? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One of the things that is most troublesome for me about what is being proposed is the lack of interconnection as compared to what we would have in the case of a full-fledged town. And as has been said previously, what we do or don't do with respect to this project -- I don't necessarily call it precedent, but in a sense informally it will be relied upon and looked to by subsequent developers, some of whom are the very same commercial interests that are before us now. And I find it very troubling that the integration, the interconnectivity, the walkability, the bikeability that would have been available in the case of a town, with these unconnected -- potentially unconnected villages, you lose that, and that is a fundamental concern that I have with this position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I know this is kind of a little bit different process, so I'm -- should we stay -- can we address topic by topic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I was going to suggest -- in fact, I was going to suggest one of you get at each mic so if we have questions better answered by the applicant, so be it, and we can also get input from staff. And I think it's important we -- that will move faster then. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to finish my question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- if I may. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I just want to be able to respond on topic. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. The 400 -pound gorilla in this application is called Oil Well Road. And it's now, I think, two lanes. It's going to become four lanes, possibly six lanes at some point in the future. The speed limit on that road is 55 miles an hour, and the traffic that goes up and down that road is industrial tractor -trailer -type traffic proceeding at a very high rate of speed. And to me the issue of interconnectivity is -- I just don't see any possible solution with Oil Well Road right in the middle unless you were to do an underpass of some kind, because you do not have interconnectivity with Oil Well, period. MR. YOVANOVICH: So can you put the town back up there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the town. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. Is it appropriate now for me to respond? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- Ned, who are you directing your -- do you have a specific need to -- or just anybody -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I just thought it was more of a comment that I -- Page 54 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to hear from the applicant, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. A couple of important things: There is no town before you. The town project was a very different project which included in the area that Ms. Scott was directing you to for the need for interconnection of two million square feet of retail, office, businesses park uses that are not before you in the Rivergrass Village. In Rivergrass Village what you have before you is a 21 -acre village center. Totally different projects. Totally different on an economic scale. The interconnectivity nearest Oil Well Road was a pedestrian interconnection, not a vehicular interconnection to get to two million square feet of retail, office, business park uses; different economies of scale for providing that interconnection. The need to keep traffic off the road to get to a 21 -acre village center is totally different than what the town was, and the town is not before you and will not be before you. The other villages will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis. They will be required to provide their own retail goods and services for that village. But there is absolutely no reason to interconnect those villages to try to get through an environmentally sensitive area for cars to go to a 21 -acre village center when the other villages will have their own village centers to address those needs, when you can very easily interconnect up and down Big Cypress Parkway to go from village to village if those other villages go through the process and ultimately get approved. I think it's fundamentally improper to assume anything on what's going to happen on the two other villages. MR. KLATZKOW: I just find this remarkable. This is a Planning Commission. By your very nature you're here to plan, all right. So if they want to balkanize this process by chopping this up into little PUDs, because that's essentially what we're doing here, that's fine, all right. They've got their rights under the LDC to put together a village if they want to. But at the end of the day, this is a Planning Commission. And if you guys are going to be planning for misery here because we're not putting together the appropriate road system, then 20 years from now people should come down here and just say, shame on you people, all right. And shame on, you know, anybody who, you know, would be planning for misery here, all right. The county's not doing this because, you know, we believe that we're going to punish the developer or because we don't think it's really necessary but it would be nice. The county is asking for these interconnections and these roads because at the end of the day we're not about the developer here. We're about the people who are going to have to live there 20, 30 years from now, and you may be talking 20,000 people out there, all right. So if you get 20,000 people out there and you don't have a road system for them, we are planning for misery. And this is the first and best chance, maybe the last chance we have of putting together a decent road system, period. And if you want to say that that's unlawful, you can't do that, that's fine. We can argue that in a courtroom for the next couple of years. Okay by me. But, you know, don't balkanize this and just say you guys can't talk about it. This is a Planning Commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we will bring up the subjects that we feel necessary to bring up as it goes along. And I'm not saying you told us -- I'm just telling you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to continue bringing up the subjects, so we just need the best answers we can get. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I fully -- I didn't mean to talk over you, especially -- I agree with that. What we're telling you is it's bad planning. There is no legitimate planning reason to require us to Page 55 of 89 October 3, 2019 build a road through environmentally sensitive lands to claim that you're how going to generate a lot of traffic to a 21 -acre village center. Our traffic analysis -- and I'm sure that Mr. Trebilcock and Ms. Scott and all our experts will show you we analyzed the full traffic impacts to Oil Well Road and every other road related to Rivergrass. We've done that, and we're saying there's no legitimate planning reason to force a roadway connection through sensitive lands. We can all agree to disagree. That's our position, and I don't think it's bad planning to say you don't put a road through a sensitive area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But just to cut to the quick: Your position is you're not willing to do the interconnection? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not to the east where they're asking us to do that, because we don't think it's a legitimate request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to the next question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to ask if I may respond to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course, you can. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And when it comes to the legality, if you will, of what is being proposed, the standards that have been set in the Land Development Code, particularly 4.08.07, there's a litany here of provisions that I don't think your client has come close to, and I'm going to read them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 4.08.07.J.3.A.2, villages shall be designed in a compact pedestrian -friendlier form. You've got Oil Well Road. .07.C.2, villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathways system serving all residential neighborhoods. Continuing. The transportation network shall provide for a high level of mobility for all residents through a design that respects the pedestrian and accommodates the automobile. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. The goal of the Transportation Element, as stated in that element, is to plan for, develop, and operate a safe, efficient, and cost-effective transportation system that provides for both the motorized and nonmotorized movement of people and goods throughout Collier County. Objective 10 of the Transportation Element: Encourage safe and efficient mobility for the rural public that remains consistent with the character of the rural areas of Collier County. Objective 7, encourage safe and convenient on-site traffic circulation through the development process. RLSA Overlay 1, the perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from a higher density and intensity of uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity of uses on adjoining property. The problem I have with this is when you do balkanize it or carve it into village pieces, what really, in the view of many planners, is contrary to what would be in the best interest of the county, and that would be to have fewer number of towns rather than lots and lots of villages. The problem is is that you're going to have, in effect, urban sprawl, and you're going to have developments that are going to require people to leave their subdivisions, leave their villages in order to satisfy their needs for basic goods and services because they're not provided within walking distance or biking distance. And, to me, there's a lot that I could say positively about that proposal, and I hope I'll have time to as this goes on. But right now I'm focusing on what I see is the biggest problem, and that big problem is Oil Well Road. And there's nothing that is being proposed that is innovative that solves that problem such as an underpass of some kind and, by splitting these off into villages that are adjoining or abutting one another, you lose the connectivity that you would have with a town. Page 56 of 89 October 3, 2019 MR, YOVANOVICH: So let me take several of those. I don't -- I couldn't write as fast as you could speak, but I think I got a lot of them. Big picture: Let's start with the basic premise of the RLSA that was established by the Board of County Commissioners, and it's an incentive -based program and it's a voluntary program. And the Board of County Commissioners says there's four options for an SRA: Town is one, village is another, hamlet's another, and compact rural development is the fourth. There is nothing in the Land Development Code that requires anybody to develop a town. So my client has every right to come in and ask for a village. That's what they're doing. You may prefer a town, but that's not your choice. And I don't mean it adversarial. I mean, you, the global group. We're allowed to ask for a village, and if we meet the requirements for a village, you consider each application individually. We meet the requirements of a village. Hang on a second. MR. KLATZKOW: But there has to be interconnectivity. MR. YOVANOVICH: You didn't let me finish. As much as you may want a town and you may think that's the best interest of Collier County, you can't force a property owner to do a town. Next -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just read the ordinances. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did, too. And it doesn't --you show me where -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just did. MR. YOVANOVICH: --in the Growth Management Plan it requires us to build a town. It doesn't. So let me go to the next issue: Interconnectivity as far as sidewalks. Your Land Development Code has cross-sections for neighborhood general roads. It requires a sidewalk on both sides of the street. We provide sidewalks on both sides of the street. Your Land Development Code addresses how pedestrians are to be kept safe, and they are. There's sidewalks on both sides of every street. So your pedestrian traffic is taken care of through your own Land Development Code mandated cross-sections that we are agreeing to. We did not ask for a deviation from providing sidewalks except where we put a 10 -foot pathway when there was no houses on that side of the street. So we meet your Land Development Code mandated pedestrian interconnectivity. Your Land Development Code prescribes cross-sections for roads. It does not require separate bicycle paths. We meet your code requirements for neighborhood general. Neighborhood general is a context zone not only in villages. It's also a context zone in towns. Now, there is nothing in this code that requires for a village or a town for that effect that people walk to the town center or that houses have to be within so many feet or miles or whatever distance from the village center for a village or the town center for a town or the town core for a town. People can walk if they want to on the sidewalks that we're providing, but there's no distance requirement for us to meet that. We are consistent with the code regarding your cross-section with your block size. All of those develop standards that are in your Land Development Code that, by definition, if we meet those standards, we're consistent with your Growth Management Plan. There is nothing in your Land Development Code or your Growth Management Plan that says villages shall be interconnected through sensitive environmental lands. It doesn't exist. It's not there. In fact, what Trinity put up on the screen says you'll encourage interconnection, and you defer to the Land Development Code where that interconnection will be mandated. Now, subject to being corrected -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are going to be corrected, so -- 9.3 does not say what that element says. I mean, it actually says the county shall require, whenever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the network. So it doesn't -- that's not quite encouraging. That's saying "shall require." Page 57 of 89 October 3, 2019 And I kind of want to -- it really falls back on Ned asking a question that probably should have been caught by Comprehensive Planning if it's a GMP issue. So I guess, Trinity, the question should be is -- does -- did you run this by David Weeks or Corby or anybody from Comp Planning to talk about the application of 9.3 in the way that Ned is suggesting it so we can get to the resolution or bottom interpretation of this issue? MS. SCOTT: Mr. Weeks is coming up but, yes, we have talked about the interconnection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- because I don't believe this was one of the -- I didn't -- it may have been in your Comprehensive Planning item, but we haven't got to that yet, so... MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section, the Growth Management manager. We didn't -- Trinity and I and, I think, Michael Sawyer did talk about interconnections in addition to Policy 9.3 that's on the screen from the transportation element. You might recall that there's also a policy under Objective 7 in the Future Land Use Element. That object -- that policy within the Future Land Use Element is where it states it encourages interconnections. So I agree with Mr. Yovanovich, it is not a requirement, but it's something encouraged. So to me that's where professional planners and, ultimately, hearing bodies can make a judgment decision as to whether or not we believe an interconnection should or should not be provided. And staff agrees that it's appropriate to provide the interconnections as Trinity was saying earlier. If we look to the land to the north, it's designated open on the Future Land Use Map, the area closest to the future of Big Cypress Parkway. And so we believe that it's reasonable to assume that some day in the future there may be an SRA there having an interconnection would be beneficial. Similarly, to the south, there's open lands further to the south. We believe that at some point in the future there may be an SRA there. And to the east, through the environmentally sensitive areas, that's a little bit more tricky, but if -- most particularly if there's already a disturbed area there -- I think Trinity mentioned that there appeared to be an old farm road there. If that's true, if there is some disturbance there, that especially, in my opinion, leads some credence to providing an interconnection. But Trinity has already indicated to you the benefits, I think, of the interconnections, and that's to keep traffic off of Big Cypress Parkway just like we have here, as she's already told you. Along 41, Airport Road, we have lots of developments that don't have interconnections. And so all of the traffic is forced out onto the major roadway. Whether that is to go to a commercial center close by or recreational area or to visit your neighbor that lives in the next development over there, we believe there's benefit to having interconnections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, David, I've got a couple follow-up. 9.3 is in front of us, and you referred to Objective 7, which "encourages." 9.3 says "shall require." Which one is the most applicable? I mean, they seem to be conflicting. If one requires and the other encourages, that's different language. MR. WEEKS: I don't think they're in conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Encouraging is just that. And if some other policy takes that to the level of requirement, I don't see that as conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're saying is that the requirement is there even though the objective says encourage? MR. WEEKS: In the two different elements, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I just want to mention, that's probably what Rich is going to tell you. But the language does say "require where feasible." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: So it's not an absolute in all circumstances. Page 58 of 89 October 3, 2019 And then, secondly, it does make some reference to the Land Development Code to include the specific details. But even if the Land Development Code narrows it down to specific circumstances, I would turn right around and go back to the Future Land Use Element policy that encourages the interconnections. I still think there is the decision for land -use planning to occur on a case-by-case basis that may be beyond the scope of the specific provisions in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have provisions in the GMP for the RLSA. Do any of those specifically require interconnection? MR. WEEKS: Require, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question, if I may follow up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'll get back to Jeff here eventually. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The presence of Oil Well Road, how do you see that affecting the concept of interconnectivity? MR. WEEKS: I guess I'll state the obvious: It bisects the SRA, and so it -- in the sense of the interconnectivity, it functions as two separate developments in that sense. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Absolutely. And two separate developments with one commercial center that is accessible internally only from the south side, correct? MR. WEEKS: That's all that's identified on the master plan, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Jeff, did you have something you wanted to bring up? We've got an opening here. MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm just saying that we need to get the road system right now because once these developments start getting in, you'll never be able to change it later. It's just gets too sensitive, and it just doesn't happen. So, you know, you put the skeleton on the body before you start worrying about the bones (sic) and everything anything else, and the transportation is the skeleton. And, you know, once you've got the muscles and everything else in there, you just can't stick a skeleton in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: David brought up a couple of my points, but I want to -- I want to -- two things: The disturbed area that he was referring to was the Gargulio farm operations, and then -- that's to the east. It's not up there right now, but that was where we had the pedestrian interconnect when we had a town. There are no disturbed areas to the south where staff is asking us to now impact environmentally sensitive lands. There is not a requirement for interconnection in the Growth Management Plan. It says "wherever feasible," and then it defers to the Land Development Code. And what I was starting to say, subject to being corrected, I was referring to about what I was going to say in the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code does not require interconnection for Rural Lands Stewardship Area lands. It does require interconnection for PVDs. We're not a PUD. And it does require interconnection for commercial and adjacent residential in the urban area, activity centers. There's no language -- in referral -- in reference to activity centers. The two times that I'm aware of that requires interconnection, it deals with PUDs and commercial, and it talks about activity centers interconnecting residential neighborhoods, and the PT Ds are required to provide interconnection for adjacent neighbors. MR. KLATZKOW: So are we saying that villages shouldn't be connected? MR. YOVANOVICH: I am saying in this particular case where you have environmental sensitive lands, you cannot require interconnection. MR. KLATZKOW: I've lived all over the entire United States. I've never heard in my entire life two villages not being connected. I think -- for you to say that we can require it for a PUD but not a Page 59 of 89 October 3, 2019 village, I think, is just remarkable. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, fust of all, I didn't write the code. And I don't know where you lived and whether or not there was environmentally sensitive land between the two that would have required an interconnection. There is an interconnection, and it's called Big Cypress Parkway. That's how a lot of towns and villages are connected by U.S. 41 and others where you have towns next to each other, cities next to each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what it boils down to is you're not going to consider the interconnection that was brought up by Ned. We'll defer that to the discussion of stipulations as we go forward with the resolutions of this recommendation to the Board. We need to move on. We've got a lot to go over, and if every issue on this project's going to take this long, we're going to be here for weeks, not days. So go ahead. Trinity, before you leave, I do have the -- I think David answered, there is no specific interconnection language in the GMP for the RLSA. You're just going to the general language in the GMP transportation section. MS. SCOTT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: I think I'm going to move on now to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go, do you know if this village is supposed to be gated or not? Is that something you took into consideration or you observed or knew? And, Richard, since you're participating, is this going to be a gated village? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be a gated village. So from security perspectives, we probably need to know that to understand how the interconnections would function and work if they were to have to be required. You need to use the mic. You know that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, it is gated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you were asking another question, though. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was? What was the other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. You started -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I asked you if you guys could hear me on the record, and that's when you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. We've got to have the mic. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why I got up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We resolved it. Thank you. So they are going to be gated communities. And, Trinity, I don't know if you guys took that into consideration in your review, but you need to consider it for the next time we come back. MS. SCOTT: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. SCOTT: So I'm going on to the land contribution agreement, and I'm going to kind of go back and provide some history, because some of the business points that I get to later on are because of some discussions in front of the Board of County Commissioners. So this particular area is the subject of the Big Cypress Stewardship District. In October of 2003, Collier Enterprises came before the Board of County Commissioners seeking a resolution to support the creation of the Big Cypress Stewardship District. One of the requirements in that resolution was that within 90 days of the approval of the act, that the Collier Enterprises would -- and the staff would come before the Board of County Commissioners with an interlocal service delivery agreement. That interlocal service delivery agreement was to discuss the transportation needs of the district. In October of 2004 the Board of County Commissioners approved an interlocal service delivery agreement which set aside right-of-way for Oil Well Road, brought it to, I believe, 200 feet, as well as the water management. Page 60 of 89 October 3, 2019 It also requested the right-of-way for Immokalee Road along the frontage of the district, as well as the water management, as well as Randall Boulevard extension, and we'll get into that a little bit later, but the Randall Boulevard extension was to be transferred -- funded by transportation impact fee credits. So the Oil Well Road and Immokalee were donations, and Randall Boulevard extension was to be transportation impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, just before you go too far, I just want to make sure. So I'm trying to understand, your two dates there, are they correct? Instead of 90 days, it was almost a year apart. MS. SCOTT: Well, what happened was they came in for the resolution, and then it had to go through the legislature and get approved. So it was approved, and then once the act was approved by the legislature, then they came back -- they had 90 days after that approval to come back in front of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. MS. SCOTT: So that agreement was never executed. The Board -- and you have -- within your staff report, I think I quoted large sections of the minutes of that. So that agreement was never executed. However, in 2009, Collier Enterprises and the Board of County Commissioners entered into agreement, and the Oil Well Road right-of-way was donated. So, once again, this is the Big Cypress Stewardship District area. That was the subject of the resolution in front of the Board. So our Business Point No. 1 is that the landowner must donate the land adjacent to Immokalee Road to provide that 200 -foot -wide corridor -- it's about 100 feet that they would have to donate -- as well as provide sufficient stormwater management for the roadway segment. That was the initial commitment with the district back in 2004. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they've agreed to do that right now. They've already done it, or they're in the process of doing it, right? MS. SCOTT: This is part of the develop -- or the land contribution agreement, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When these issues -- when these points are resolved, kind of add that in and let us know. MS. SCOTT: Yep. And this is -- unless Mr. Yovanovich jumps up, this is not a point of contention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Business Point No. 2, and I'll tell you, of all these, I believe the only one is the additional right-of-way for Big Cypress Parkway, but we'll get to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The only one what? Oh, it's open. MS. SCOTT: Business Point No. 2 is that the landowner or designee, so presumably if someone else assumes the property, they shall permit, construct, and install at their sole cost and expense a traffic signal on Oil Well Road at their primary residential access point within one year of request from Collier County. We will request that. Our request will be contingent upon it meeting signal warrants. The next item is that the landowner, designee, or their successors will not seek a traffic signal along Big Cypress Parkway within half -- one-half mile of the intersection of Randall Boulevard or Oil Well Road. This is -- I think the Planning Commission has kind of been brought into some of these conversations with Heritage Bay recently, and so we just want to be explicit that we do not want traffic signals along -- an abundance of traffic signals along Big Cypress Parkway. We really want to use that to move people. And then I actually have a typo here on my third bullet point; that they shall pay, it's actually $170,000, which are proportionate share operational payments, improvements as identified in their Traffic Impact Statement, and Mr. Trebilcock went over those in his presentation. And all three of these the applicant has agreed to. So Big Cypress Parkway, this is Business Point No. 3. Before we get started, the applicant has agreed to provide the right-of-way adjacent to Rivergrass as well as the water management associated Page 61 of 89 October 3, 2019 with that roadway width. The point of contention is north of Rivergrass as well as south of Rivergrass, so I'll go through that. So as part of that Big Cypress Stewardship District, I talked to you about -- that the Board of County Commissioners had approved this interlocal services delivery agreement. And the Board approved that with what we called Randall Boulevard extension at the time. And when I get a little bit further, I'll show you where Randall Boulevard extension was. But it was apparent in reviewing the minutes of the meeting -- and I wasn't here at the time, but during the discussion, the disagreement really stemmed around Randall Boulevard, and that there was a study in place that really showed where that roadway should be. And I think it's probably a fair statement that, you know, Collier Enterprises were like, you know, you're just trying to set aside right-of-way, and we really don't know where it is or what it's going to connect to. So during that discussion, the representatives at that time, which was in 2004, said that the county should request it at the time of zoning action, which, I guess, the irony is is -- the contention is the zoning was done, I think, before this but -- and that they can't agree because no one had studied it, and that we should take the time and agree to work together to work on a solution that solves the interconnection and come up with a better solution that serves all the transportation public in Collier County. And they were willing to work with the county and talk with the county on that and many other corridors that the county puts into the Long Range Transportation Plan. And those comments, I believe, were all made by Mr. Conrecode, Tom Conrecode, who at the time was representing Collier Enterprises. So in 2016 Collier County began the Randall Boulevard/Oil Well Road corridor study. And this is the corridor area. It goes from Eighth Street on Randall Boulevard north to Oil Well Road all the way out Oil Well. And I'm going to try to use this thing now. We'll see how I do. Let's see. This right here -- oh, let me get a different color. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to hit clear to clear what you started, so... MS. SCOTT: Let's try this. Previously, the Randall Boulevard extension was -- it probably wasn't as straight as that. It was probably more of a loop kind of thing there. But, essentially previously, the original discussions were trying to secure right-of-way for Randall Boulevard, and it went and connected up Oil Well Road. And this was a lot of conversations when we were discussing the town was we were essentially bifurcating the town and all of that. So the county started this study. And I'm going to get into some of the particulars of that study as well. So we -- the county started the study, and then in 2018 the Metropolitan Planning Organization went through an amendment process to their 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. And that plan -- the result of that was -- first of all, the reason that the plan was done was when we do long range transportation planning for the county's Long Range Transportation Plan, we look at a horizon year that's 20 years out. So our horizon year currently is 2040. And we utilize median BEBR numbers, Bureau of Economic Research numbers for our population. So we look at base year, which for the 2040 was 2010, and we look at the population that's here at that time. And then we add on what PUDs have been approved. And we build those out within a reasonable buildout schedule, and then we have population that's left. And then we go and we looked at the Growth Management Plan and see where do we anticipate future growth to be. And the future growth is anticipated to be in this area, largely. However, the development was very spread out in that area. And so it was not within the traffic analysis zones, which is what we get into; not to get into the weeds here. And so there was a desire to conglomerate that and put that where the development was going to occur, where we anticipated it would occur. So there was an amendment that was done. And so they redid the traffic model when they did that, and what was the result of that is that Big Cypress Parkway, which is shaded in the purple, was identified as a need, a new roadway; that was identified as a need within that plan. Page 62 of 89 October 3, 2019 Now, in the Long Range Transportation Plan, we have a needs plan, what we need to do versus what -- a cost -feasible plan, which is what we can afford to do. So the project was not deemed to be cost feasible, so we would not anticipate that it would be built within -- by 2040; however, we did identify it as a need. And when I say "we," that's the Metropolitan Planning Organization which the Board is made up of all five commissioners, two City Council people from Naples, one from Marco Island, and one from Everglades City. So in 2019, my staff took the Randall Boulevard/Oil Well Road corridor study to the Board of County Commissioners. That was approximately a $670,000 study that we undertook because we wanted to finalize that alignment. The BCC unanimously adopted the staffs recommendation, which is what we called Viable Alternative No. 2, which was not limited to one roadway improvement but a network that would distribute traffic in the area, and I'm going to go through so you guys understand what we did from a long range transportation planning perspective. So we were looking at the Randall Boulevard/Oil Well corridor, and at that time we were utilizing -- this is excerpts from the presentation that went in front of the Board. But the 2018 AUIR showed that Randall Boulevard was a Level of Service E and projected to be deficient by 2021. And in our study we looked at through 2045 if we did nothing in the area. We would have Level of Service F on Randall Boulevard, on a large section of Randall Boulevard out to Everglades, and D beyond, F along Oil Well Road, and then F at the intersection at Immokalee Road. And so, certainly, no build wasn't an option for us. So we came up with some viable alternatives, and Viable Alternative 1 was an S connector. This provided a new roadway segment. Just west of Everglades Boulevard around the Valencia Golf and Country Club, and six -lane improvements on Randall Boulevard, and four -- to Everglades Boulevard, and four -lane beyond, as well as our six-laning of Oil Well Road. And when we ran the model for that, it worked. We had Level of Service C through 2045 based on our growth projections; however, we had a huge bottleneck at Immokalee Road and Wilson Boulevard. So we looked at a second viable alternative, which was just to widen Everglades Boulevard to four lanes. And while that worked for Randall Boulevard, it didn't work for Oil Well Road. It did not pull the traffic off of Oil Well Road. And so the section of Oil Well Road that's constrained to four lanes through 2045 was expected to operate at a Level of Service F, and we still had the bottleneck at Immokalee and Wilson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't this the one, though, you said the Board adopted? MS. SCOTT: No. They actually adopted what's called Viable Alternative 2 Plus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. I should have known. Okay. MS. SCOTT: So when we go through and we do a transportation study, it's not just about how well we move traffic. It's also about, you know, are we enhancing mobility, improving safety, our right-of-way impacts, our environmental impacts, our impacts to the neighborhoods, things of that nature. So we looked at what else could we come up with that would serve the population in the area and also accommodate the growth. So we came up with the Viable Alternative 2 Plus which includes the six-laning of Randall Boulevard out to Everglades Boulevard, four-laning of Everglades Boulevard, and also the six-laning of Oil Well Road, and four-laning of Randall Boulevard beyond Everglades. But it also includes Everglades Boulevard, extending Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, as well as the Big Cypress Parkway. One of the reasons that we made this recommendation is that on much of the roads out in the Estates, the major roads out in the Estates which is with the exception of Oil Well Road, these roadways are single-family homes. And in sections of Randall Boulevard, we were dealing with 2-, 300 driveway connections. So to have 2- or 300 driveway connections along a six -lane facility is quite difficult and Page 63 of 89 October 3, 2019 certainly reduces our capacity. And so looking at a new corridor, we can have more -- we can move more traffic without having the friction from those driveway connections. So the county completed its study. We did what we said we were going to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I need a break point for you so the court reporter can have some time. It's been over an hour and a half, and usually we give her a break every hour and a half. So whenever you get there, let me know. MS. SCOTT: We can stop now and pick back up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's come back at 2:45 and resume. It's about 11 minutes from now. Thank you. (A brief recess was had from 2:34 p.m. to 2:45 p.m., and Commissioner Dearborn and Tom Eastman are absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, if you will please take your seats. We're back from break, and we'll resume the meeting. And we left off interrupting Trinity's presentation where we'll now go back into further -- Trinity, when you get a break for this piece, we'll do our questions. But get to that point and let us know when it's there. MS. SCOTT: Yep. This is all about the Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: So Policy 3.3 of the Transportation Element says the county shall acquire a sufficient amount of right-of-way to facilitate arterial and collector roads as appropriate to meet the needs of the Long Range Transportation Plan or other adopted transportation studies, plan, or programs. Exceptions to the right-of-way standard may be considered when it can be demonstrated through a traffic capacity analysis that the maximum number of lanes at buildout will be less. So county staff is requesting the following rights-of-way consistent with Policy 3.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP and the prior commitments made by Collier Enterprises during the approval of the Big Cypress Stewardship District of working with the county on roadways that are identified within the Long Range Transportation Plan. And I've broken it up into Segment 1, Segment 2, and Segment 3. The landowner would receive impact fee credits for the value of the property. The value of the land would be determined by two accredited appraisers who are mutually agreed upon by the parties. The purchase price shall be based on the market value of the land as set aside just prior to the SRA action and shall be equal to the average of the two appraisals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell us where each one of these segments is? MS. SCOTT: Yes. I'm going to go through a map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: So Segment 1 is north of Oil Well Road, and north is up. Just north -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you know to do that? Bob didn't. MR. MULHERE: I didn't prepare that. MS. SCOTT: This is just north of where Rivergrass stops right now. So this would go further north up and connect to Immokalee Road. The segment's approximately 3.6 miles. Segment 2 is along the property boundary of Rivergrass. It's delineated in green there. And Segment 3 is south of -- roughly Randall Boulevard south to the southern boundary of the stewardship district. It's approximately 11 miles. Once again, this was the original Big Cypress Stewardship District, one of the exhibits that was proposed. And I know it shows a town. That's not on the table now. But I show this because in the Long Range Transportation Plan, there is a discussion of a needed interchange along I-75 somewhere in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard. And I say that because there's a process that has to be gone through in order to be able to determine where an interchange would go if it would go -- if it's needed, et cetera. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How many miles east of Exit 101 is that, or approximately, Page 64 of 89 October 3, 2019 Everglades? MS. SCOTT: I would have to measure it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Like, 10 miles. MS. SCOTT: Let me think. Wilson's five and Everglades is 10 -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. SCOTT: -- I think is typically those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This would be out past DeSoto, thought, right? Well, theoretically. MS. SCOTT: Potentially, yes. So if -- there's a whole federal process that we would go through on where an interchange could -- would be, could be in the future. But in the past there was some discussion that potentially this would be a connection in the future. And, like I said, that would still have to all go through a very public process to go through. My right-of-way acreages right now are approximates because we were -- and I should say, in fairness to the applicant, we were going back and forth with design standards. The Florida Department of Transportation has recently come out with new Florida Green Book design standards, and we wanted to make sure that the roadway could comply with all of them. And they were more than accommodating to work with us through that process, and it was a lot of back and forth over, you know, a half -acre here and, you know, a couple inches, a couple feet there. So they worked with us. So these right-of-way acreages are approximate, and we'll tighten that up before we fmalize. So grand total is over 400 acres for the Big Cypress Parkway right-of-way. And just to put that in context, the stewardship district's about 22,000 acres. So while it does seem like a lot, it's a little less than 2 percent of their total acreages. So I want to go back to the conversation that the Board of County Commissioners had. So during that discussion of the interlocal services delivery agreement, it was stated that the county should study the area. We did that. We went before the Board of County Commissioners with a unanimous approval of staff s recommendation. They couldn't agree because no one had studied it. We did. That we needed to take the time and agree to work on a -- together work on a solution that solves the interconnection and come up with a better solution that serves all the transportation public. We worked closely with the applicant throughout this process, through our process with the roadway study. We knew that they didn't like us taking Randall Boulevard and, essentially, bifurcating that development even further, and it certainly didn't -- wasn't the most capacity -adding project that we could do. And so we worked together to try to come up with a design that was least impactful to them, certainly in acreage, I believe, I understand that, but we really didn't want to have to have another arterial roadway through the middle of their town. And also they said that they were willing to work with the county and talk with the county on that and many other corridors that the county puts into the long-range plan. And so the roadway is in the long-range plan, is in the long-range plan, I believe, down the Golden Gate Boulevard. We are asking for it -- for the remainder. The commitment was made to work with us back in 2004, and our concern is is that property changes hands -- right now we're under common ownership. Having that right-of-way set aside is beneficial to us so we can bring roadway projects online as we need to. So that's the end of that business point. As I said, the applicant has agreed with everything including the value for Segment 2, but they have not agreed on Segment 1 and Segment 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's get our questions past this business point and get on to the next one. Anybody have any questions? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: From a review of the materials I found on at this City Scape (sic) about how this project was evolving before it was really ready for prime time, I noticed some rather explicit language to the effect that the county was asking that the full right-of-way be contributed, be donated by Collier Enterprises, and now we've come to a point where they're going to get credits for it, Page 65 of 89 October 3, 2019 impact fee credits. Could you describe for me the discussions that took place and why that concession was made? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do, where'd you pull this from? You said City Scape or something like that? COMMISSIONERFRYER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do I have the wrong name? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, CityView. COMMISSIONER FRYER: CityView. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought it was some blog or something. I was trying to figure out where you pulled the information from. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no problem. I got it. MS. SCOTT: When we go through any of these developer agreements, it's a negotiation. MR. KLATZKOW: That's from me, okay. I don't believe in exactions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's A. Say no more. MR. KLATZKOW: It's as simple as that. Staff starts out with the exaction. Then I say you can't do that, and we wind up in a good place. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Fair enough. Got it. Thank you. My next question has to do with section -- Segment, rather, 121.1, which is Oil Well from DeSoto to Oil Well grade. And I've got the 2019 AUIR. Thank you for sending it to me. And I realize it hasn't been approved yet. But I think the chances are slim to none that the Board of County Commissioners is going to change the numbers in these cells. So I find it instructive to see that the traffic on that segment has gotten worse since 2018 and that the remaining capacity is 558 peak p.m. trips. Does that sound right to you? MS. SCOTT: I'll take your word for it. I don't have it in front of me. I do have it at my space. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And I'm going to ask Norm to give his side of this, of course, when he stands up. But in the meantime, from the material that Norm prepared -- and I'm sure you've seen the -- that shows the distribution of the traffic coming off of the development. And in this Segment 121.1, eastbound traffic is calculated, at peak p.m., 82 plus 744, so it's 800 and something. Westbound is 85 plus 445. And so getting back to the capacity of 558, could you comment upon how this project is going to have an impact upon that segment? MS. SCOTT: I can. Because if you would go to Attachment D, I believe, within the AUK we have that section of Oil Well Road as a committed project. We have a developer agreement with Ave Maria that once we receive, I believe it's $20 million of impact fees from their development and within a mile around, that we would proceed forward with Oil Well Road. That does not negate the fact that the county is still pursuing other outside grants to be able to bring that project in sooner. But that is deemed a committed project for the widening based on the developer agreement with the adjacent property. So that additional capacity is not figured into the AUIR. We don't do that until we get closer to the actual construction. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But the widening of Oil Well is, shall we say, a done deal? MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It is. Fully funded? MS. SCOTT: No. It is funded based on a developer agreement. So once we get to within that $20 million, we have to build that road, or sooner if the county elects to do so sooner. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But is there a time frame related to that, or is it once we get Page 66 of 89 October 3, 2019 to that point? Is that the only way of measuring the time frame? MS. SCOTT: At this time it's once we get to that point or sooner if the county chooses to move forward sooner. The project is fully designed and fully permitted with this segment as well as we're working with Hyde Park to secure the last portion of the right-of-way. I'm sorry. This project we already have the right-of-way. Hyde Park we're working with them to secure the last section of right-of-way necessary for the roadway. So we have a designed, permitted, and we'll soon have all of the right-of-way in hand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So when I just say sort of emotionally, if you will, that I get worried about approving projects based upon assumptions, future plans that may or may not occur, you have a sufficiently high level of confidence that Oil Well will be able to manage -- that segment of Oil Well will be able to manage the increased traffic coming from this project? MS. SCOTT: I do, because not only do we have a commitment that we have to abide by with regard to the Ave Maria developer agreement, but also by approving this development, those -- all of those units and all of that commercial's not going to come on the next day. It's going to take time to build up. I believe that their absorption rate was 250 units per year. And then we also have stopgap within the PUD in the developer commitment language that they can have, I believe it's 1,200 units before they have to have some level of commercial before they can proceed further so we can start seeing that internal capture. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: And keep in mind, this whole area's already zoned. I mean, the county knows what was going out there. We've known what's going out there for, gosh, it's going on 15, 20 years. So if the county doesn't get the road system, that's on us. It's not on the developer. They've got the right to develop it, and it's going to get developed. And, you know, Trinity will work hard. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners will have to fund it. And we'll move on. But that's why I'm saying you need to get the right-of-way now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm curious, Jeff. The -- I've seen -- maybe for Trinity. I've seen references to widening to four lane and widening to six lane. Which -- MS. SCOTT: With regard to Oil Well Road? Our plans show it being widened to six. Our permit is for six lanes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. SCOTT: With that being said, we could widen to four lanes if that's all that was necessary at that time when we go to start the construction. But it is designed and permitted to six lanes. MR. KLATZKOW: And you've got the right-of-way footprint for the six lanes? MS. SCOTT: Yes. All of the right-of-way that we've set aside with this developer as well as what we're working with Hyde Park is all to accommodate the six -lane roadway. MR. KLATZKOW: And keep in mind when we talk about right-of-way, it's more than just roads. It's also to get the pipes in, you know, and -- so you need sufficient right-of-way so that you're not putting mains underneath asphalt, which works for a good 20, 30 years, but eventually, you know, you've got to replace them, and it's not good for the road. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. That's all I have, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl, I saw you pull your mic. Did you have something you wanted to say? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one question. And we have the planning aspect of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area as well as the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and the expansions in Orangetree and everywhere else. And so do you, because you're Transportation Planning. So that means Page 67 of 89 October 3, 2019 you're supposed to look beyond the moment. And I want to know if you've considered the following changes in that area and how they fit with the plans you just told us about. Ave Maria was approved for 11,000 units. They don't have nearly that amount yet out there; Rivergrass is asking for 2,500; Longwater is asking for 2,600. These are all in process; Belhnar is asking for 2,750; Hyde Park is asking for 1,800; Hogan Island came in for a pre -app for 2,300, but they haven't submitted anything yet, and that was about a year ago; and Immokalee Rural Village is asking for 4,000 now, but I heard that they're going to be changing that and be looking at a different density. That totals 26,950 units. And if you take the most recent census population, persons per household, they specifically -- nationally it's 2.63, but in Collier County it's 2.55. That's 68,723 individuals in just those towns and villages that I just mentioned. How is your road system geared to handle all of that? Because it's all going to happen, if you look at the absorption rates they're talking about, and these others hit even close to those absorption rates, they're going to be well before some horizon year. They're going to be within 10 or 12 years. So how are you prepared to address that in a bigger global picture for those particular issues? And David's got something he's running up to say, so... MR. WEEKS: Just -- David Weeks, again, for the record. Just -- it sounds like you're assuming 100 percent occupancy in the math that you just mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming that we're going to have 26,950 units if all the build -outs build out to what they're asking for, and if you multiply the persons per household the census has provided you're looking at a substantial number of bodies. Some of those are -- or a certain percentage are going to be driving cars. And I just want to know from Trinity's department how they see the road system fitting those percentages as we go forward. MR. WEEKS: All right. I was just -- my comment really is we would need to back off the numbers some, because using census data, we have almost a -- one-third of our dwelling units are classified as vacant, and the majority of those of which are seasonally occupied. So the permanent population, the occupancy rate is about 67 percent, about two-thirds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's including the rural area where there's -- we don't have the amenities of the beach and things like that? MR. WEEKS: That's just the countywide. The countywide occupancy rate, countywide persons per household figures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, why would the census have a different number if we don't have -- if we don't have such a -- if we don't occupy the units? MR. WEEKS: The definition of a household is an occupied dwelling unit. And so if they build 2,500 dwelling units, using the countywide average, only about two-thirds of those are going to be permanently occupied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've got a bunch of empty inventory in Collier County? MR. WEEKS: The majority of that so-called vacant is seasonally occupied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't those people drive cars when they come here? Like especially out east if you're driving to the beach and if you're driving to a -- you need a commercial center, you're not going to find it out east. So we don't -- we don't count these people because they're only here four months of the year instead of more? MR. WEEKS: I'll let Trinity address that specifically, but I know that there's a -- we don't design for that worst-case scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying design for it, but we've got to know it's going to be there, which, if you really want to get into the issue, the CIGM has an interesting statistic. They have 291,000 households by the year 2040 but only 534,000 people. That's 1.8 PPH. Why would we use that when we know the census says 2.55? MR. WEEKS: I don't know factually. My guess would be because when we look at different Page 68 of 89 October 3, 2019 parts of the county, the occupancy rates and the persons per household rates can be drastically different. So there may be evidence that shows that the more rural areas have a lower occupancy rate and/or person per household. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, now that kind of goes contrary to what the rural area services, which is mostly working families, because that's where your least -- most affordability is, where in the urban area you can have a $6 million high-rise that a guy goes down -- family goes down and visits once a month -- one month a year. So I would argue just the opposite, that your working families are going to be more stationary because they can't afford to have two homes. So I'm not sure how the statistics are working in your department, but I don't see a practical application the way you've just described it, but -- MR. WEEKS: That's why I said "maybe." I don't know factually. And I would agree with you that -- again, just going with the census data, the areas east of 951 -- you know, the coastal areas have the lowest occupancy rates as a rule and the lowest persons per household. Conversely, the more rural areas, the Immokalee Community, Golden Gate Estates, those areas do tend to have a much higher occupancy rate and persons per household. The unknown, I think, is what's going to happen in the villages and towns within the -- within these SRAs and, likewise, in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Are those developments going to be more comparable to the coastal area, to the rural area, or somewhere in between? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, I would first guess that the coastal area's going to be a higher price. People with a lot more money can afford two homes. A lot of the working people aren't going to. Second of all, if you're in the rural area, you're more likely to have to get in your car to drive somewhere to get services, to get amenities, to get at whatever you want. And for those two reasons alone, we ought to consider what the persons per household application is for volume on the traffic on the road system. And if there's a percentage reduction, it certainly is probably not going to be the same as the urban area, and that's kind of where I'm leading. That's where I want Trinity to respond. How is her department looking at this? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, before she does, would you repeat what -- the persons per household numbers that you mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you go to the census site for Collier County, it says the 2017 was 2.55, nationally it was 2.63. BEBR the latest I've seen on BEBR was 2015. They're at 2.47. So you can -- but that's -- you know, the most recent is the census. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: So what I can tell you within the traffic model for the Long Range Transportation -- the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, Ave Maria is considered. I will have to go back and dig into the actual traffic analysis zones to see about Hogan Island and Immokalee Rural Village. But I do know that based on the recent amendment, the town was included. So we're looking at --I think the town was 10,000 units and a couple million square feet of commercial. So that was in there as far as the latest -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The town being. MS. SCOTT: The Town of Rural Lands West. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The former town. I thought you're saying Ave Maria, because it's 11,000 units. MS. SCOTT: No, no. The former town. So that was how that was modeled. So those are within, I believe, four traffic analysis zones which are all relatively in that area. So I'm confident that the three villages per -- the one before us today and the two additional are contemplated with probably a little bit larger scale. But I'd have to go back and look at Hogan Island and the Immokalee Road Rural Village to see if that's in there or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would it be reasonable to think that most of these new rural areas, including probably a chunk of Orangetree, would start using the Big Cypress Parkway as an access way to Page 69 of 89 October 3, 2019 go south, especially if you're out past that, if you're in the village areas or Ave Maria? And if you can only go south to the southernmost point of the SRA and we weren't sure we would have it beyond there, the only way out, then, is to startjamming up Golden Gate Estates cast/west. MS. SCOTT: That's why we have Big Cypress Parkway on the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. And that's more reason why that -- and I remember from the time Big Cypress was initiated as a stewardship district and we got into the first phase of that. The applicant actually produced a map showing the interconnection they were proposing to get us down to 1-75 out in that direction. And I still think that's a direction we ought to be headed. In fact, I believe that the basis of those -- of the 90 -day argument to have this developer's agreement in place after the award of the stewardship district, approval of that by our board, was one of the conditions; was it not? MS. SCOTT: To have the interlocal services delivery agreement in place, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addressing these issues? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it never happened. MS. SCOTT: It did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it the appropriate time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, Rich. You want to jump in, go right ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think we have to put it in context. As far as I can remember, subject to me being proven wrong, in 2004 there was no Big Cypress Parkway being contemplated. What was being discussed at that time was Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road. That's what the agreement was to address, and then there was a discussion about Randall and that Randall was not that -- that alignment was not agreed to. It was agreed to be studied and -- but there was no discussion about a connector road from Immokalee Road all the way down to I-75. That was not a precondition or a consideration for the Big Cypress Stewardship District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember the document that was produced by the -- MR. KLATZKOW: I was part of that way back then. Big Cypress was not contemplated. We were -- the discussions were Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then at the same time, though, do you remember the document that was produced by the Big Cypress applicant at the time showing the connection to 1-75 that was along their route system all the way down? MR. KLATZKOW: There were a lot of documents shown, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you had it. That's not it. MS. SCOTT: Yeah, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not it. You don't have it on anything you've showed us yet if that's what you're looking at. MS. SCOTT: Yeah. I didn't think that -- I had the one that showed the potential interchange with the roadways on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll see if I can find -- our -- I know it was somewhere in the old files over at Development Services. I can dig it up, and I can bring it to the next meeting. I just want it for conversation's sake to show why we need this road segment, and it's something that we've discussed for years. Maybe it wasn't part of the formation of the stewardship district, but it sure came shortly thereafter in the review of the original Big Cypress program. So I'll find the data on it. We'll take a look at it. I'll bring it with me -- I'll try to find it by next time. It's just -- back then we did paper, and there's these big volumes. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. That couldn't have been a condition because it would have -- it requires FDOT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it was something -- we hadn't gone that far yet. Page 70 of 89 October 3, 2019 (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. It was a possibility, yes. We've been thinking about another access point on I-75 forever in this county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, it's something that I think needs to be carefully considered, because that was an important access way to I-75. Now, maybe some kind of commitment needs to be put on paper to make sure we have it. Maybe the actual transfer of it can occur in the future, however it works out. But I think that's something the applicant should really consider making viable through this process here, so that's my comment on that. Trinity, you want to go on with -- I don't have any other questions on this segment. I'll have more later on. MS. SCOTT: Two other items. So Business Point No. 4 is that the landowner will design, permit, and construct the water management system to accept the runoff from Segment No. 2. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, when do we get to talk about -- sorry. When do you want us to give our input on the timing of the Big Cypress? Do you want to wait until -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather this thing -- we're all working together to get the solutions as they rise up. I'd rather not wait till the end and try to figure it out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm not sure I'm going to propose a solution, but I am going to propose our position -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- on Big Cypress Parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm going to look to Jake on that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I found a reference. I thought I'd seen the same thing that you had, and I have a note here that the October 26th, 2004, BCC meeting, I think it was Agenda Item 10C, the Board entertained the approval of the interlocal service delivery agreement with the Big Cypress Stewardship District. In the specific item, county staff pursued a right-of-way reservation for a bypass road, is what it was called, between Oil Well Road and Randall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. That's not it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I doubt if that would be it. I'd have to go -- I'm going to go -- if I can find those books, I'll go through the county record and see what I can find. I'll bring it to everybody for the next meeting just to talk about. Go ahead. Please identify yourself for the record. MR. CREMER: If. Sure. Good afternoon. My name is Jake Cremer with the law firm Steams, Weaver, Miller. I'm representing -- co -counseling this case with the applicant. I'm working on just --really just the narrow issue of the request to dedicate Big Cypress outside of the adjacency. So I believe that was Segment 1 to the north, Segment 3 to the south. And I think as you'll hear from some of my comments, and you've heard earlier, these are -- this is really -- this is a timing issue for the applicant. This is not the applicant saying we're not willing to work with the county over time. It's an issue of we're saying now is not the time legally to dedicate all of Big Cypress Parkway. Let me give you a little bit about my background. I'm a land -use and property -rights attorney based in Tampa. I work on issues all across the state working with other land -use attorneys. I have worked on property -rights cases in just about every level you can think of all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. I've been involved in cases there. Page 71 of 89 October 3, 2019 The request for 17 -- roughly 17.1 miles of right-of-way, when we're only adjacent to approximately two -and -a -half miles of Big Cypress, I would submit is not only unreasonable, it's not legal. It's illegal. And I don't use that word lightly. I don't use it as a scare tactic. That's simply what the request is. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, and that's fine. And I'd be glad to litigate that with you over the next five years if it's the route you guys want to go, okay. At the end of the day, the Board of County Commissioners was promised 15 years ago that the Big Cypress District would do all this stuff, all of it without any taxpayer money. That hasn't happened, all right. We're here now to try to do some transportation planning -- long-range transportation planning which, at the end of the day, benefits your client more than anybody else here, and you're going to come in here and threaten us, in essence, with litigation? That's fine, okay. My position is we can ask for it, and we can condition it. And if you want to say no, you can't, that's fine. I'm happy to spend the next five years with you in court over this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so you know, I think that we're about October or so of 2007 is when I believe the original discussion on the connection down to the interchange at I-75 occurred. I can't remember the extent of the commitment other than it was a visual graphic that this is something they were going to do to help with their project's impacts. I'll go back, and I'll try to research that by the next meeting if I get time. But it would be something to consider. And all I'm asking is your applicant to consider how far they're willing to go to make some kind of real strong commitment as to what we can do about this right-of-way. We've got to know if we can count on it or not. If we can't count on it, it's sure going to change the ability for us to consider what we're asking -- being done here today. And that's where I'm trying to go with this. So if you're going to not do that, then it's going to change the road pattern dramatically. And I know you didn't say you wouldn't, but we don't have anything securing saying that you're going to. Does that help your discussion at all? And I'm sorry to interrupt you, so... MR. CREMER: That does. I mean, I think it may become clearer if I could just have a few minutes to present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. MR. CREMER: And, you know, to my esteemed colleague, I'm not here to threaten. I'm just here to state what the law is and to explain that the request that's on the table now is not legal. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're here to advocate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What request do you see on the table? I'm just asking what you're going to do about the extension to Big Cypress down to 1-75. And I don't have any answer. And I'm just saying, so what is it -- that's not a legitimate question for understanding how this project will impact our road system if we don't have that access to I-75? MR. CREMER: It is not a legitimate request to make of the applicant at this time because of the limited nature of the application you're reviewing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how do we evaluate this application's exit onto our system? You're assuming, then, we have to accept it for the traffic its going to put on the local roads or the few east/west roads that it's going to connect to; is that what you're saying? MR. CREMER: I'd like to get our traffic consultant to explain that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, do you want to finish your point before he does, or do you want him to go first? MR. CREMER: I'm just going to have him address your question now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: So the question was whether or not we rely on a connection to I-75 for this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not whether you rely on it. I just was worried about the amount of traffic that would end up going through not only the buildout of your project, but the others that would Page 72 of 89 October 3, 2019 connect to pieces of Big Cypress Parkway that wouldn't be completed to I-75. Because without any knowledge that it might be completed or there's a reality of it, then the fact that we're going to have all that traffic having to go cast/west to get to 951 or Wilson or whatever is something that we need to consider in the planning stage. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. So if we look at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Norm, there's a huge amount of density being added out there. Not theirs. Just a little bit of everybody. So somewhere those people are going to have to find a way to get to where they want to go. And I want to know where the ultimate buildout of that -- where they want to go is going to be. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. And -- but, certainly, I think within the perspective of what we're looking at, I think in the alternatives -- in the 2 Plus alternative that was -- is being sought now that the Board had approved, what they looked at is really looking at the amount of development that were beyond what we're proposing with the project here. And so this -- in the whole scheme of things, we're really helping to implement that key part, the portion from Oil Well to Randall Boulevard which is a key element. MR. KLATZKOW: Do we not have other developments in the pipeline here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: Do we not have other developments in the pipeline here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just read them off. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, wouldn't we be better off if we just, I don't know, maybe just did them all at once? I mean, if we're going to have this argument, we're going to do piecemeal one at a time. I mean, we could hear them all at once. I mean, if the developer -- this was supposed to be a unified development once upon a time. Now it's been balkanized into multiple developments. That's fine. We could hear them all at the same time and then get the road situation done that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm trying to get to is if Norm has a way to show us that the full amount of the density out there that might use those east/west roads, he's going to function acceptable without connecting south, and all these cast/west people are going to be able to pick up their further direction by going down to 951 to get to I-75 or wherever, that's fine. I just want to know that's how -- that it's been looked at. That it's a planning tool. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, I'm not a transportation engineer. Sometimes I play one on TV. You have a Long Range Transportation Plan that does exactly what you just said, and it talks about a needs plan and it talks about a financially feasible plan. And Trinity herself even says that Big Cypress Parkway ends at Golden Gate Boulevard on the plan. It doesn't go any further south than that. You have a plan in place that you're trying to implement. And what we're saying is, we've done every analysis required under your law, which is the TIS we've done, and we've showed no negative impact to the roadway system for our project. We are not required to and we're not going to wait until the other villages come in and get considered at the same time. We have a petition before you, which is Rivergrass Village. We have met the legal standard under your Transportation Impact Statement rules and procedures to be considered. You haven't heard a single person say that Norm's analysis is incorrect. In fact, you have a landowner contribution agreement in front of you that says these are the impacts that we want to address and how we're going to deal with these transportation issues. The only issue we're disagreeing with is when Big Cypress Parkway gets conveyed to the county, not if. If the other villages are approved, the other two that are south, it makes sense to incrementally add to Big Cypress Parkway. Why would you put the burden of the full Big Cypress Parkway on Rivergrass Village that doesn't need it for its transportation impacts? That's the answer short and simple. You've done the study, you've analyzed it, and your staff has agreed we don't negatively impact the roads. Page 73 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Richard, I've known you for a long time, and I know when you get a little hot under the collar. This is not an issue that you need to. I was simply trying to -- you're going way beyond what I was trying to get to. I'm trying to find out is: How have we looked at this transportation system, then, if we do not get the roadway to the south on a comprehensive long-range planning process? Now, you referenced the MPO, and I believe the MPO shows this connection going down to the south. MR. YOVANOVICH: To Golden Gate Parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to -- obviously, from what you just said, I think you said you're going to use it to negotiate the other two villages. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the other two villages get approved, then you might provide it. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's when -- that's when it is appropriate to address those issues, and that's when the traffic impact to the potential Big Cypress Parkway occurs. It doesn't occur now at Rivergrass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But, Richard, I think this Planning Commission's direction needs to know what we can count on for the long-term play out there. And I haven't heard anything that says we can count on the extension of Big Cypress Parkway unless we -- you already get, like, a predetermined approval for the other two projects. And so far that's not where I'm heading. I just want to understand how those 26,950 units are going to function if we don't get Big Cypress Parkway to the south. That's what I'm trying to fmd out. MR. YOVANOVICH: But, Mr. Strain, you're going to get Big Cypress Parkway to the south. You're going to get the segment from Oil Well Road to the northern portion of Rivergrass and to the southern portion of Rivergrass -- no, the southern portion of Rivergrass right now during this phase. We're going to work out the price through appraisals. If we don't -- if we decide not to go forward with any other village, it's already in your plan. You come to the property owner and say, let's negotiate a price, or you condemn it. Those are your options, like every other roadway segment in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you say we negotiate a price, what piece are you talking about? The one -- the remaining piece south to the I-75 or as close to I-75 as -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I-75, its not on your plan. I'm not in a position to discuss today anything south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on the MPO plan. You just referenced that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It does not. It goes to Golden Gate Boulevard. That's where it stops, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the long-range MPO plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. It stops at Golden Gate Boulevard. So any discussion south of that -- I mean, I don't mean to interrupt, Jake -- is totally inappropriate. It's not on any plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. From a planning perspective it's not. You may not agree legally it's from -- it's an exaction thing. I wasn't suggesting to exact. I wanted to know -- understand how we could get it. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't get it until you show a plan that you actually need it, and you haven't gotten that far yet to where you -- you don't even know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because her -- you interrupted her presentation. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. She's already told you she stops at Golden Gate Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hadn't finished asking her questions, Rich. Well, who wants to come up next? You've got four of you standing there, so -- I'm just trying to get to an answer about the parkway. I think you're telling me there's nothing on the table about the parkway other than what shows on this presentation; is that right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Page 74 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we don't need to have a discussion on it at this point unless you want to put more on record. You're more than welcome to. I thought there was something more succinct we could get out of it that would help the situation, but if it's just going to stay like it is, we'll weigh it like it is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we -- two things, Jake. I would like to get Jake's written legal opinion on the record. We'll provide it. It's already been provided to the County Attorney's Office. It's been provided to staff. We'll provide it to you. I also want to get on the record that my client doesn't own the area for right-of-way north of Rivergrass. They don't own the property. So to ask them to give you property -- give you right-of-way over land they don't own is an impossibility and not a proper request. So I just want that on the record. Anything else, Jake, that you want to get on the record? MR. CREMER: Jake Creme, again, for the record. No. You'll see in my letter what I would have presented, and I think patience is probably waning. So I just --I would encourage you to read that, and, you know, we have not received any formal response to my letter, so thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my patience isn't waning. I was just surprised at the reaction to an explanation I was looking for. But be that as it may, we'll just move on. Thank you. MR. CREMER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, I would like you to at some point tell us what the Transportation Department would need for some kind of insurance that there is some hope to extend Big Cypress to whatever directions you need it in. And if there is not, then we need to know that, too. MS. SCOTT: Okay. Will do. For Business Point No. 4, all of which the applicant has agreed to, the landowner will design, permit, and construct water management system to accept runoff from Segment No. 2. They would receive impact fee credits for the value of the property, which we had discussed. They'll provide drainage and maintenance easements for the water management system to allow us to get in and maintain if necessary. The landowner and successors will be responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the shared water management system, and the landowner or its successors shall perform an inspection every five years after the roadway is constructed to assess the condition of the stormwater system. Just allows us to know that the ongoing maintenance is continuing and that the system's functioning properly. Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are all in agreement, right? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) MS. SCOTT: And Business Point No. 5 is the landowner and its successor and assigns will provide a separate written notice to tenants and buyers, both residential and commercial, of the planned roadway improvements with a statement that the county will not construct any sound wall or other barrier of any kind to reduce the impact of noise, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's also in agreement? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So where are we now? MS. SCOTT: That concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's go to transportation questions that we may want to ask of Trinity and, of course, the applicant's, I assume, ready to answer questions to those that apply to him. Does anybody have any other transportation questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: With your permission, I do have a couple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just said that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Trinity, there was an earlier exhibit that showed interconnections Page 75 of 89 October 3, 2019 mostly within the Rivergrass development. There was -- there were several to the east to Big Cypress Parkway. There were a couple off of Oil Well Road to the north and south, but the far right one, the farthest east one was only to the north, and I wondered what the county's position was. And I don't know if that exhibit is readily available. There have been quite a few. Whereas most of the interconnects span Oil Well or Big Cypress, this one does not. It only interconnects to the north, and I just wondered, is it an issue of contention to the county that it does not cross Oil Well Road and allow an interconnection north and south. The far -- yes, the far -- MS. SCOTT: No, that is not a point of contention for the county. The county is fine with that. That would be another full median opening out on Oil Well Road, which we would not be in favor of. So that's why you're not seeing that traverse both sides, because when this is ultimately a six -lane facility, which it's planned for in the future, that would mean another traffic signal, so we would not be in favor of that going north and south. And the applicant has worked very closely with us on those access management provisions. COMMISSIONER FRY: Gotcha. Thank you. We've talked about how, between the GMP and the LDC, we either have a recommendation or requirement for interconnectivity. And you've mentioned -- we've mentioned in general it would be nice to interconnect, or it would be strategic to interconnect to the north, to the south, to the east, and to the west. We have the east covered pretty well in this development. Along the water boundary that goes along the full eastern boundary of the project, the applicant has stated hesitation to bridge across or to provide interconnects across environmentally sensitive lands, presumably the waterways and the lands that are on the other side of it. So in the staffs opinion, what are the issues? To what extent is that concern shared by staff in terms of bridging across? And how environmentally sensitive are those lands across the water boundary? Is there -- is that a legitimate concern and hesitation on the applicant's part? MS. SCOTT: Well, I can't speak to the environmental sensitivity of the land, and I would defer to the applicant and our environmental staff with regard to that, and I'm sure we're going to be getting into that with regard to the environmental in the future. From a pure transportation standpoint, what we're trying to do is not replicate what we've done in the urban area where, yes, I understand this is a small -- a small area of a village center that's going to offer different things than what the next village center is going to do or the one to the south, et cetera. And so it gives people the opportunity, instead of having to go out on Oil Well Road, go make a U-turn, people who are in the next development presumably may not have a traffic signal, go make a U-turn and come back and put those localized trips on the arterial network, and that if there's a way to be able to accomplish those on a more localized network, that would certainly be beneficial to the overall transportation network. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you have specific interconnection targets that you would like to see to support the future network going to the south or the east or the north of this development? MS. SCOTT: I -- honestly, when I looked at this, I looked at that we have been presented with two other villages, so it would -- at least the village that kind of wraps around them, it would certainly be nice to be able to interconnect with that village. They have discussed a gated community, so I'm going to go back and look within our documentation to see if that was -- if we were aware of that throughout the process or not. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Trinity, I have a walkability/bikeability question for you. Is it fair to assume that this present proposal, this present application, for all intents and purposes, precludes anyone on the north side of Oil Well from walking or biking to the commercial center on the south side, particularly once the street has been widened to six lanes? MS. SCOTT: It depends -- will it preclude it in perpetuity? I don't believe so. At some point in Page 76 of 89 October 3, 2019 the future there will be a traffic signal in that area, whether it be at Big Cypress Parkway when Big Cypress Parkway opens or along the residential when it meets traffic signal warrants. So it would certainly give an opportunity for folks to be able to cross the road. Is it the most comfortable? Perhaps not. But we do have this within our urban area pretty commonly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So at least in the near term, perhaps the intermediate term, someone living on the north side who wants to go to the commercial center on the south will have to use an automobile and drive along the Big Cypress Parkway or along Oil Well to get there, correct? MS. SCOTT: Crossing the roadway without the roadway being widened and without a traffic signal would certainly be more difficult than what the future would hold. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So they'd need the automobile on the public street? MS. SCOTT: Mr. Yovanovich is saying it's a two-lane road. I understand that it's a two-lane road with no stop control out there. So to have someone have a mid -block crossing or a crosswalk, they would be crossing on their own. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It would be quite dangerous, wouldn't it? MS. SCOTT: People do it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I understand. MS. SCOTT: Yeah. But it would not be marked crosswalk they would be crossing on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You wouldn't call the juxtaposition of the north and south sides or campuses of this village as encouraging of walkability or bikeability, would you? MS. SCOTT: I would say that in the future there will be some amount of connection, and the way they've planned their development, they have an arterial roadway that runs through the middle. So it's -- they have to deal with that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So they would need an automobile on one of the county roads? MS. SCOTT: I would say that most folks will probably choose that. They will have the option, as I said, once the roadway's widened and there's a traffic signal there, to be able to cross at a signalized intersection. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're not supporting, though, a traffic signal, are you? Didn't I hear you say that you don't think that's a good idea? MS. SCOTT: No. What I said was, is that when there's signal warrants at the residential, that they would be required to build it, and we would most likely anticipate another traffic signal at Big Cypress Parkway since it would be the intersection of two major arterial roadways. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONERFRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So following up with Ned's issue, then, so you're going to have a light at Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well, and then maybe two more lights before it finishes out? Or does each circle represent a light? MS. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No what? MS. SCOTT: No, that does not represent a traffic signal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How many traffic signals would you have through the village on Oil Well? MS. SCOTT: I anticipate one at Big Cypress Parkway in the future and one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the main intersection there that -- yeah, that's what I thought you were going to say. MS. SCOTT: When and if it meets warrants in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how does the interconnection with Randall in this case work? Because it looks like it's going down a residential street to wind up through the project and weave its way up to where you just put that yellow dot. Page 77 of 89 October 3, 2019 Is that what -- how effective is that going to be for Randall? It really doesn't enter into your plans anymore, does it? MS. SCOTT: Correct. When the Board adopted Viable Alternative 2 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They took that out. MS. SCOTT: Right -- we relinquished this Randall extension and went with the connection between Randall and Oil Well being via Big Cypress Parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What other connections will there be to the Estates properties from Big Cypress? Say Big Cypress only had that piece, that was the only piece we had, and the properties to the east would be coming down Oil Well Road, dispersing who knows where. What other connections would you think you need to go through Golden Gate Estates? We currently have Randall and Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, I think, is going there, too. Isn't that -- isn't -- does this touch that? MS. SCOTT: It does not. It only goes as south as Randall Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've only got Randall and Oil Well going east. Would there be others that you'd have to pick up? MS. SCOTT: What I would say is I would not commit to any connection to the more local Estates roads without going through the public process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I understand that. I'm just saying, but would you need more connections to get the traffic, the volume that -- let's say this village gets built, and the rest of them do. Well, say the ones to the south -- for some reason we don't get the parkway to the south. How will that affect the traffic flows coming from the east across this property and, yeah, westward? MS. SCOTT: Folks will most likely go down and hit Randall Boulevard, they'll go south, and they'll go Randall Boulevard which -- it's part of our Viable Alternative 2 -- showed improvement. Depending on how far out Vanderbilt Beach Road extension gets, they'll get over to Everglades Boulevard, go south, and most likely get on Vanderbilt Beach Road extension and head into town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The concerns about the F situation that you showed, did those concerns occur with or without the further connection of Big Cypress to the south? MS. SCOTT: The F -- the deficiency along Oil Well Road and Randall when we modeled it with Big Cypress Parkway, as well as the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension going all the way out as well as improving Everglades Boulevard, those all, then, operated at an acceptable level of service. CHAHUV AN STRAIN: That's with it going to the south? MS. SCOTT: Going to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you modeled it without it going to the south? Could you by the next meeting? MS. SCOTT: I will go back and check and see if we have modeled it. We may already have modeled it without Big Cypress Parkway in there. I can check with the MPO because there were iterations that were done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the other piece is the -- Oil Well is one of our -- I think there's maybe two, maybe I'm -- maybe more than that, but I know at least -- I thought there was a couple east/west freight lines, and this is one of the most important freight lines in the county. What does the impact of this split village have on the freight lines and how you meander through this six -lane portion of -- when it's six-laned. I mean, we're going to increase the lanes, so let's just look at the buildout. What -- do you see this changing those freight lines at all? MS. SCOTT: I will tell you we do not anticipate reducing the speed limit within this area as you might see in other -- if you have towns and things like that where they'll reduce the speed limit through a town. We plan on having that function as a major arterial roadway through the middle of the village. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the speed limit? MS. SCOTT: I believe it's 50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the freight trucks would move at 50 miles an hour through this Page 78 of 89 October 3, 2019 village? COMMISSIONER FRY: Fifty-five miles per hour was stated earlier. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MS. SCOTT: I believe -- well, when we go to an urban cross-section, typically we post the speed limits at 45 miles an hour; however, in some of the more rural roadways, the more rural areas, we have posted them at 50 miles an hour. So once we get the curb and gutter, 45 typically is the maximum; however, on Immokalee Road we have increased that to 50 miles an hour. It may be 55 out there now because it's an uncurbed section of roadway. MR. TREBILCOCK: Current posting is 55. MS. SCOTT: Mr. Trebilcock just advised that the current posting is 55, but it's because it's a two-lane roadway with no curbing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you increase to six -lane, it's going to reduce the speed? MS. SCOTT: The speed limit, yes, based on the design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of odd that you go to -- narrower road is higher speed than a bigger road, but that's your guys -- you and Norm, you guys are wizards at this stuff. MS. SCOTT: I'll get a hat next time. Do we get to dress up for the Halloween meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can if you want, but it's not something I would do. I already wear a beard. That's enough, so... I have some questions of Norm, but some may hit on you, so could you stay near by? MS. SCOTT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, would you mind helping me with a couple of your TIS issues. Ned just asked me if we're going to 4. We usually go to 4. I'd like to tryto go a little longer, especially if we can try to finish up most of our transportation questions. So that would help -- I know you're limited. You're going on vacation or something, I understand, Norm. The TIS. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you treat the golf course trips? I mean, I've read it. I just don't remember. So why don't you tell me, did you base it on a public golf course, a shared golf course, a membership golf course, or how did you look at that? MR. TREBILCOCK: Totally a private golf course, it would be passive incidental to the community so it wouldn't be a public golf course. If it -- as Bob had mentioned, if it becomes a public golf course or public membership, then we would just live by the trip cap accordingly, you know, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if it changes to public, they'd have to come in with an SDP showing its new change but the cap -- the trip cap couldn't change? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: So it just limits some other use is really what it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so you've got a 2,500 -unit village, half of which is above the road or some portion, and the other below, you've got units facing the golf course, and you're going to have a -- you want a deviation for up to 50,000 square feet for the clubhouse, but you've only got a handful of people facing the golf course. So where are you getting that kind of membership from if it's from the public? I mean, that's a big golf course -- golf club. I mean, usually you're looking at a substantial amount of members. I'm just wondering how --were you thinking you're going to --how do you --how do people become members of that golf club; do you know? Is it going to be limited -- what did your Transportation Impact Statement limit the golf course members to? MR. TREBILCOCK: The Traffic Impact Statement wouldn't get into membership of golf courses and stuff. That's not really how we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then how do you derive the traffic count for golf courses? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Golf courses are based on per hole is how we do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the amount of play per hole? Page 79 of 89 October 3, 2019 MR. TREBILCOCK: No. In other words, the impact fees in Collier County, which is also based on the ITE trip generation, is per hole. So if you have an 18 -hole golf course, your trips are based on 18 holes. If you have a 36 -hole golf course, the trips adjust accordingly. So that's how it's done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how many people does it take to generate those trips according to the play on the golf course? I mean, the ITE would have to -- they'd have to be known, because that's someone -- that number had to come from somewhere. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you find that out by the next time we meet? I don't want to -- I don't mean to put you on the spot. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, I can explain to you how the trip generation would work is -- what we do is you put -- on the golf course it would be based on the number of holes, and you do a trip generation at the driveway based on it. It's not based on a particular membership or anything. And so that's how you would get the trip generation for the golf course. It's very similar to residential. You know, you put tubes down, and you get your trips based on the residential. It isn't necessarily on the size of the house or anything like that or whether it's rental, non -rental, that type of thing. It's really just --and so you translate it into a per -hole basis. That's how it's done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a golf course -- MR. TREBILCOCK: It's not based on the size of the clubhouse or anything like that, no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a golf course with 350 members will have the same traffic as a golf course with a 1,250 members? MR. TREBILCOCK: If it is an 18 -hole golf course, its an 18 -hole golf course. You know, typically, you may expect having more holes. Because, you know, you can only take so many folks playing on an 18 -hole golf course. And so, you know, again, that's the basis of it. It's based on the holes. If you have a 36 -hole golf course, you're going to have more folks, typically, than you're going to have on an 18 -hole golf course, and you would typically think you may have more members as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is an 18 -hole golf course; is it not? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So an 18 -hole golf course, it doesn't matter how many members you have. You could have 10 or a thousand. It's still going to have the same amount of trips? MR. TREBILCOCK: As far as -- again, it's considered private passive incidental to the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. To the community. So that means the membership's going to be limited to this community? I mean, that's an important consideration for our understanding of how this is to operate. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No what? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have said, if the golf course is open to the public, we'll use the ITE manual for public golf courses for purposes of traffic calculations, and we'll have to either reduce some of the residential we could otherwise build or some of the retail and office square footage that we can otherwise build to stay within the trip cap that we've -- that we've analyzed it as if it's private, but if it becomes public, we recognize that we have a trip cap, so we may have to do some less residential or some less retail square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the public that you would sell the memberships to be the other villages that are part of the former town, the Longwater and Bellmar? MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't know. It's public. If it becomes public, you know -- the answer is maybe yes. I don't think we'd be prohibited from doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it plays into the interconnection need. If you're going to be selling memberships to the other two villages across the preserve area, the argument for the interconnection Page 80 of 89 October 3, 2019 might carry some more weight, and I'm just trying to figure out if that's what you're going to do. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're suggesting that the public drive up Big Cypress Parkway to get to the golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to understand. Norm, you had in your TIS 1,414 single-family and 1,086 multifamily. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which produces a greater trip count, multifamily or single-family? MR. TREBILCOCK: Single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if your TIS calls the single-family operations multifamily because they're connected fee simple, then what's the practical trip count going to be if they're really single-family? Because they're not multifamily because they're fee simple. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, again, your staff recognizes and understands and the operating practice is when you have a -- you have an attached villa, it functions more like a multifamily unit. That's been the practice. That's how we do traffic studies in the county, how traffic is analyzed. So that's what we've done here. You know, it's just being consistent, because they tend to function more like a condo -type unit is really what happens, because you have, you know, multiple services and stuff like that that get provided for across the common good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the method of sale didn't matter? MR. TREBILCOCK: Not from a trip analysis standpoint. When it's an attached villa, it's recognized by professionals in the area to recognize it as a multifamily trip analysis from a --just strictly from the ITE, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I also notice that there's going to be -- takes -- three-fifths of the project will be sold before you, I believe, start your commercial. So that means your capture rate's not going to apply until you get to the sixth year; is that fair? MR. TREBILCOCK: Further -- further down the road you'll get that capture. And we have a relatively low capture rate with the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how does the capture rate affect the dwelling unit, not count, but dwelling unit multiplier? Say you have 500 single-family and 500 multifamily, and you -- that's 1,000 units, and they generate X amount of traffic. You get a discount on the total amount of traffic off that because of the capture rate for the commercial; is that how it works? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. What happens is is your internal capture is occurring between the residential and the commercial uses on the project, you know. So what we're looking at in the p.m. peak hour at buildout, you know, is 184 peak -hour trips would be internally captured. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what dwelling -unit count did you base that 184 peak -hour capture rate? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. So that would have been based on the blended -- the mix that we're showing: 1,414 single-family and 1,086 multifamily units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in your traffic statement -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all of those residential units to the north which are greater, it looks on the map, than the ones to the south, would benefit in the same capture rate even though the commercial is across the six -lane arterial road? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. So they would -- as was indicated to you, there's a single crossing movement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't more people take cars to go cross that road from the project? Its not going to be walkable very much. I mean, it's going to have a crosswalk, but it's a major freight road with traffic going at 50 miles an hour. So you didn't take into consideration the fact that some people in the north side may not want to walk from wherever they are across that road system to the commercial area for capture, or how did you Page 81 of 89 October 3, 2019 look at capture? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, again, they would just cross that singular road. You're not, you know, on the link taking capacity out of the link of the roadway. So it's just a simple crossing movement that, then, you can be internally captured into the community because then there is internal movement to get you right in that area, you know, so -- you know, you have that. It's based on vehicular. I mean, the assumptions here are based on vehicular uses. You know, they're -- and this would be anticipated as a signalized location, especially of the number of rooftops. We would tend to warrant a signal, and it would make sense for this community, you know, just as other, you know, communities that have bisected them. And you go west on Oil Well Road to Orangetree. ThaYs bisected by Oil Well Road as well. And you would have a signal for the communities to be able to get across, you know, because you have the commercial on the south side there as well, that PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do most of the -- MR. TREBILCOCK: This is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the capture rate doesn't really matter where the -- how the village is split up? It would be the same. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, it would be my opinion that you're still getting a capture for those vehicle uses because they're going to utilize those internally, and they're not going to go off miles away on the network and utilize capacity on the network. And, again, we don't have an extremely high internal capture rate on this project either as a result because, you know, staff recognized that, too, that it's not a huge amount of commercial versus the, you know, prior looks and stuff like that. So everything, I think, is kept in perspective here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it make any difference to your analysis if the villages are gated? I mean, it's obviously more than one village because you're going to have to have one to the -- I mean, let's say subdivisions. If you have separate gated areas, is that going to make a difference to your traffic and your capture rate? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. No, as long as you were able to allow the folks to come through like that, which they would, so yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's all the -- right now that's all the traffic questions I have, Norm. Thank you for your time. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Anything else from any of the other commission members? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we've got -- we're there. So thank you very much. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to a little bit before 4, and I think the choice now is I don't know how long this board wants to go. We usually stop at 4. We are at a point, Rich, I think your -- we could start a new subject, but I don't think we'll get too far with it before we would want to break before 5. I don't know what the four of us would want to do. MR. YOVANOVICH: The only question is, are there a lot of questions regarding the environmental analysis that Passarella & Associates did? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's -- we'd have to have the environmental staff for the county provide -- maybe that's what we ought to do is get the environmental -- the county's environmental presentation on the table and see what they -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think they said they only needed about 10 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So we'll get that done, and that way we can have that document with all the other documents you're going to provide, because staff needs to give us their presentations as well, and we might -- with that information and what Passarella already provided, maybe we can reduce Page 82 of 89 October 3, 2019 the amount of questions we'd have on the environmental. I don't know until I get -- sit down with it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does that sound like a workable solution? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd like to get as much on the record as we can, so -- and that would be great, and I don't think -- I think Amy said they didn't have a report for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Economic. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- fiscal analysis. So at that -- you wanted to see the spreadsheet with the cells. So I think if we can knock that out, probably take us a few minutes after 4. If we can get that done and then come back on the 17th and hopefully finish up on the 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give it our best shot. So with that, as far as the county environmental folks, if you guys will come up, and I know you've got something prepared. And I know that some of it will be redundant from what we saw in Passarella's but we'd still like your input on it independently. So don't think you've got to cut things out because we've only seen some of it once. Having seen it two or three times will be even better, but we'll take what we can get. MS. COOK: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jamie Cook. I am a principal environmental specialist with Development Review. So the purpose and the intent of the RLSA program is kind of threefold: To protect agricultural and prevent premature conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses; to direct incompatible uses away from wetland and upland habitats; and to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations. Through this purpose and these intents, this led to the creation of the Stewardship Sending Areas, which are designated areas to be protected, and the Stewardship Receiving Areas, which are the areas for development. Okay. For each application, a Natural Resource Index Assessment must be submitted. The original RLSA study conducted back in -- or the early 2000s, and the current LDC defined the baseline index values for each acre of land within the RLSA. The NRI scoring is an attempt to reflect the relative environmental values of the landscape. There has not been any concrete research or -- to assign these exact values. So it's done as best professional judgment to rank the different attributes and values. The NRI scoring should reflect a combination of conservation science, natural resources, and the existing land uses. So the ultimate goal of the NRI scores is to prioritize and incentive the protection of the most valuable resources, not solely for protected species. So within their application the applicant must quantify the number of acres by the index values. All lands within the proposed SRA are -- should have an index value of less than 1.2. Any lands within the boundary that have an index value greater than 1.2 are required to be retained as open space. And then if the index values are no longer valid from that original RLSA study, the applicant needs to document the changes and the current index values. So when they submit their application, the applicant provided the NRI data in -- electronically, and each factor must be able to be mapped in GIS and verified by the county staff. The GIS data is analyzed in one -acre polygons to determine the NRI score for that one acre of land. For Rivergrass, the GIS analysis was submitted to county staff, and it was verified by Beth Yang in the Growth Management Department GIS section. In addition to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Beth verified the -- each one of the little squares the Passarella were talking about that would have 999 pages? Page 83 of 89 October 3, 2019 MS. COOK: Correct. It was all electronic, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I know Beth, and she does an excellent job. And if she verified it, that goes a long way to being solid. So thank you. MS. COOK: You're welcome. In addition to the GIS data, they also submit a summary page of the NRI values and the total acreages for each of those values. Okay. So along with their NRI Assessment, the applicant also submits some supporting documentation, including an aerial photograph delineating the boundary, a FLUCFCS or vegetation map of the boundary, listed species map of the SRA, soils map of the SRA, and then staff verifies that the vegetation map, the listed species survey, and the soils map are used to develop their Natural Resource Index map, which is submitted as well. Okay. So to calculate the credits for the entire SRA boundary, the six factors are reviewed using the stewardship credit worksheet that you guys all saw earlier. So when environmental staff and GIS staff reviewed this, we used this same spreadsheet. So to kind of briefly go over each of the designations, I'm going to start with the stewardship overlay designation. This designation is used -- acres will receive point values if the land is located within a Flowway Stewardship Area, which is a wetland area; a Habitat Stewardship Area, which is habitat for listed species; a Water Retention Area, which is used for surface water quality and in agricultural operations; or in the Area of Critical State Concern. For the entire boundary of Rivergrass, there are no land that are designated as FSA, HSA, WRA, or the ACSC, so the entire boundary of the Rivergrass SRA would receive a zero for this value. For the proximity indices, the values are scored by either -- whether it's enclosed within an FSA, HSA, or WRA, if it's within 300 feet of an FSA or an HSA, or if it's within 300 feet or public or private preserve land. Now, public and private preserve land is defined in the LDC as conservation lands that may be delineated as an FSA, HSA, or WRA, but they are not eligible for designation as an SSA or an SRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does that mean that if SSA -17 becomes an SSA, because I guess it was then it wasn't, or maybe it is and it isn't; I don't know any more. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That, at one point, was on the sheets that we read, and then it was taken out. But would that change the indice for the third one down? Because they would then be within possibly a private preserve land if that's what a WRA is considered. How would you look at that? Would it change anything? MS. COOK: No. If the WRA is within the SSA, then it is not considered a public or private preserve land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you base that on some definition in the code you can -- MS. COOK: That's in a definition in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. COOK: So for the Rivergrass SRA, all of the lands within the boundary for this indice also scored a zero. I'm going to skip down to restoration potential, and this is assigned during the SSA designation process if it is appropriate. Because Rivergrass is not an SSA, it would also receive a zero value for this indice for the entire project boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have something in the code that says the restoration potential indice does not apply to SRA lands or something of that effect? MS. COOK: The exact wording is that the restoration potential index value is assigned during the SSA designation process. And I can give you the code reference if you're ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ready is another -- that's a really arbitrary term, but let's give it a try. MS. COOK: 4.08.06. Page 84 of 89 October 3, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. COOK: B, as in boy, 3B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. COOK: You're welcome. So then the three factors that are likely to change or differ throughout the boundary are the listed species habitat indice, the soil surface water indice, and the land -use land cover indice. So I'm going to go over those in a little more depth. For the listed species habitat value, these are assigned based on the habitat value for listed species. Index values are based on the documentation of occupied habitat and verifiable observation of listed species with the land cover identified as preferred or tolerated for that species. So the LDC specifically defines preferred and tolerated panther habitats in 4.08.0l.Q. These vegetation codes include the palmetto prairie, pine flatwoods, hardwoods, and most of the wetlands codes. None of these FLUCFCS codes, vegetation codes, were found within the SRA boundary, so the only applicable ones would either be other documented listed species habitat or none of the above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm trying to figure out -- I don't know if it's best to interrupt you and ask questions. What would you prefer? MS. COOK: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to ask first, Ned? Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We received a lot of material from the Conservancy who have very strong feelings about this area and that it is not appropriate for development, I think, primarily with respect to the panther habitat. This is not an area that I have much -- any expertise in. What is your position on the position of the Conservancy? Do you disagree with their conclusion? MS. COOK: Our review is done based solely on the LDC. So we have to review it based on what is in the Land Development Code currently, and what's in the Land Development Code currently is these FLUCFCS codes. So if it doesn't meet -- if it doesn't have those codes within the boundary, then it's not considered preferred or tolerated panther habitat. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you herein about 2009? You weren't, were you? MS. COOK: Lived here, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Were you --back then we had what was called a --I don't know -- for lack of a better word, rewrite of the RLSA was proposed, a five-year review. And the panther issue got a lot of discussion. In fact, we had a gentleman come down who wrote a big panther report, and I forgot his last name. But I think he was flown in. And he made an issue about the strength of the secondary panther habitat which was within 300 feet of primary habitat. And the issue there was it was thus moving into the farm fields. Panther actually found the farm fields viable habitat for running down game or whatever they do in those things, so much so that it kind of -- the whole program got kind of stalled for numbers of reasons. I'm not sure that was the only one. But the -- there was another study done. That study hit about the time the recession hit, so everything kind of dissipated. My question is, none of these show up, yet if you were to look at that study, the area within 300 feet of the WRA would probably qualify as secondary panther habitat because it's active farm fields but it's within that primary habitat fringe. Does that come into consideration at all in your review? MS. COOK: No, because we are only looking at what is within the SRA boundary and the vegetation code within that boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And these codes were written at the initial time of the RLSA program? MS. COOK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you don't know why these were the ones that were limited, do you? MS. COOK: I do not know, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was here then. I don't remember either. These codes wouldn't be something I would have sat down and understood anyway. But I was -- I'm surprised that the question Page 85 of 89 October 3, 2019 was never brought up as to whether these codes were sufficient enough to cover what some of the studies said were secondary, primary, and all the other stuff. Maybe it covers all the primary. I don't know if it does the secondary. And that was kind of my question. And I'll wait till you finish, unless something else pops up between now and then. MS. COOK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. COOK: So the second factor that varies throughout the SRA boundary is these soil surface water index. These values are based upon soil types. So the LDC defines four categories: Open water and muck depression soils, which is the natural soils landscape positions, Categories 1 and 5, and I'll explain all of that in a minute and how it relates to the soils map; sand depression soils, which is the NSLP6; the flats transitional soils, which is NSLP7; and the non -hydric soils, which is 8, 9 and 11. So in their application, the -- a soils map for the area was submitted. This soils map is correlated and actually done by the USDA NRCS. Soon the left side of the screen what you're looking at is the -- NRCS's soils map for the Rivergrass area. It is identical to the one that Passarella submitted with their environmental documentation. So in the red box in the middle of the boundary it was identified as Soil Unit No. 7, which is Immokalee fine sand. That correlates to those NSLP values that I was talking about on the other -- on the previous screen on the right-hand side. The NSLP categories were defined by the South Florida Water Management District as soil classifications, and if you look at that chart on the right-hand side, you will see for Category No. 8, flatwood soils, that h amokalee fine sand -- Immokalee sands fall within that category. Therefore, if you go back to the previous screen for the areas that are identified as Immokalee fine sand with the NSLP value of 8, they are all considered non -hydric soils and would receive a value of zero. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That's a good way to bring it -- explain it. MS. COOK: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. MS. COOK: And, finally, the last one that varies throughout the SRA boundary and can change over time is the land -use land cover or the vegetation groups. The Group 1 vegetations are the wetland hardwood, cypress, freshwater marshes, wet prairies. Group 2 are the palmetto prairies, flatwoods, and hard woods. In any other type of development, the Group 1 and Group 2 vegetations are the things that we would want to be put into preserve. Group 5 is pasture land, agricultural, fallow cropland, and waterways that are associated with ag fields. And then Group 4, so disturbed land, urban areas, residential development, industrial, all of those fall into Group 4. Okay. So to help you understand how these scores were calculated -- and, again, this was all done by GIS, and then environmental staff also verified it. So if you look at the square on the top right, that is an example of a one -acre square in the northern portion of the SRA boundary. As I mentioned before, for stewardship designation proximity index and restoration potential, everything within the entire boundary scored a value of zero. So we only really need to look at the listed species habitat, the soils, and the land cover. So for this particular acre, the soil surface water was hamokalee fine sand, which would receive a value of zero because it is a non -hydric soil. The land -use land cover vegetation was identified as cropland and pasture land, so it would receive -- it is a Group 3 classification and would receive a value of 0.2. And then in this area, because it is cropland and pasture land, it is suitable preferred and tolerated habitat for the sandhill crane, which was identified as a listed species on their listed species survey in this area. That is considered other documented listed species habitat and receives a value of 0.4. Therefore, for this one -acre parcel, the total NRI score would be 0.6. Page 86 of 89 October 3, 2019 In this particular second area, which is near the village center, again, the stewardship designation proximity index and restoration potential are all zero. There was no listed species found in this area, because it is all Brazilian pepper. Brazilian pepper is a Group 3 vegetation and also, again, receives a value of 0.2. The soil is a sand depression, which is a 0.3. So for this one -acre parcel, the total NRI score is 0.5. When the environmental staff conducts our reviews, we do do a document review of what is submitted by the applicant. We review the listed species survey, the vegetation map, the soils map, and the Natural Resource Index Map to make sure that they are consistent with the data that is submitted, and we can verify that in the field. We also conduct on-site verification, field verification throughout the SRA boundary. The most recent field visit was done in September with the new boundary changes that were added to the northern portion of the SRA. In conclusion, we found that the application was consistent with the NRI scores that were submitted, and we are in agreement that all of the acres within this boundary have NRI values of less than 1.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission? Anybody have any questions of our environmental staff? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right now only that --to be sure that when this comes back the next meeting, presumably the Conservancy representatives will have opportunity to speak, would you be available to answer questions at that time? MS. COOK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have some questions in the meantime. There were some species that -- I'm trying to understand what Passarella did in this regard. They said that some of the species were because of another agency, and they didn't consider them in their review, or they did but they didn't have to. Do we not look at all the species that are -- I'm trying to figure out what they were getting at by that. Do you recall the conversation? MS. COOK: Either Ken or Heather may need to come answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, that's fine if they'll come up. I'm just trying to get to the -- he said it, and I didn't want to interrupt his presentation, and now we're in the environmental, and the only chance I've got to ask it is that. So do you remember the -- and it started -- I think you were talking about sandhill cranes for a minute, then you went on to another bird or something that -- and I'm not good at birds and bees. But there was another bird that was protected by one agency but not necessarily something you considered. MR. PAS SARELLA: Yeah. There was a -- some of the comments that were provided to the county by another party was related to wood stork colonies and also -- I forget what the other one was. But foraging areas around wood stork colonies, and that these foraging areas overlapped the project boundary. And as just was explained by county staff, those are boundaries established by another agency, but they're not in the Land Development Code to be considered as part of this analysis. So even though another agency may have established a forging area around a wood stork colony that may overlap these farm fields, that's not one of the assessment items that go into the scoring or the indices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why not? I mean, why wouldn't it be important if an agency thought it was? I mean, is the agency wrong or isn't it -- MR. PASSARELLA: No, the agency's not wrong. It's a totally different review process. It's a -- those boundaries were established for something totally different as far as the state environmental permitting and the federal environmental permitting for endangered species. That does not apply under Page 87 of 89 October 3, 2019 this -- under the Land Development Code to this NRI Assessment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's just because it doesn't apply because of the Land Development Code? Whether it's practical or not isn't the question. It just doesn't apply because of the Land Development Code. MR. PASSARELLA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: I apologize, but I must -- I have a commitment. I must go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we're going to go. We don't like to be here without you, Karl, because you bring the screwdrivers and the hammers and the nails and stuff that keep the people downstairs busy when you go through that -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I try to do my part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Karl does -- if he has to go, we lose a quorum. So we will be departing. We will pick this up where we left off, and we will do that on the 17th first thing up, and we will -- I would hope we can get through it on the 17th, including public speakers. We'll go as far as we can. If we can prepare to be a little bit later to finish up, I would suggest all of us consider that. And thank you all for your time and patience today. We will make this -- get this done one way or another. And that takes us to new business. There is none. Old business. There is none. Is there any public comment other than the item we're on -- the scheduled agenda items? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion to adjourn by Karl. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:17 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION VV MARK TRAIN, CHAIRMAN f�Lei�•i•�.5�•k7 October 3, 2019 These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 89 of 89