Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/17/2019October 17, 2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 17, 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: Mark Strain, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Edwin Fryer, Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joe Schmitt, Environmental Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 1 of 111 October 17, 2019 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the October 17th 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: Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONERFRYER: Yes, sir. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONERFRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice-ChairHomiak? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, a quorum of seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. That takes us to addenda to the agenda, and we have definitely some changes to the agenda today. The only item we're going to be hearing today is Item 9AL It was a continuation of the Rivergrass project from two weeks ago, and that is the only item we'll be able to get to today. We'll spend the entire day on it from what I can tell, and then it will be continued to another date after that. The rest of the items -- and I'll read them off so everybody who's here for something we're not going to hear will know. They're going to be continued to the October 31st meeting at 9:00 in the morning. The ranking of the agenda, the order in which we will take these items, is not necessarily the order you see here. We'll --so that will beset about a week prior to that meeting. So I'm going to read those off, and then I'm going to ask for a vote from the Planning Commission to continue those to October 31 st, and then we'll go back in and go back to our one remaining item. The first item that will be continued is PL20180002840. It's the Hammock Park Mixed Use Planned Unit Development located at the northeast comer of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard. The second item is PL20190002899. It's the Enbrook RPUD located on Manatee Road. Number 4 --the third item is PL20190001138. It's Barefoot Estates Subdivision at Lely Barefoot Beach, Unit 2 Subdivision. Number 4 is PL2019000497. This is for a residential multifamily zoning district for a --removing a condition of approval located approximately 3,500 feet south of Pine Ridge Road. Number 6 is PL20170003337/CPS2017-2. It's the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict located on the northeast corner intersection of Airport Road and Orange Blossom. The next one is PL20180002107. It's the Longview Center Planned Unit Development, PUD. That's on the northeast comer and southeast corner of the intersection of Airport -Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive. The next one is PL20180002258/SCSP-2018-5. It's the Immokalee Area Master Plan, the adoption hearing for that. And the final one that we will be continuing to the 31st is PL20170002897/CPSS-2018-3, and it's the Oil Well Road community facilities subdistrict. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, the last one you just read, on mine, says it was moved Page 2 of 111 October 17, 2019 to November 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be interesting. Does anybody here -- the staff know why the date on that one is any different? I don't -- it doesn't bother me; just that November 7th we're going to be hearing Rivergrass possibly again or maybe later than November 7th, depending on what happens today. But if it has to be November 7th, since it's noticed that way, I have no problem with it. So let's take the first, what is it, either of them that were read, or seven of them that were read, and make a motion to continue those to October 3lst as read. Is that a -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. And let's take the last item, and I've already read it in once, and that's for the Oil Well Road community facilities subdistrict. Let's move that to November 7th CCPC meeting. Is there a motion for that? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. All in favor, signify by say aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. For those of you in the audience who are waiting for any of those, the only thing we'll be hearing today is Rivergrass SRA, which is the first thing on the agenda, and we'll beat that all day. So October 31st is a special meeting day just to accommodate those items that are displaced because of today's meeting. And with that, that takes care of the addendum to the agenda. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Chairman. I wanted to extend a word of thanks to Jamie French and his staff for hosting on a regular basis, for those who want it, opportunities for planning commissioners to sit down with staff and become more educated about the matters that are coming before us. I found it to be very helpful. I need way more than an hour, but I understand you're awfully busy, and I'm glad to take whatever time you have. So my word of thanks to you all. Thank you. Page 3 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for those of you who haven't taken advantage of that, just remember our ordinance allocates that the staff of Developmental Services is the staff of the Planning Commission. So you should feel free to contact staff at any time, work with them, and they will be working with you as you direct. So that's an opportunity that some of you haven't taken advantage of. MR. BELLOWS: I think it's helpful for all parties involved to be able to talk about the projects. It helps us focus in as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That goes next to the Planning Commission absences on the agenda. Please remember on October 21st at 5:00 in the evening we have the review of the Annual Update and Inventory Report. It's known as the AUIR. It's going to happen over in 609/610 on Horseshoe Drive. Does anybody know if they can't make it to that evening meeting? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I'll be out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll still have a quorum. It will not be advertised, but it will be audioed and transcribed. We have minutes that were sent -- oh. October 31st is our next regular meeting as we continued everything to today. It's a special regular meeting. Hopefully it will cleanup all the things that are being delayed due to the focus on Rivergrass right now. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to October 31st? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we've got a quorum. And our next regular meeting is November 7th. We'll have leftovers from this meeting, possibly, and leftovers from our October 31st plus we have an item already continued to that date, and that will be November 7th. Does anybody know if they can't make it to November 7th? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be in town on November 7th; out of town for a family wedding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We still have a quorum then. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. The meeting on the 31st will not address Rivergrass? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: It will address the other agenda items you mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The meeting on Halloween, will staff be dressed for Halloween? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope not. I can't control staff. I wish I could, but I hope not. Approval of the minutes. We were all distributed electronically a set of minutes for September 19th, 2019. Any changes, corrections to those? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve. Is therea second? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Aye. Page 4 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion caries 7-0. Ray, BCC report and recaps. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners at their last meeting heard the PUD amendment to the Vanderbilt Commons. That was approved on their regular agenda subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. Okay. Chairman's report, there's nothing other than -- yeah, it's a good opportunity for a comment. We used to get documents, especially large volumes of documents, from staff after staff reviewed them. In fact, we kind of counted on that, and the County Attorney's Office as well. Thursday or Friday morning, I think it was, I woke up to 500 and -- about 500 new pages on Rivergrass. Now, that gives us a total of 2,101 pages that have been distributed to us by various -- over various times since this project started. It's hard to keep track of several hundred pages. We started out with about, by the first meeting, I think it was 1,500 pages. To throw another group of pages in the mix makes it even harder. I have not reviewed what was sent out Friday. I don't intend to review anything from now on unless the county staff and the County Attorney's Office have signed off on it. So, staff, I would suggest, unless the Planning Commission wants it a different way, to stop distributing things to us at that volume prior to a meeting that you -all have not reviewed and that the County Attorney's Office have not reviewed. It's a waste of our time. MR. BELLOWS: Understood. And we are looking at the '98 resolution that deals with the procedures for the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. And it has a specific deadline when applicants can resubmit things. So we're going to tweak it, readopt it, and have a little bit stronger deadline so last-minute submittals can be done. Anything else will have to be walked on by the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know that the idea of distributing was well intentioned. There were some red lines and stuff like that. It's just too much. We cannot absorb that kind of data, especially if you -all haven't -- then the next item would be, what if you -all didn't agree with it? What if it was inconsistent? Then we've got bigger problems. So I'm working from our original documents today. You all are free to work whatever document you want. We'll just have to track it the best we can. But we've got to stop this. Now, if they bring it to the meeting, the problem there is you're introducing now evidence not reviewed by staff or the County Attorney's Office, and we are not going to be reviewing volume of materials on the fly. Presentations, yes, we'll see some things like that. MR. BELLOWS: And I believe the acceptance of the materials at my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, this is my chairman's report. You will not be talking -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- during this period of time. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: The cleanup of what was presented at the last meeting, so that's the reason I accepted it, and I shouldn't have, so... MR. KLATZKOW: And if we're going to be updating our processes --just a recommendation, all right -- you don't bring anything to the Planning Commission until you have a full application that's done, period, okay? This nonsense where developers keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get on the Planning Commission and you bring in stuff that's half baked, and then you have these changes and changes and changes, from my standpoint, that needs to stop, all right? When staff deems an application complete, it goes to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviews the completed application. There will be changes by the very nature of this public meeting. The changes are made. Then it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. Having the never-ending application is just, from my standpoint, not fair to the public, not fair to my Page 5 of 111 October 17, 2019 office, not fair to the Planning Commission. MR. BELLOWS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHNIITT: Yeah. Just to be clear, we've had this discussion before and --but it continues to happen. I was, frankly, extremely frustrated to have three different versions of the SRA. And I know what drove it. What drove it was the right-of-way, the changing of the right-of-way, and the negotiation with the county for the required space for the right-of-way. I understand that, and it was the applicant adapting to those changes. But the fact is, we got an email that was the third version. I had already read the first version, the second version, and then I was trying to figure out in the second version what was changed in the third version. I emailed and send me -- said send me the strikethrough and underline, which then, I guess, I went into the email, and we had both versions. The fact of the matter is, you as staff have every right to say continue until this packet is full. And we've had this discussion before, but I've never seen staff take action. I know when I was administrator we took action. MR. BELLOWS: And we are taking action. As I mentioned, we are updating the resolution and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, itis frustrating to me to spend time reading the documents and then getting a whole new set of documents and having to go back and change notes and put notes on, because I do everything on my computer. And its just irritating. So count me just --I feel better now that I vented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you a bit disgruntled over this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank Jamie French. I went thinking I was meeting him, and I found a team of six people in the room, and Ray and Nancy and Corby and Trinity, and I think I'm forgetting someone else as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: David. COMMISSIONER FRY: David. Yes, David Weeks. Thank you. I could not have been -- you know, its a wonderful team effort, and I have to say, I think we need to help staff with another issue that they mentioned to me. They have to prepare three different versions of the agenda packet for us. I think we need to find a way, if you're doing process improvements, as Jeff mentioned, to get it down to one version of the packet that we all work from. Let's use their time on more important things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just --don't you guys just do Accela and the hard copy? MR. BELLOWS: Some commissioners want hard copies, so we do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. So its not three versions. MR. BELLOWS: Some are still getting, I think, thumb drives, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, honestly, I think Accela is hard to use. I don't need hard copies, but I can understand why some people do. And that was an option we started with when this --years ago. So I understand your concern, but not everybody's ready to jump into that network or the -- yeah, Internet as maybe as knowledgeably as you are. COMMISSIONER FRY: You all have computers and email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I noticed that. Did you -all get contacted by staff? They're going to give all of us computers? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one. I got it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's interesting. We fought for that for years and nobody would process it, and all of a sudden out of the blue, it pops up, so I think that was pretty good. So whoever --if Jamie was involved in that, thank you. If, Matt, you were involved in it or anybody else over there, we appreciate it, because we've been trying to get computers for years to use at the county level, and that will help a lot. And Mike Barrios, I'm sure he's happy, because it keeps him more secure, and that's great. So anybody else have any other comments? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there an issue with what we've been getting, the note from Judy where Page 6 of 111 October 17, 2019 we go to the link and download? I mean, that's what I've been doing. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There might be several reasons, but one of the reasons is you will no longer be able to access the county emails from private computers, your government email address. So you're going to have to use a government computer to access it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You will not be able to go in and download documents that I'm being asked to review -- MR. BELLOWS: On a private computer unless -- if you're using the county Outlook email system. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Explain tome what the public does then. They have access. MR. BELLOWS: No, this is county emails. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I get an email on personal email and my county email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can tell your -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. BELLOWS: You can still get your county direct emails to your private email, but if you're accessing a county email account -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not asking about the email. I'm asking about the link to download the documents. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That should work the same as if you were just a member of the public. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely. MR. BELLOWS: How about we'll follow up with all the reasons. There may be more. And I'm not sure I'm accurately conveying all the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could someone comeback at the next meeting we have, whether its the 21st or the 31st, just explain to us -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we'll have Mike Barrios to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because right now you can set up an Exchange Receipt on your personal computer to have your Exchange emails at the county open up, and you can actually -- you're limited, but it's a limited workability, or at least it was that way. I don't know if it's still that way anymore. But that's what I think everybody was counting on, and I didn't -- maybe we need some explanation. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Mike Barrios will have -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be delighted to talk to Mike about it, because I've worked in several controlled environments, but you could still get into certain documents. MR. BELLOWS: And I may not be relaying all the information accurately. That was what-- my understanding might be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the amount of data we've got to deal with before the end of October, if Mike is available after lunch today and he could come in right after lunch and give us a real quick 15 -minute briefing on how this is supposed to operate, so we can ask the questions and understand it -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that would make sure everybody here for the next two meetings is on board. So if you could find out -- MR. BELLOWS: We'll try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- between now and then. Thank you. I don't know if he's busy. That will be something else COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I got two emails through, I think it was Nancy, and one of them had a 231 -page attachment from a private citizen, which you might add to your 2,000 pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't get it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And another one was a 10 -page study that somebody did. It had no introduction to it. I didn't know who did it or why, but yet they're just automatically forwarded to us. Are we supposed to read those and pay attention to them and know what they are without any kind of input from the staff Page 7 of 111 October 17, 2019 as to whether they're accurate or anything like that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, if the -- if the public wants to reach out to us by email, they have every right to. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Two hundred thirty pages is a bit extreme. It was a white paper or something. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have to read it. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: Stan, you don't have to read it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, I mean, we should be available to the public directly, so I don't think that ought to change. Whether you want to read it or not, that's your call but, you know, I mean, I think we ought to -- that still -- availability ought to be there. Jeff, did you have anything you wanted to add? MR. KLATZKOW: No, its just like, it would be easier to get in through War and Peace sometimes, you know, reading some of these applications and processes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Further to the tweaking the new resolution that is going to give us more time, I think, within which to review materials for them to be eligible to be considered, I ask that also every effort be made to redline documents if they are reiterations of drafts that we've already seen because, you know, when you get even in the hundreds, not to mention the thousands of pages, certainly it wouldn't be reasonable to expect us to reread from Page 1. And I -- it seems to me its reasonable -- be entirely reasonable for staff to ask the applicant to do that when it's the applicants documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you're hearing is we need to find some solution to this mess of reissuance of documents we get. So, you guys, please keep that in mind going forward. Mr. Bosi -- I mean, Mr. McLean. MR. McLEAN: I'm certainly not Mr. Bosi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, it's interesting -- MR. McLEAN: He's much better than I am. There's no doubt. Matt McLean, director of Development Review. I just wanted to follow upon the IT question related to emails. As you guys are aware and have seen recently in the news, there's been a lot of backing that's happened in local governments. And our IT department is currently reviewing protocols to try to continue to improve our ability to make sure that that doesn't happen at Collier County. And so they are certainly looking at how transactions happen by emails. And it's not that we're going to be taking away -- as Mr. Barrios has presented to our respective departments so far, they're not going to be taking away service, but additional protocols may be needed to be put in place to make sure we don't have those issues for Collier County. So we can have -- certainly have Mr. Barrios here or someone available to give an update on that at the next Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think if we could possibly ask Mike if he's got an opening today where he could come by and explain the email to us, that's the most critical right now. If we can't get -- if everybody can't get their emails, its going to really hurt the productivity of our next couple meetings. MR. McLEAN: My understanding is that's certainly not the intent at all. Its just -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you. MR. McLEAN: -- additional layers. But we'll make sure that we can get Mr. Barrios here to provide an overview of that. Page 8 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: The NIMs come to us electronically through a cloud service. I hope we still would have access to that on our private computers as well as our county one. MR. McLEAN: I believe it's going to be most appropriate for Mr. Barrios to give an overview of what we're doing on that. That's his, you know, charge for the county. He does a wonderful job for us on that, so we'll make sure that he's available to come and talk with you guys. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask a question? He already told you how this system's going to work. MR. McLEAN: Absolutely not. He just gave us a briefing yesterday that they are currently working at updating protocols to make sure that we can continue to have service while maintaining the integrity of our ability to transfer information and not provide as many layers to make sure that we don't get hacked, essentially. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Because one of the things you might tell him I'm going to ask is if I sit there with my computer, my laptop, and your laptop next to it on my desk at home, your server's going to be able to know I'm using your laptop instead of my laptop? It's that sophisticated? That's cool. COMMISSIONER FRYER: VPN. MR. McLEAN: Yeah. We have VPN capability now on county -issued computers that staff does that have additional protocols that are established in there. Again, Mike's the expert on that. I prefer to have him come explain that to you. I'm not claiming to bean IT expert. I've just had the overview that they are currently working on improving the processes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Matt. Appreciate it. ***Okay. That takes us back down to the agenda. We have no consent items, and our remaining public hearing is 9A1. It's P1,20190000044. It's the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area. All those --well, we've done this before, but we'll just do it again. 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: Disclosures. If it's the same as before, just say so; if there are any differences. Go ahead, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Same as last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A bunch of new emails, including the 231 -page white paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Additional meeting with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same as those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine's the same. I did have a couple staff meetings, though, and I received all those -- whatever emails I received, I noticed they were copied to everybody, so they were all in the record with Nancy. So same thing. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the record, I want to make sure -- I was not at the last meeting, and I did watch the entire meeting on the video. I think seven or eight hours, six hours. It was rather enjoyable -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to watch it from home. I did partake in a few adult beverages during the presentation after. No, but I did watch the entire thing. Based on that, I asked to talk to Rich Yovanovich. I had some questions on the presentations that his staff-- his team made. So I did -- he and I did discuss some of the issues in a conversation following my review of the entire presentation. By the way, I thought it was -- the entire morning was very well done by both staff and the petitioner on laying out the whole SRA program and made it very clear as to what this is and what it is not. So that was well Page 9 of 111 October 17, 2019 done. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same as Joe or same as the rest of us? COMMISSIONER DEAR -BORN: No, no adult beverages. Same as everybody else. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll move right into the presentation. We left off --if we still will try to stick with some of the order that's listed hereunder order of review --with environmental reports last time. So before we go into any additional questions by the panel, is there anything that the applicant wants to add to the environmental discussion we started last time? Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, and I request your indulgence to address some of the comments from the Planning Commission that were made about our petition, but not during the public hearing, in the documents you received. May I do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just -- what do you mean? Questions that we didn't bring up at the meeting? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The criticism that the Planning Commission just levied with regard to the additional documentafion you received regarding Rivergrass. I'd like to address those comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you will recall, at the end of the last meeting, you asked us, as a group, to update and get to you the updated documents to address the reconfiguration of the boundary of the village as a result of the changes to the right-of-way width. That is all you received from us, and it was in a redline format. So you should have been able to very quickly -- although it was a number of pages because each document is a number of pages -- you will have seen that the revisions were very minor and had to do with the acreage as we told you had changed during our previous presentation. And you had asked us to update those documents to be accurate based upon what we did at the time. The message that I've received is if staff requests changes to your document, don't do those because you'll be criticized for making changes and getting them to the Planning Commission late. That's how we'll handle it from now on. We've been willing to be in front of you for many months based upon the original SRA documentation, and we're here. We think we should be able to get through this today. There's been plenty of review of the documents, and the questions should be directed to us in hopefully a very organized fashion, and we're prepared to answer any questions. We've provided all of the environmental data. Our environmental consultant is here. I believe you heard a presentation from your staff that agreed with our expert that we are consistent with the RLSA requirements from an environmental review and, with that, our environmental consultant is here. I'm sure staff is here as well. And we're ready to get started. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a follow-up to your comments. I don't know how we would get through today when five hundred and -- about 500 pages came in that has not been reviewed by staff or the County Attorney's Office. Sol, for one, would not be prepared to understand how those fit into the program. I understand what you're saying, Richard, but I don't know that everybody's on the same page until they review it. So you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we just withdraw those 500 pages, and we'll just go based upon the information we provided at the last meeting. And when we get to the Board of County Commissioners, we'll explain to them the changes in the acreage. MR. KLATZKOW: No. No, no, no, no, no. You don't do one presentation to the Planning Commission and do a second presentation to the Board. No, no. That -- no, no. For all you know, you may be on summary, all right. I mean, Jesus Christ, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Jeff, you know what -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. We complete this before the Planning Commission, then hopefully we're on Page 10 0£ 111 October 17, 2019 summary, because I don't want to go through this with the Board of County Commissioners if we get everything wrapped up here, and we're done. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how I qualify for summary when I have 230 -something -page letter from a group recommending that you don't approve the petition. MR. KLATZKOW: You may get everybody all kumbaya on this by the time you're done with your magic. So who knows? But no, no. We don't do one presentation for the Planning Commission then a second one for the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The point was, Richard, we're supposed to have a document reviewed by staff before we get it. And you submitted it the day --the day after the packets went out. If you really wanted to treat us fairly in our review, we could have -- they should have been given to staff in time for them to review it, the County Attorney's Office in time to acknowledge it, and then come to us. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, those documents, with all due respect to the County Attorney, are 100 percent consistent with what we presented to you guys at the last meeting. If it's such a burden that we're going to have to get continued again for you to verify whether the math was correct, we'd just as soon withdraw the information. It will be the same presentation to the Board that we previously presented to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In looking at the documents that we received --maybe I misunderstood, but the only changes I noted between the documents we received and the ones that were received prior to the last meeting was that the applicant and staff withdrew some of the deviations and made adjustments on deviations based on negotiations with the staff, and those all appeared to be worked out. The only other change I saw was the change in acreage partly due to the piece that was added to the north and partly due to the right-of-way. Am I mistaken? Because that -- of all the documents, everything appeared to be very close to the same except for those minor changes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that is exactly what was presented in the public hearing that lasted all day. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR, YOVANOVICH: And we were asked to make sure that the final version of the documents that you ultimately vote on are consistent with those agreements we reached with staff on the deviations and the acreage. You may disagree with the agreements on the deviations. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we did exactly what we were asked to do in a strikethrough and underline version, and we've presented that. And we stand by what we've done. We thought we were doing what we were asked to do, and we'd like to be done. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I did check the calculations for the current proposed acreage and open space and stewardship credits, and those are correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. That takes us to where we left off. The applicant indicated they had nothing to add to their presentation. I would like our staff to provide information to the panel on what they've done as far as the analysis of the NRI values goes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a question of procedure, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought staff presented at the end of last meeting. Is this a continuation of what staff presented? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We never finished the evaluation portion of the order, and at the same time, staff has done some research on some new documentation, and they're going to provide it to us now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. COOK: Good morning, everyone. For the record, Jamie Cook, principal environmental specialist with Development Review. Chairman Strain is correct in that with the boundary changes, a new NRI Assessment and new NRI data was submitted to us. So all of that was rereviewed, and the GIS staff did rereview it as well. Page 11 of 111 October 17, 2019 So what we wanted to do this morning was just to kind of give you a brief overview of that new data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've got to go back and ask again. The data that was presented by the petitioner over their analysis of the credits, you're now saying that's changed from what I've read before coming in today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, there was a document created by our GIS department that explains the NRI value so that everybody can understand them for -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've asked staff to do is present what they have -- their explanation, because it actually coincides with the applicant's, and it will clarify the air on some of the issues. So I've asked them to provide it as clarity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I clearly understand the whole raster graphics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You and I were the only ones here. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we were the only ones here when that program came through, so the others should be able to benefit from what staff has done. Go ahead. MS. COOK: So, again, with the submitted changes for the new boundary, the applicant did submit new NRI data and a new NRI Assessment. Again, there are six factors that make up the NRI score. The first is the stewardship overlay. This pertains to lands that fall within a Flowway Stewardship Area, a Habitat Stewardship Area, a Water Retention Area, or in the ACSC. Based on the RLSA overlay map, the entire boundary of Rivergrass does not lie within any of these areas. So for the stewardship index value, the entire boundary received a score of zero, and it continues to do so even with the boundary changes. The next factor is the proximity index. This one is divided up by whether the SRA is enclosed -- is enclosed by an FSA, HSA, or WRA, if it is within 300 feet of an FSA or HSA, or if it is within 300 feet of public or private conservation lands. Again, for this index value, the entire boundary of Rivergrass is not within any of those, so the entire SRA area would receive a zero of zero for proximity index. Okay. Listed species habitat, this one is calculated by the observation of a listed species within its preferred habitat. So for the Rivergrass boundary the northern portion that you can see on the screen, in yellow is pasture land, which, in that area, sandhill cranes were identified in the listed species survey. Pasture cropland is considered preferred habitat for the sandhill crane, so that is why that area receives a score of 0.4 for the listed species index. And, again, the habitat is based on the Land Development Code definition for listed species habitat, which means that it must preferred or tolerated habitat, not solely if the species is found in that area. Surface and soil water index, this index value is based upon the soils, obviously, and higher values are obtained for wetland, muck, depression soils, and lower values are for non -hydric soils. So most of the Rivergrass boundary is Immokalee fine sand, which is considered a non -hydric soil, but there are a couple areas that have flats transitional soils, which is in the green, and there's two one -acre grids within the boundary that have sand depression soils. Sothis --for the soils, the index values vary from 0 to 0.3. And then the land -use land cover is based on the vegetation cover of the area. There are some -- most of the area, again, is row crop pasture land. This -- these scores are based upon the type of vegetation. So higher quality vegetation like wetlands receives a higher score than agricultural land. Again, since most of this land is agricultural land, it's receiving a lower value than if it were wetland habitat or pine flatwoods, prairies, those sorts of habitats. When all of the factors are taken together, the final NRI map is produced and, as you can see, the entire Rivergrass boundary has a value of less than 1.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in concurrence with the applicant's information? MS. COOK: Correct. Page 12 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why, Joe, I wanted this shown so everybody -- this is a good way to depict NRI processes and values, and I hope that maybe when -- as staff goes through other villages that are coming in, we use somewhat of the same graphic format, because it definitely helps explain how they came and arrived at it. You did a great job on this, and Beth Yang as well. So thank you. MS. COOK: Yes, you're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In spite of Mr. Yovanovich, I still think a good thing to show, or whoever didn't want to get into this today. I think it was Joe actually, not Rich. But, Joe, itis -- do you see why the benefit? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it helps explain it. I don't even think the public would see it like this until this came about, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I watched, and I thought that was what was presented last time. Ido have some questions. MS. COOK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So in summation, the staff concurs with the applicant's NRA (sic) --as Mr. Strain stated, that you concur with the NRI analysis submitted by the applicant. MS. COOK: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you find it completely compliant with the LDC? MS. COOK: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Though this listed species analysis was completed for the NRI, that still does not waive any requirements for federal or state permitting; is that correct? MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Any --do you know if there's been any jurisdictional determination of wetlands in the area? MS. COOK: They have -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Had they had a JD analysis? MS. COOK: I do not believe so. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. COOK: They do have their Water Management District permit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, are these --maybe these are questions of the environmental staff of -- from the petitioner, because I'm going to ask some specific questions on federal permitting. MS. COOK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can Igo down that lane? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Absolutely. We're hereto delve into this environmental stuff. If we need staff to come back up, they're going to be here anyway, so we'll work with everybody. MS. SAMBORSKI: Hello. For the record, Heather Samborski, ecologist with Passarella & Associates. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Heather, in regards to federal permitting, have you initiated any action for a jurisdictional determination? MS. SAMBORSKI: Yes, we have. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And have they deemed any JD requirements in the areas that you're trying to develop? MS. SAMBORSKI: We do not have our federal JD complete yet. That's still under review at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So none of the ag ditches or any of the requirements -- I suspect they probably will fall under some kind of jurisdiction. MS. SAMBORSKI: We do have our district permit which does have our state jurisdictional determination tied to that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. But that's your water quality. But under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, you still have not submitted for your U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permit. MS. SAMBORSKI: This area is located within the boundary of what was Rural Lands West, and that is Page 13 of 111 October 17, 2019 still in with the Corps and under review. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I heard that, but, please, explain that better. MS. SAMBORSKI: The Rivergrass -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you saying that it's exempt from review because it's under -- MS. SAMBORSKI: No. What I'm saying is that this location, Rivergrass, is within the boundary of Rural Lands West. • 101 0_ _ • U : Jul 0 MS. SAMBORSKI: The Corps is still looking at that application. That's still under -- COMMISSIONER SCHNIITT: The entire Rural Lands West, meaning the original? MS. SAMBORSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIvIITT: Well, why would you proceed with that when this is just a fragment of the original? MS. SAMBORSKI: We would like the Corps to continue to look at the entire boundary as far as wetlands are concerned. COMMISSIONER SCIIMITT: Okay. I mean, that's your prerogative. It probably is better in the long run to have the whole thing done. MS. SAMBORSKI: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I suspect the Corps would prefer to do it as one --now, that then would open a Section 7 consultation, which would open it to Fish and Wildlife review. MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you've not gone through any of that yet? MS. SAMBORSKI: No. We have submitted documents for U.S. Fish and Wildlife review, but we have not completed that review. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the reason I'm going through these questions, because I want everyone to understand that even though this complies with the LDC, it doesn't waive any requirements for federal permitting. MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you have no determination of Panther Habitat Units, when you're going to have to pay PHUs. MS. SAM 3ORSKI: Correct. That has not been determined yet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I strongly suspect you will, and it will be a hefty price, based on my experience. MS. SAMBORSKI: Well, we'll see what they say. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that's U.S. Fish and Wildlife coming back. MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One last question. Just so everyone knows, once it goes to Section 7 consultation, that opens it up for public comment. MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It probably would bean extensive public comment period. That's far beyond anything having to do with the LDC or NRI. You basically still have to undergo all the federal permitting requirements, and that will be in conjunction with your South Florida Water Management permit. MS. SAMBORSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then your water -quality certification. MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCJ MITT: Prior converted croplands, are you waive (sic) for any prior converted croplands? I think that's no longer available. I don't think you can do it anymore. MS. SAMBORSKI: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That would be a legal issue. But atone time if they were prior converted croplands, you pretty much were exempt, but I don't think that's open anymore to availability. And I Page 14 of 111 October 17, 2019 don't know if the staff knows that, but I suspect -- just so the public knows, this will go through a significant review through the federal permitting process, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife will certainly have a lot to say. Will there be any type of Habitat Conservation Plan required, or you don't know yet? They may require an HCP -- a comprehensive HCP since you're now submitting for the entire Rural Lands West. MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. This is actually within the boundary of the eastern Collier HCP that's currently under review. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who initiated that? MS. SAMBORSKI: There are several different landowners. I don't know all the details of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's been under review for years, hasn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I was just going to say, is this --wow. And you're -- I mean, you have no idea where that's at? I mean, we're talking about pretty much primarily panther habitat. Even though you've had very few sightings, it's still going to be subject to that very comprehensive review, and I suspect -- MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --you'll be dealing with PHUs, which are Panther Habitat Units, that will be assessed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. MS. SAMBORSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. SAMBORSKI: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- well, thank you, miss. Staff, question: Did you look at a copy of the memorandum of understanding that did a restudy of the panther at the request or at the behest of the six landowners out there who are the primary holders of the RLSA? Did you review that against the application to see if there's any differences between what was recommended by that document and what this application's asking for? MS. COOK: I'm not sure I understand the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know what the memorandum of understanding is? MS. COOK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That came to some conclusions about panther habitat and areas of sensitivity. Did any of that pertain to Rural Lands, Rivergrass? MS. COOK: No, it did not, because the LDC defines listed species habitat as preferred or tolerated for that species, and it specifically identifies the vegetation codes that are preferred or tolerated for panther habitat, and none of those vegetation codes fall within the Rivergrass boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The WRAs, they're not supposed to have any hydrological changes or other habitat changes, things like that, to the WRA that's surrounding them. I noticed that the WRA is being excavated. There's going to be some berms and other things outside of the SRA boundary. Has anybody checked on the hydrology of that to see if it's going to be problematic? MS. COOK: I would defer to the Stormwater Department on that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are they here? Oh, Jerry's here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And if they're -- that's going to impact any jurisdictional wetlands, that will all be part of the federal permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. I still want to ask the question, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I understand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Go ahead, Jerry. MR. KURTZ: Hi. Good morning. Jerry Kurtz with the county Stormwater Planning Department. Could you repeat the question again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The hydrology of the WRAs, you know what those are adjacent to the SRAs? And this one has an SRA right along its eastern boundary in a lot of areas. And they are going to be excavating Page 15 of 111 October 17, 2019 out into that WRA. MR. KURTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have a set of interior lakes, and I don't know how those lakes are discharging, but I assume they're discharging into the WRA. And there is a provision in the LDC they're not supposed to be changing the hydrology of the WRA. Now, I'm assuming they also had discharging when the farm fields were there. So -- and the farm fields probably took more water than the development. I just want confirmation that someone has acknowledged the review of the hydrology, the water tables and the other things that are relevant to the function of the WRAs so that there's no net loss of habitat function in that WRA. And did anybody on our staff look at from that perspective? MR. KURTZ: Yes, we did. We looked at the whole plan, the Rural Lands West water management plan, as part of the permitting with the Water Management District. And the water proposed in the WRAs will not adversely impact the hydro periods. Even though there's some excavation going on in those WRAs, it's in conformance with the purpose of the WRA and how the whole system cascades pretty much from the SRA area into the WRA area and then into the Flowway Stewardship Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is the WRA going to be the discharge area for the waters from the lakes within the SRA? MR. KURTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's a typical development? MR. KURTZ: It's atypical kind of cascading system very similar to how the ag operation is operating, and it's a good plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, previously, the WRAs, likewise, were used for discharges from the farm fields? MR. KURTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a comparable between the farm fields and the SRA as far as volume goes? Is it more, less, or indifferent, or is that something we haven't taken a look at? MR. KURTZ: It's designed to mimic the same conditions that are happening as the ag operation out there today. It's very similar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The discharge rate will be multiplied by enough points to make sure the volume is still consistent -- MR. KURTZ: Discharge rates are pretty much dead on with existing conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Matt. MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, for the record. I do want to note, though, that by the conversion of the farm fields to the development that's being put in front of you guys here, there are going to be significant improvements to the overall water management system. Currently, right now, the agricultural operations does not provide any water -quality treatment before they do their discharges; whereas, with this particular development, they will be required to provide water quality on site before any of those discharges do occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I have -- Jerry, on the -- what exists now, is it a self-contained irrigation system out there? MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because often a lot of these areas are all self-contained and, frankly, they were -- they -- because they've been there for years, they're exempt from any type of federal oversight because they're part of ag exemption. But now once they go in and do any of the improvements, all that will have to come into compliance, and that's where we just talked about the discharge rate. So, frankly, before, if they flooded the fields to get rid of nematodes or whatever else, then they could pump and --just pump it. Now it all has to come under --through the water -quality certification, and it will be a final Water Management District ERP, environmental resource permit, correct? Page 16 of 111 October 17, 2019 MR. KURTZ: Well, they have surface water management --the old surface water management permits existing on the ag operation today, you know, permitted many, many years ago. So they were -- they're operating under existing water management permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The existing system that's out there --most of the farms I ever worked with, they had pump systems. How do you mimic a pump system with a natural system? MR. KURTZ: Well, it's very typical out there, yeah. It's the same ag operation. When they need to -- it's, you know, ag fields with rim ditches controlling the water levels for the ag operation. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And when they pump, they pump a lot of water at once. MR. KURTZ: They pump water into the WRAs when they need to move it on down through the system, yeah. They're old agricultural impound areas permitted by the district. Basically, bermed-in natural areas or wetlands. When you -- but, ultimately, the pumping is to control the ag operation field to keep the water level -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. So you don't flood the crops. MR. KURTZ: Then the water's pumped into the impound area, but then the impound area has control structures which releases it to move it on down into the natural areas. So the development condition will be very similar principally without the pumping, but gravity still -- you know, gravity still is the force behind. Even with pumping, it's localized in keeping the fields at a specific level and using the impound area as, like, a surge tank or receiving area, and then gravity still is the way that the water moves and cascades out through the system releasing into the natural area. So the conversion from ag to development is still very similar because, as you know, gravity is the ultimate -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you have an impound area with a berm around it and you pump into that impound area, it's going to raise that water level a couple of feet higher than it would under gravity flow from the development. So you should get a higher discharge rate coming out of the impound area. You should. But I'm thinking this is going to be a better system than the farm. MR. KURTZ: I'm of the same opinion, yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Jerry, the --I was looking at the master plan for the previously proposed Rural Lands West. And in that plan, there area couple of roads that came out of this area that this village now occupies. One to the northeast. One to the southeast. There were a couple of boardwalks or pathways that went into or across the WRAs that are adjacent. What are the considerations for those roadways and pathways in terms of water management when they do encroach on the WRA? MR. KURTZ: The connections that exist today are --they're going to use similar connections. You can't sever, you know, flow connections. So the plan is to keep those existing connections and control the water level similar to what they're controlled at today. So its mimicking the system that's out there today. And they have --for example, they use the same basins, the control basins that are being controlled out there today. Approximately all the same. So the drainage pattern between what's happening today versus what s proposed is very similar. They're really not making any drastic changes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is it possible to add roads, pathways, boardwalks through the WRA without negatively impacting the flow? MR. KURTZ: Yes, absolutely. And the designs that I've looked at are very well done. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Jerry, the South Florida Water Management District does the Page 17 of 111 October 17, 2019 review for the drainage; is that a fair statement for the most part? MR. KURTZ: Yes, the -- well, the permit is a conceptual permit that's issued but, yeah, it was a rigorous review going through all the calculations and the criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you see a permit for Rivergrass? Because they attached a permit -- or maybe it was application. I don't know if it was complete or not. It was many pages -- for Rural Lands West, but I didn't see anything specifically for Rivergrass. MR. KURTZ: There's a conceptual permit for Rural Lands West. I'm not sure if there's a permit for Rivergrass. Maybe -- MR. McLEAN: Rivergrass -- Matt McLean, again, for the record. Rivergrass effectively is a couple of the basins within the overall environmental resource permit for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. McLEAN: -- what was formally known as Rural Lands West. CHA RMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I saw the basin breakdown. So they don't need to submit a separate permit, then, for Rivergrass? Our Rural Lands West permit and all that covers everything? MR. McLEAN: It covers everything for now in the conceptual phase, and as development continues to move forward, there will continue to be additional water management permits for each particular phase of development as it moves forward into construction and operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I noticed the one we had was labeled differently, so I wanted to make sure it was consistent. I don't have any more questions of you, Jerry. Thank you. MR. KURTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The young lady that spoke on behalf of the environmental for applicant, would you mind coming to the mic for just a minute. Every time we have a meeting, I hear of documents that I would like to see to understand this project better. You mentioned the HCP. MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the HCP encompassing the entire RLSA including Rivergrass and Rural Lands West or whatever --the Big Cypress Stewardship area? Is all that partof it? MS. SAMBORSKI: I personally have not worked on the HCP, but I believe that is the understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a possibility we can have that document since it will be part and parcel to how you reviewed -- MS. SAMBORSKI: There's a draft document that is available, but it's not a final document yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that something, though, that we could be sent? MS. SAMBORSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SAMBORSKI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just exactly what will the HCP do? I mean, say you get it. What does that mean in regards to how this project's handled then? MS. SAMBORSKI: It basically provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review for various listed species that could occur within that area and also establishes some protocols and management plans if those species were to be found or occur within that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game, are they both involved in that HCP, Florida Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife? MS. SAMBORSKI: That I'm not aware of. It's my understanding it's just a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we're supposed to consider and utilize the consultant -- the comments and whatever the reports are that are issued by those two agencies when we review for species or other environmental issues on this property. And if its all coming out of the HCP, it would be relevant, then, to the property. So I sure would like an opportunity to read that. Page 18 of 111 October 17, 2019 MS. SAMBORSKI: Absolutely. And FWC has reviewed the project as part of the review for the conceptual permit for Rural Lands West. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. I'll -- thank you. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I know you know this, but just typically an HCP is required as part of the Section 7 consultation, which is part of the 404 permit. Go through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for your Clean Water Act, under 404 of the Clean Water Act, which then the Corps goes out and asks for -- under Section 7 consultation they go through all the other federal agencies for comment. MS. SAMBORSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIvIITT: U.S. Fish and Wildlife will comment, and at that time they may ask for a comprehensive Habitat Conservation Plan based on listed species. So I'm trying to figure out that if we wait for a final HCP, it will not be done until well into the permitting process. MS. SAMBORSKI: I don't know what the timeline -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not waiting for anything, Joe. She said there's an application in. I'd like to see it. That's all. If you could just send me the one you've got in, that would be fine. I just want to see what you're asking for. MS. SAMBORSKI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're not going to wait -- that's not going to involve our decision on waiting for this. We just want to see what itis. That's all. MS. SAMBORSKI: Yeah. The draft document is on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website, but we can happily provide that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a hard enough time getting around our government website. I can't imagine doing a bigger agency. But if you could send that to the staff so they could distribute it to the Planning Commission, that would be helpful to understand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Have you met with any of the staff from U.S. Fish and Wildlife? MS. SAMBORSKI: I personally have not. I -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, has your team talked to them? MS. SAMBORSKI: I know that as part of the development of Rural Lands West, when they were going through that process, that the agencies were consulted and were instrumental in kind of coming up with the design of the project. But since then I'm not aware of any other coordination. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many pages are in that application? MS. SAMBORSKI: I honestly don't know. I wasn't part of the team that helped prepare that document, so I can't -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Typically? 100? 200? Two? Three? Four? MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's --I don't know. But I'm a little concerned we're going off on a rabbit trail here, because those -- we are -- as Mr. Schmitt has pointed out, we're required to go through federal and state permitting process for part of this program. That process is separate and distinct from the designation of an SRA. So while all that information may be interesting, it's really not relevant to the petition before you. We'll provide you copies for your reading pleasure in the evenings to help you understand the process and maybe help you sleep, but right now I'd like to -- I'd like to see if we can keep going on the criteria that's applicable to this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've considered the HCP, since it came up in discussion, as applicable to this decision in the sense that it may provide information on other parts of this review that we are not now talking about. And I'd like to see it for that reason. And if it does have the information -- additional information on other issues involving this area, then I will certainly bring it up atone of the other meetings. So I would like you to follow through on that. MS. SAMBORSKI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 19 of 111 October 17, 2019 Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of the environmental section on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good. Lets move on -- well, we've still got questions on some of the other stuff that we had before this, but I guess we can fall back to those later on. Our next item up was the SRA document itself. So why don't we move right into that, and is -- I don't know if the applicant has any more they want to state on that. If not, we'll move right to staff report. Okay. Nancy, do you have a -- MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. We do have a staff report. And there were numerous stipulations of approval and, if you'd like, I'd be happy to go through that list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got two staff reports. We've got Comprehensive Planning, and we have Zoning. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I asked you first only because you were sitting there, and Corby or David or whoever is -- I can't see -- Corby -- oh, he's standing up. No wonder why I couldn't see him. Why don't we start with -- like we usually do with Comprehensive Planning first and go through their issues and then move on to Zoning after that, if that works for you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: Let's do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are these the staff reports that were part of the 3 October package? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The staff report I'm using says September 19th, 2019. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me see. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Corby Schmidt, principal planner with the Comprehensive Planning section. And as with a number of other staffers, we attempted to review some of the submittal -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to bring the mic closer to you work, Corby. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: -- some of those submitted documents that were in hand since you met last. Certainly didn't have time available to look at them all, but able to look at some. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What does that mean? I mean, what do you mean you didn't have time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, some came outlast week. Maybe he hasn't looked at those yet. That's what we started talking about. I mean, Corby, you looked at all the documents you distributed to us, right, that went through staffs review? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. And the time available to you was the same as it was to me. And like other staff, that was limited. Well, the original recommendation from staff is still the same. You have a recommendation that the number of deviations that are asked for still keep it too far from being a village. This is a project that is divided by an unsafe roadway. We see it as not yet a village. It is a gated bedroom community, one of them with a golf course and a shopping center, and the north half of the project is a residential project. It does not provide you, given the deviations requested, a viable village, not by definition. Until we see the results of the deviations in the plan itself, it doesn't reach those criteria. It doesn't come to that level. Besides some of the concerns you've already heard about interconnections that staff shares with transportation staff and others that I'll go through, we're not there yet. When we wrote originally, and these applicants provided staff -- review staff here, review staff here, multiple iterations of this project over time, I reminded them that the kinds of deviations that we were looking for -- and you see it here in your recommendation -- the kinds that would be further enhancing the tools, techniques, and strategies set forth in RLSA provisions. Not further away from them. And, still, you have a package of deviations that the results thereof don't yet show us that we're in the Page 20 of 111 October 17, 2019 ballpark to be a village. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let him get done with his presentation first. MR. SCHMIDT: I think I'd like to stick with some of the highlights, because much of the responses that we had were in a consistency review to what we looked at in Nancy's review. We supported some of her findings as well. But when it came to looking at the deviations themselves, we still have a concern with the mixed-use village center. Not quite sure how that's providing you with mixed uses yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, when you say "yet," Corby, do you mean at this stage or --because you've got to make your findings at this stage. So would they have to provide more at this stage for you to get to a finding that gives you the information you need? MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. The amount of materials they provided us is -- at our last hearing, responded to the deviations that staff allowed them in one way or another to respond to. Okay. They backed off or they withdrew a deviation that they would be allowed to park in front of buildings, for instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They withdrew that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just --their presentation as a deviation --because Bob was using a different format than was in the staff report. So I don't remember which numbers from that were approved or not approved. So let -- that's why I'm trying to get clarity. I want to make sure I understand what it is. And I see Bob shaking his head. I don't know where we are with the deviations yet. My intent was to go through those one ata time so we can get clarity on them, because the two different numbering systems confused the whole issue, so... MR. SCHMIDT: That may be, but when she gets to her deviations on the LDC side, I'll do them individually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: But when it comes to the FLUE and my sections, I was asked to stand up first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. No. We normally hear Comprehensive Planning first. Then we go to the Zoning, so that's where we are. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. But the problem we're having with looking at the materials given to us thus far it is it doesn't show us the results of what have been done with the changes in the deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean where they now say they no longer are requesting that deviation, the outcome of what they really want to do versus what staffs intent was by dropping -- by the deviation being dropped is not known, or they're going to be then consistent with the language in the LDC? MR. SCHMIDT: One or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll find out in each one then. MR. SCHMIDT: In some instances, unable to tell by what's being presented thus far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: It's that way with the required continuum for density, intensity, and the mix of uses from the outer edge of the village or the projects to the center where it should be most dense, most mixed, and most intense. None of the materials show us the kind of changes that show us that yet. So although some of those requests are still there, we don't see the results of it. Where we're -- revised or allowing them to park in front of buildings where the LDC prohibits it. The result of that is, can't tell. Is it that now -- the result of that is all parking will be in front of buildings in the town center or the village center? We don't know. But by some arrangement, much like Ave Maria or some other location, perhaps the mix of parking hasn't been proposed, the combination of parking hasn't been proposed, or how much of that requirement they're truly deviating from. They haven't been able to tell, so we're not there yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Corby, the lack of information that you need, was this --is this rushed through at a point where you guys didn't have enough time to review it, or why don't you have the information? Did you expect it to come out through back and forths with RFIs, or what did you see -- how'd you see this Page 21 of 111 October 17, 2019 playing out? Because if you were asking for specific explanations but you haven't got them, why haven't you got them? Do you -- MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not quite sure, because the kind of information we have been receiving has been partial. I think the kind of understanding or the direction they you receive during these hearings is only according to the deviations themselves, but the changes we see from the remaining direction staff haven't been changed. They haven't -- they're not responding to other recommendations as yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, and then Joe, I think, had some questions, too. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think it's very useful of course that we continue all day to talk about this, but from -- right now I can't see how we could possibly take action today because staff doesn't have all the information that it needs to make recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just get --we're going to be here all day, so let's get as much information on the table today that we can, and at the end of the day we'll make a decision what we've got to do. I mean, if we find that we need more time to get better and clearer information to both -- either the benefit of the applicant or the benefit of the public or the benefit of ourselves, why don't we discuss that before we wrap up this afternoon and make that decision then? Because who knows what can pan out today. We might --as we talk to Nancy, as we take a break at lunch, we might get better information. So I'd rather give today a full try. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I agree. I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's just keep going. Joe, did you have something? You kept raising your hand, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was there a separate Comp Plan, staff document? I'm still looking for it. I'm looking at the 19th September -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 14 of your --yeah, there is a separate document. In -- it's Page 135 of the original -- it's after the first staff report. It's Page 13 5 in the first -- as you go down through the document, at least the document Pve got. We've all got maybe different documents, but the one I got -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm looking at the 19 September agenda. I'm trying to figure out where Corby is making this analysis, because it is my understanding, based on what I heard on the tape, that staff and the applicant were in full agreement with all the deviations, and others were withdrawn, and the way you're basically giving the presentation is you're not even in the loop on any of those discussions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think you heard the staffs -- the applicant's. I'm not sure you heard all the -- we hadn't gotten to the staff report in the tape you watched, Joe. This is the first time we've talked about the staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. But there were --I understand, but there were updates to the deviations. There were deviations that were withdrawn, and there was agreements between the staff, and now we're again talking about parking and other things. Is that a Comprehensive Plan assessment -- Comprehensive Planning stating that it's not consistent with the RLSA, or you're just not aware of what has transpired between the planning staff and the applicant? MR. SCHMIDT: We're fully aware. We're fully aware of what's transpired. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So you made some determinations based on what? On your assessment? Based on the criteria in the LDC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, did you -- there's a September -- there's a consistency review memorandum that's quite a few pages long dated September 10th. It's all spelled out in there. Thafs what we're actually reading off of is what the writings were from our Comprehensive Planning staff in that memorandum. And that's what we typically do. And I wanted to go through that and hear staffs side, because we heard the applicant's side. That was the first tape that you watched. We didn't hear the staff s report, and that's what we're doing now. And Corby's saying he has concerns. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just trying to get to the right document because we have the September 19th document, we had 3 October document, and we had the document for this. And where is that in Page 22 of 111 October 17, 2019 our packet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in my packet it was Page -- it started on Page 135. So -- and it was -- we had 1,500 pages, so it's in there, but you just may not have come -- you know, as you scrolled through it, you may have missed it. But, Corby, let's continue with your positions. MR. SCHMIDT: I think because some of these are detailed and they're referring to language in the Comp Plan that supports, or not, the specific findings of each or most of the LDC requirements, I think we might be best to go through them one by one at this time and interject when necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean one by one of the deviations or your comments? The deviations we're going to go through separately. At the time we go through them, I'd like to --both you and Nancy to be available at the speakers to get your input on each one so we make sure -- there was 19 to start with. Bob went through 19 of them, but he didn't go through 1 through 19. He went through different numbering for the same deviations. I just want to make sure that we all understand which ones are off the table, that everybody's on the same page as to why they're off the table, and then we understand which ones we're going to be recommending. MR. SCHMIDT: I think it's best to take that now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have questions about your overall consistency memorandum before we go there, and I think others may have. And I'd like to start with that first. We are going to take a break at 10:30 for 15 minutes for the court reporter who's probably about to throw something at me because I'm speaking so fast, but it's one of those days. And she gave me the coffee this morning, so it's her fault. Okay. With that, we could -- I would suggest -- it's 16 pages, and we ought to start right from the beginning. Does anybody have any questions from the consistency memo in the first few pages of the memo? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Corby, there is -- a statement you made on Page 3, about the second large paragraph -- or third large paragraph down. In the middle it says, where the proposed project is inconsistent -- is in consistency with one area of the LDC, that reaches the ability to be found consistent with the other, the GMP. Likewise, where the proposed SRA lacks consistency with the intent of the RLSA provisions in the LDC, it may be found inconsistent with the GMP. And is that the issue you're fording in the deviations? Is that what we're focusing on? MR. SCHMIDT: It will be, yes. The language in the FLUE RLSA district allows us to look at the specific provisions in the LDC. And where inconsistencies are there, we have the ability to find it inconsistent with our policies as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll wait till we get to the deviations to get to that. Under the table that you have on Page 4 -- and I brought this up to you at the staff discussion we had this week -- I found a different defmition for the calculation of density than David Weeks, I think, was going to look into that, and I asked someone to tell me -- because on that one page of the GMP or LDC language I pointed out to you, it's supposed to be -- the base density is supposed to be calculated on the acres excluding the free acres, meaning the noncredit acres. Did you guys take a close look at that and come back with a conclusion on it? MR. SCHMIDT: I have a couple of variations on that, but I think David looked for the definition, so he may have the specific answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd like to hear it, because I gave you both the citation from the document. I can't remember if it was GMP or LDC, but one of those documents that we went through all my understandings of those, and I don't -- and I asked you to refine it by today so we'd have an answer. David, if you're -- you didn't do it, did you? MR. WEEKS: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's concerning because it does have a different way of calculating density and would put the gross density of this project about a little over three. It's not any kind of a deal -breaker. Just make sure it's accurate. Right now your table calls out the density -- 2,500 development units divided by approximately 1,000 acres. It's easy; 2.5. But the way the -- I forgot which document -- we'll get to it later -- says it's supposed to be Page 23 of 111 October 17, 2019 the density -- the area of the SRA used for credits. And if you take that, you get about a 3.04 density unit. Again, it doesn't hurt anything. It's just something that ought to be accurate if we're going to use it. And since there are two definitions -- or two different ways of doing it, I want to find out which one is the correct way. And we did talk about that at the meeting we had, and you guys were going to take a closer look at it, but maybe before the day's over I'll get an answer on that. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your same table under residential housing styles you say, however, the project is not proposed with a meaningful mix between single-family and multifamily housing as the ratio is 90 percent single-family and 10 percent multifamily housing. And I mentioned to you at the time "meaningful." I mean, I know Mr. Yovanovich likes to focus on words, and "meaningful" doesn't give you a parameter. What does it mean, "meaningful"? So is there anyway --how did you interpret "meaningful"? Being 10 percent or 4 percent or 50 percent? How do we get there? What do you use? MR. SCHMIDT: I think we started by looking at the county as a whole, and I think we provided some of those numbers and attempted to start there, and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying, the county as a whole, your numbers are 50 percent single-family and 45 percent multifamily. So the ratio that you're looking for on a village would have to mimic -- you would think would mimic the county; is that what you're -- MR. SCHMIDT: That is not what we're saying. It's just a starting point. It was a point to begin from for some sort of discussion with the developer or the applicant to find what direction they would want to go from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Somewhere between the high and the minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --and 10 percent is somewhere in between, is it -- but haw do we say -- how do we dismiss that as a viable option? I mean, what basis would we use to say, well, it didn't mean 10 percent? And that's why I told you guys ahead of time I'm going to ask these questions, because I want good answers. And if you haven't thought about it, I kind of -- MR. SCHMIDT: We have, and Mr. Weeks is more prepared to answer that question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he doesn't want to come up. I can get this -- MR. SCHMIDT: Is he waving his hand behind me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. He's slumping down in his seat a little bit. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. Commissioners, let me start at the real high level -- I'm going to be brief. At the real high level, as has already presented at the last meeting for the RLSA program, the intent is to preserve certain lands, Stewardship Sending Areas, and then direct the development to these SRAs, Stewardship Receiving Areas; thereby, accomplishing -- at a high level, accomplishing the goals of the RLSA program; preserve certain lands, direct development away from listed species and their habitat and so forth. So at the high level, you know, we could easily check off yes. Because this is an SRA, just kind of by default -- a proposed SRA. By default it is meeting the high-level intent of the program. And then the second level is all of the details in the Land Development Code. If the intention was you simply shift the development over to an open area as designated on the Future Land Use Map for this Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Area, if the intention was -- is just to direct the development to those areas, there would be no need to have pages and pages and pages in the Land Development Code of design criteria and standards which we're about to get into discussing again regarding the deviations. So is it a compact development? At the high level, yes; at the more detailed level, that's what we want to discuss some. Staff has met with the applicant, and we did resolve several of the deviations, and that's something that was walked through by the applicant at the last meeting. Some deviations staff had recommended approval of, and so I think the focus had been on those that staff did not support and that were identified in the staff report. Page 24 of 111 October 17, 2019 One of the things that Corby touched on -- and I want to try to say it maybe more succinctly or clearly -- is if there's a requirement or prohibition in the LDC and a deviation is requested, it seems to take us from zero to 100. It's either all or nothing. Either you comply with the requirement of the LDC or you deviate from it and you don't comply at all. You do whatever it is you are proposing to do. Let me narrow in on a specific example. The issue of parking being allowed in the front, in the village center -- and I believe it was discussed at the last meeting, the deviation request was to be allowed to park in the front which means if that deviation's granted, all of the parking could occur in the front of the building. Staffs position is, to try to meet the intent of the village concept, it shouldn't be all in the front. If we approve of the deviation, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. It could be somewhere in between; some parking along the street, some parking along the sides of the building. Not all of it in the front. And that, I think, is what Corby had touched on with -- sorry, Corby, I'm going to use the word "vague" discussion. Trying to hone in on specifics. So that's where -- from the staff perspective, we want a little bit more discussion. Yes, we've agreed with the deviation but not -- I'll say not completely. Let's try to find some middle ground. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That helps a lot. And maybe as Corby -- Corby's very focused on this. And maybe you could help interpret periodically when we need some clarity that his intensity is something we need a follow-up on. That's good. I appreciate your explanation. That helps a lot. MR. WEEKS: One more thing I want to touch on specifically about the meaningful mix of multifamily. I'm not sure if it was stated at the last meeting or not, but there is a requirement a minimum of 10 percent of the dwelling units in an SRA must be multifamily. They have committed to that, so they are complying with that, period. Staff -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not in the code, but we agreed to it; 250 units. MR. WEEKS: I thought it was a code requirement. But at any rate, staff asked for a meaningful mix, and that's a vague term, understandably. But, again, going back to the village concept, we are asking them to do more. It's anask; nota requirement. It is anask. Similar to affordable housing. There is no requirement in our regulations that this development, this SRA, provide any affordable housing; nonetheless, staff has asked them to do so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There is a requirement, though, for diversity of housing. MR. WEEKS: Yes, there is. C14AIRMAN STRAIN: And previously the housing staff said that was the basis for the need for affordable housing, but that's their interpretation. From your perspective, you say that doesn't necessarily demand affordable housing. MR. WEEKS: Correct. I think diversity could being interpreted as different income levels. It could be interpreted as different dwelling unit types: Single-family, multifamily, attached, et cetera. CHAHZMAN STRAIN: Okay. While we've got you up there before -- Karl, did you have something? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, there's also --the vision includes the higher density near the town center -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: --and the density being reduced as you move to the outside of the development. Wouldn't that also lend itself toward having multifamily closer to the center surrounded by smaller single-family or attached villas surrounded by -- single-family homes surrounded by larger lots to the outside, so that would portend some more multifamily or at least higher density housing near the village center, correct? MR. WEEKS: It would. And again, Corby touched on that as well. The village center is supposed to be, I'll say, a parallel to the activity centers that we have in the urban designated area and then lands outside of the activity center. Within the village center should be the most intense uses -- that's where commercial is allowed -- and higher density, and you do have a gradient as you move outside of the village center to lower density and then lower density still as you go towards the edges. Again, parallel to the activity centers in the urban area which Page 25 of 111 October 17, 2019 allows commercial in high density. You get outside the activity center, inmost cases properties are in a density band, so it would allow for a little bit higher density. And then outside of that, you know, a mile away you then drop down to even lower density. So it's the same concept of intensity and then a gradient as you move out from that village center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rules for the RLSA that all this evolved came out of our studies done in the later -- about early 2000s, but these were actually written by people both employed by the county and I think by the landowners at the time, so everybody was on board with all -- whatever this meant back then is my understanding. I mean, I lived it, so that's what my recollection is. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. It was actually written by the consultant which the county -- the Eastern Collier Property Owners, ECPO, came before the county after the final order of 1999 was issued and asked for the county's permission to prepare the regulations for the rural lands area, what today is the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, whereas staff and the consultants worked on the rural fringe area. So, yes, the consultants for the major property owners did draft the RLSA overlay, and then it went through the process of staff review and public meetings and so forth and got revised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: But, yes, ultimately we agreed, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's going to be quite a few follow-up questions, but I think we should take our break now and give Terri a break for 15 minutes. Comeback at 10:45. We'll resume at that point. (A brief recess was had from 10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, if you could please take your seats. We'd like to resume the meeting, and Planning Commissioners. We need to have at least a quorum up here. Okay. We left off trying to go through the Comprehensive Planning document, and David had just got done explaining some issues. And I don't know how you -all want to move forward, but we still have questions. And I'll -- David, go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be best to just jump right in and walk through the deviations. I had some conversation with Rich during the break, and Corby and I as well. And the one thing that I absolutely won't do, it would be inappropriate to do, is renege. If staff has met with the applicant, we've had discussion, we've come to agreement, yes, we can support this deviation or this alternative approach, then we have to stand by that. And so as we walk through the individual deviations, I'm going to stay up here and Corby, Nancy, and we can say here's where we've agreed, and the result is, notwithstanding the comments that you heard us making, we're going to back off. There's going to be fewer, if any -- I'm not sure, but few deviations where staff has not previously agreed to support a deviation request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, David, whatever position you guys take is your position. I'm fine with that. I purposely had a meeting with staff two days ago that you were at, and the intent was -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to clarify where you guys stood. Because I had heard, too, that you -- and Richard, I think, at the last meeting even said something to that effect, and I found out at that meeting both of you in that meeting nodded, you're solid on what your recommendations were. Now you're reversing it again. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, I want to tell you something, fust of all, we may not agree with your position, and that's going to be our ability after we understand what it is and why it is and all it is. If we're going to -- and I had questions about the general statements made and then in the conclusions of the Comprehensive Planning memo. I'm willing to defer to those till after, then, the deviations at your request, as long as the other Planning Commission members don't object, but I also need to find out where -- how we all can get on the same page with the deviations, because my notes are on the ones from the staff report, and that's not the ones Bob's using. MR. SCHMIDT: They are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's go back and figure that out. And if we can figure that out, Page 26 of 111 October 17, 2019 then as long as -- Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are they the same as listed in 9A1H Rivergrass SRA document that is redlined? MR. MULHERE: Look. I have a PowerPoint presentation. It shows the deviations that remain. It doesn't show the ones that we've deleted, you know, that we've removed. And it shows the changes to those as we agreed to with staff, I believe, in red. So it should be very easy to look at those, see what staff agreed to, and which deviations remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go there, I would like to just find --you know, I would --I make my little underlines and highlights so that I can appropriately ask questions. And where I started mine -- and I'll follow yours -- is Deviation No. 1 on Page 27 of our staff report. That's what I used. And I want to -- if we could walk through those in that order, I can follow it, but I'm not sure my Planning Commission members will. MR. MULHERE: Well, we can use both documents. I have to get my staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure everybody's on literally the same page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you're still back at the 19 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm back at the one staff gave us dated September 19th. And in that one they had what's called a deviation discussion, and that's a summary of the deviation, the petitioner's position, and staff s analysis. MR. MULHERE: I have those right in front of me plus the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That just seemed like the logical one we should be using since we use it at every meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I've got in front of me. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, in Section 7 deviations, you're looking at the staff report? Page 7 of 40? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at Page 27 of 40. MR, MULHERE: And I'm looking at Page 1223. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. MULHERE: Which is your agenda page. It's the staff report. It's the deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My agenda page? My agenda page, we have -- MR. MULHERE: Accela, I guess. I don't know. I'm on the same page you were, Page 27 of 40. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are we all going to refer to these by the number, like Deviation No. 1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We usually do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to know if we're on -- MR. MULHERE: Hello? I cando that. Of course, obviously in the SRA document we used a numbering system that was logical and made sense but, sure, I'll use No. 1, No. 2, No. 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you did that, but yet in the PUDs, you list -- you have a separate page for deviations, and you list them like they match up to the staff report. So who changed it? MR. MULHERE: I did, and the reason I did, Mr. Strain, is because in the SRA there are different context zones. So I arranged them by context zone which is very logical, but, you know -- hey, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, we're going to have this discussion every village going forward, right? MR. MULHERE: Well, I can renumber them 1, 2, 3, 4. Whatever --whatever the Planning Commission is happy with. And I have that Page 27. I also have the changes on the -- well, I will have the changes on the visualizer so that you can see how they were changed and what we agreed to, except this isn't coming up. Oh, podium computer. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chairman, I follow your lead with your documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on that? Okay. Well, let's just go and start with No. 1. Deviation 1, tell us where we stand on that, what's happening, and if you withdrew, tell us why so we can have staff acknowledge they agree or disagree, so going down the road when you guys come in for an application you do or do not utilize it, the reasoning for this, everybody's on the same page. And you don't have a fight at that time and Page 27 of 111 October 17, 2019 we don't. MR. MULHERE: No problem. Deviation 1 on the staff report, Page 27 of 40, was eliminated. It was agreed that that deviation is not required. And then you can certainly turn to staff and, you know -- that's the one that dealt with requiring the village center to be developed in a progressive rural to urban continuum with the greatest density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the village center. You know, we are not asking for a deviation from that. We believe our design is compliant with that. So we're not asking for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So does that mean staff is supposedly in agreement with you? And I'll need both staff members to comment on that. And we'll start with Comp Planning and then we'll go to Zoning. And we're going to do this with each deviation until it's done, because I want everybody on the same page. I don't want to screw this thing up if we don't have to. COMMISSIONER SCHNIITT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I wanton the record then, because it shows denial, if they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want it on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Corby, are you in agreement with Bob on this one? MR. SCHMIDT: The withdrawal, yes, because we expect a mixed-use center with the highest density, intensity, and mixed uses along that continuum out to the edge of the village. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The plan that you just saw, their master plan, does that meet this criteria? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it does. Okay. So you're happy with their plan, and you're okay with this being withdrawn because the plan is consistent with this -- the deviation isn't needed? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: We're in agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Deviation No. 2. Bob? I'll let you start off, and where you guys stand on that, then we'll get Corby and Nancy to jump in. MR. MULHERE: So this deviation is the one that was referenced which deals with the parking, which the RLSA for a village refers you to the town core/town center parking requirements, and that prohibits parking in front of buildings. So it says in front of buildings. And we made a presentation to you at your previous hearing where we showed you the Publix in Ave Maria and also the Arthrex building. I won't go through that again. We met with staff, and the -- on your visualizer is those two deviations that deal with that issue, which would be Deviations 2 and 3. It's the same relevancy. It has to do with parking in front of the building, Mr. Chairman. And both of those, staff agreed; if we added a condition that said, when such parking is in support of a shopping center which includes a grocery store. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go to staff, your interpretation of a grocery store is pursuant to the ITE or our definition in our LDC? MR. MULHERE: In the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the ITE shopping center is used all the time, and it's not the same definition as we have in our LDC. MR. MULHERE: No. It's 20,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and you've got to have so many tenants. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as long as it qualifies as a shopping center in our LDC, then that's the language that staff wanted it to be -- to approve that as a deviation. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. Page 28 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. MULHERE: It's a defined term in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, whoever's going to comment on that. MR. WEEKS: Staff agreed for both 2 and 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, on 2? MS. GUNDLACH: We agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to 3. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorryto have to do this, but I want to go back to No. 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're hereto get this thoroughly resolved. We'll go back wherever you want to go. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Number 1 seems to deal with two subjects. First of all, the fact that the greatest density should be in the center, if you will, and then moving out in concentric circles of lesser density. So, for instance, one would expect to seethe multifamily housing pretty close to the village center. Is that what is reasonable to expect? MR. MULHERE: It is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then the second part, staff indicated that it felt, at least initially, that the distance, the walking distance, if you will, from the northern tip or the southern tip to the village center was too far. MR. MULHERE: We would disagree with that. I mean, obviously, there's accessibility -- multimodal accessibility. That is, you can walk, you can bike, you can drive a car from one location to the other. There's no requirement. There's no -- so our position is there are very detailed standards in the LDC as to what's required in the village, extremely detailed. If you meet those requirements, you are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. There's nothing in there that says a house can't be more than a half a mile away from the village center. It says it has to be the most compact around the village center and then moving to an edge, a less dense, less compact edge. That's exactly what we have. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd just like to ask staff again if their opinion has changed with respect to the walking distance. MR. WEEKS: Typically, a quarter mile is considered walking distance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And this is a mile and a quarter, isn't it? MR. WEEKS: It's farther, but staff previously supported the deviation, and we're not going to renege now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, I mean, I understand you're seeking internal staff consistency, but I also think it's useful for this Planning Commission to focus on the fact that usually a quarter of a mile is considered walking distance, and this is more like a mile and a quarter. MR. WEEKS: And something that I think may be related is Deviation No. 8, which we're not to yet, but that will address location of multifamily from the village center. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Fryer, if I can just add, I don't think that it would be reasonable to expect that a village is limited to a one-quarter mile -- MR. MULHERE: You couldn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That can't be what your Land Development Code intended, especially when you're supposed to become less intense as you get further away from the center. There's nothing in the code that says every house has to be within a quarter of a mile. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand that. I think it's just --it's a matter of seeing if this project, as you have presented it and you have applied, sufficiently meets the many qualitative standards, because they're not quantitative. Words like "compactness" are used, "walkability" is used. And, certainly, there isn't -- wouldn't be expected that there would be a perfect understanding between you and me over what amounts to walkability. But, you know, at some point one would aggregate the differences, I think, and make a qualitative Page 29 of 111 October 17, 2019 determination, a subjective determination as to whether the intents and purposes of the various governing documents apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what we've done with staff after seeing the staff report, and keeping in mind that we've not asked for any deviations from sidewalk requirements and the like which all encourage walkability within the community: Walking to your neighbors, walking to what might be your recreational facilities. Ultimately if you feel like taking a longer stroll to the village center, all of those things are provided for in our document as far as a walkable community. It doesn't say that every -- you know, every aspect of it must be walkable to the village center. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I understand. Just a final point, though. Wouldn't it be fair for me, when I make my personal final judgment of recommendation on this, that I would evaluate all of these characteristics against the qualitative standards, words like "walkability" and "compactness" and put them on the scale and see how it weighs? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I don't believe that subjectivity at the end of the day is an allowed criteria. The compliance with the Land Development Code is the standard. And now we're asking for some deviations. You may say some of those deviations in your mind are not appropriate, but if we had asked for no deviations and we meet all of the qualitative standards in your code, I don't think you -- I don't think your measurement of walkability is the standard by which we're measured. We're measured by the qualitative standards in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which are what? David, there is no -- is there a -- by a qualitative standard, we have your opinion, but is there a standard specific for walkability in the Land Development Code, or -- well, Ray, Nancy, anybody. Do any of you guys know of a specific distance criteria? MR. WEEKS: Not that I'm aware of CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's where I think the crux of the problem is. Everybody's got an opinion on it, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's consistent or inconsistent with the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Chairman, what I would say is walkability includes the requirement -- remember, we used to ask for deviations to sidewalk requirements, and everybody said, no, no, no; you've got to have sidewalks for communities to be walkable. And the walkability wasn't necessarily to anything other than maybe to the clubhouse of your community or just getting out and exercising. So walkability has historically been measured by the requirement that we meet your sidewalk requirements for communities to be walkable. So I would argue that that criteria is objectively defined in your Land Development Code through the requirement of providing sidewalks. So that's what I think has historically been, because the community, the Blue Zones people -- and maybe they're here today. I know they wrote a letter that said, don't let developers deviate and have a sidewalk on only one side of the street. You're no longer walkable because people won't walk across the street to get to the sidewalk. So we don't ask for that deviation anymore except if we have housing only on one side of the street. We've learned, and we're meeting those requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, your change from .25, which is a quarter mile, to 1.25, which is four or five times that, is what I think's at discussion here. Is that a change in interpretation of your intent of the GMP or -- MR. WEEKS: No, no. The quarter -mile distance is generally recognized as a reasonable walking distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what you've used to review other projects in the past? MR. WEEKS: Well, let me finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: I think Rich touched on it. You think about it, a village can be as large as a thousand acres. That's over a section and a half The entire village is not going to be within a quarter mile of the village center unless you have multiple village centers, which is a possibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please don't interrupt him, Rich. Let him finish. Page 30 of 111 October 17, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Strain. MR. WEEKS: But even if you had two village centers, there still maybe portions of the project that aren't within a quarter mile. The objective is to have as much of the -- as many of the residents -- as much of the residences be within that quarter of a mile of village center, of commercial, of clubhouse, some type of social. I would even accept that as being reasonable. But the quarter mile, no, we would not expect the entire village to be within a quarter mile of a village center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you expect this project to have that quarter mile --meet that quarter -mile criteria now that you're talking about it? Do you expect a percentage of this project to be within a quarter mile of the village center to meet what you just described? And if you do, what evidence have you seen that it does or doesn't so you know if this deviation can be dismissed or not? MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. I don't think I understood the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this -- have you got information, you or Corby, that shows that a certain -- whatever percentage you deem necessary is within a quarter -mile radius of that village center to meet the criteria -- to meet the standard that the deviation was going to be -- MR. WEEKS: I don't believe there's any way to know because we don't have enough detail on the master plan, I mean, to identify how many units are located there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that is an essential problem that I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We don't have enough information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of where I thought Ned was heading is how do we know that -- if they need the deviation or not? Go ahead. Somebody --whoever wants to jump in. Go ahead. MR. EASTMAN: Where does the quarter -mile standard come from? Because in the school setting, we have two miles as walkable distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those poor kids got to walk two miles? MR. EASTMAN: Yes, they do, even the elementary kids. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Uphill both ways. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I did in my youth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, too. I'm just giving Tom a bad time. MR. WEEKS: It's commonly accepted in the land -use -planning world. It might be in ULI standards. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I read you something, Dave? MR. WEEKS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: From Wikipedia. Walk score is a walkability index based on the distance -- slower -- to amenities such as grocery stores, schools, parks, libraries, restaurants, and coffee shops. Walk score's algorithms awards maximum points to amenities within five-minute walk, which they say is a quarter mile. And a decay function assigns points for amenities up to 30 minutes away, which is probably a mile and a half by, you know, normal walking speed. Scores are normalized from zero on 100. So there's a lot of references hereon walkability, and it has nothing to do with real -- a quarter mile as a breakpoint. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The whole article here just talks about how easy it is to walk, not how far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's what I don't want to have happen. They're going to withdraw this. Staffs in agreement they can go up to a mile and a half with the stretch of the village or whatever they're going to do yet they want a certain percentage -- they feel a certain abundance of units are supposed to be within a quarter mile of the village. So how does the applicant know now what to come in with to show on his plans to meet the criteria they may be judged with that they're now going to withdraw their deviation from that they might end up needing? That's what I think Ned's trying to get to the answer to, and that's what I think the applicant would want Page 31 of 111 October 17, 2019 to know they've got some security as understanding what the outcome of this is. Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I'd like to just call your attention to the exhibit on your screen, which is the Future Land Use Element. And the second -- third sentence states, villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. We have done that. Now, the last sentence says, design criteria for villages shall be included in the LDC stewardship district. That is done, that is included, and we are consistent with that. We have provided -- we're not asking for, you know, any deviations from their sidewalk or bicycle requirements. That's how people get around. The quarter mile is a rule of thumb for having an easy walk to a location. It doesn't mean that people won't walk or bike further than that. And there's no way you can put a thousand -acre village in a quarter mile of a village center. It does not work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you, Bob. I'm just trying to make sure you're not going to run into a brick wall when you come in with your project. MR. MULHERE: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Policy 7.4 of the FLUE, the county shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities, and a range of housing prices and types. I am not suggesting that it should be an easy walk or needs to be an easy walk from every remote point within this village, but it seems to me that we all should ask for and have a right to know what percentage of the people will be able to get there in a quarter of a mile, half a mile, three quarters of a mile. Certainly, if someone buys at the northern or southern edge of this village, they're not going to have a quarter -mile walk. They've made that choice. But as density increases and you get more toward the center of the village, you would expect that the walks would be shorter as well. Maybe 60 percent should have a quarter or half -mile walk. You know, isn't that kind of how you would judge this or have judged it in the past? Because I know you don't require a quarter of a mile for everybody in a development of this sort. MR. SCHMIDT: This is one of our first developments of this sort, and in the past, whether there was a requirement for distance or not, a quarter mile is a certain kind of standard. Whether walkability is found anywhere in the language that you're being asked to look at today, we haven't found it in print yet. However, you have an LDC requirement to be pedestrian friendly, and your quarter -mile standard is that. Not in the LDC, but in reference documents. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And these are the qualitative standards that I think its our responsibility to try to measure the evidence against. MR. SCHMIDT: Again, it's qualitative, and we agree. You have reasons to stick to a number like that. We've already indicated that half mile is a distance that is acceptable for those multifamily units in the deviation that I think we're talking about now. So there's some give in our allowance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would like to know, then, from the applicant what percentage of the residents of this village would be able to get to the center in a quarter of a mile, half a mile, three quarters of a mile, mile, mile and a quarter, roughly. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the answer to your question is I don't know as I sit here right now, so I can't answer it. But I would like to actually look at what the deviation was from and the words that are in your Land Development Code, so if I can be indulged with that. It says -- it's under the village design criteria. And it's to be developed in a progressive rural to urban continuum with the greatest density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the village center to the least density, intensity, and diversity occurring within the neighborhood edge. So I don't -- that's the entirety of what the LDC says. I don't see the word "walkability" anywhere in that Page 32 of 111 October 17, 2019 section. So why do I need a -- to why? For purposes of this deviation, have to address how many homes are planned to be within a quarter of a mile? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because RLSA villages area different species than PUDs in urban areas, and walkability is one of the concepts that's important because it falls under the heading of compactness. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you defined compactness by the fact that I cannot exceed a thousand acres. Then I would be a town, which is a very different form of compact development. And I would venture to say that there -- when you go through these processes or different options there's nothing in the code that says a certain percentage of the residents must be within a quarter of a mile. Walkability -- when you encourage walkability, you encourage that through providing sidewalks and other opportunities for people to walk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Richard, one of the words you just read clearly indicates the village center is supposed to have the maximum diversity. You dolt have a diversity if you don't put residential within the walkable range of the village center. I think that's what -- that's the key language that we should be looking at. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, we don't have an objection to requiring that our multifamily be within a certain distance of the village center to talk about that continuum of diversity that's addressed here. Because, obviously, you can't put your multifamily on the edge. That would be inconsistent with the LDC. So if you're looking for certainty that we put our multifamily within a certain distance of the village center, we don't have a problem with that, and I would expect that to be a reasonable request. To -- we would expect that it hasn't, until just now, been asked of us, and we're perfectly willing to do that. MR. SCHMIDT: While he's away from the mic, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: There are other deviations or LDC requirements that do address those distances that we will talk about when we reach those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just move into No. 3. That's where we left off. Bob, you want to talk to us about where you're at with No. 3? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I did have one additional comment on the previous discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: If you were to draw a circumference around the village center a quarter of a mile, that's about 125 acres, which is a little more than 10 percent of the overall size of the village. So, yes, you can certainly put the more intense -- and you're required to -- put the more intense development closer to the village center. But I just want to give you a perspective; of a thousand acres, you only have about 10 percent of the geography within a quarter of a mile. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the idea of looking at putting the bulk of the multifamily closer to that center -- MR. MULHERE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --is going to resolve the issue. We'll just workout a distance, and that would get us to there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can suggest one, because I think I talked to Ray about this and Nancy about this, is we were looking at within a half a mile of the village center would be the requirement for our multifamily to be within that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you could provide that on a document showing us that radius like we just saw on the example put here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we've got something that's tangible and everybody can look at it in the future, and everybody can look at it in the future and know that that's been signed off on. Okay. Let's go to No. 3. MR. MULHERE: Number 3 is the parking which I thought I covered on No. 2, because they're Page 33 of 111 October 17, 2019 completely related. They're slightly differently policies, but they both deal with parking in the front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the solution here would be the idea of the shopping center; is that what you're saying? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Deviation 3 stands; it's just been modified with the shopping center language? MR. MULHERE: Correct. I can put that on your screen here. You can see that both sections contain that language "when such parking is in support of a shopping center." So both of those have the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on to No. 4. That one is supposedly withdrawn; is that what I heard, or you tried to clarify earlier? MR. MULHERE: It's withdrawn. We don't need the deviation. You know, we can live with what the requirements are in the provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you asked for it for a reason to begin with. Are you sure staff doesn't disagree with what you plan to do to begin with? Are you still planning to do what you began with? MR. MULHERE: No. I'm okay. Staff agreed with the deviation, was recommending approval. The issue was if you were to build a -- say, a rental residential -only building either proximate to or within the town center, did you now need to put retail on the ground floor, parking structure that would be under that building? I understand the mixed-use building, but I didn't see where it would be necessary in the residential building, say, across the street from the retail; however, we've withdrawn it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to No. 5. MR. MULHERE: I'm looking. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This is four acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the four -acre one about the multifamily? MR. MULHERE: But that's withdrawn from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But why? MR. MULHERE: Because it's not required in the village center. So I probably shouldn't have asked for the deviation. We went back and thoroughly looked at it. That four -acre restriction does not apply in the village center. It applies in neighborhood general. And we're still asking for it in neighborhood general. We don't need the deviation in village center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said you were still asking for it in neighborhood general, which is another deviation. MR. MULHERE: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go down to No. 6. That's where you're asking for it? Nope, that's not it. That's different. Want to explain 6? MR. MULHERE: Number 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says withdrawn. In deviation Section 4.08.07.J.2.D.iii.A, neighborhood general context zone. MR. MULHERE: Yes. We don't -- so, again, we don't need that deviation. Those are not required. They are allowed. You don't have to ask for a deviation for something that's allowed but not required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did it go through a process for denial when it wasn't even needed? How did it get all this time spent to deny something that you don't even need to begin with? And I don't meanjust you. I mean from staff s perspective. MR. MULHERE: Because initially there was at least the assertion in the pre -application meeting and so on and so forth that these were required. Further review of the code, they're not required. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, what happened is he actually asked them, do we even need this deviation? We put it in as an abundance of caution. It wasn't until we got the recommendation of denial on it that we sat down and went through staff and said, you never answered our question. We don't think we need it in the first place. When we sat down and we talked with staff, they agreed we're not required to provide these types of Page 34 of 111 October 17, 2019 services in the neighborhood general so, therefore, you don't have -- you don't have to say you don't have to do it because we were never required to do it in the first place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, what's interesting is, it should have been worked out before it even got listed -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this magnitude on an analysis that came to the Planning Commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not disagreeing with you. We asked the question, it wasn't answered, and we worked it out in our meeting with staff. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I have an issue that I'd like to discuss about this, and that has to do with the nature and character of the commercial uses that will go into this village center. If I understand correctly, there's no requirement at all that they be the kinds of retail enterprises that would be calculated to serve the people living in the village. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not true. It's required. That's what the code says. It has to -- if you look at the allowed uses that we're asking to be in the village center, those are the types of uses that actually serve our residents. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, some do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, are you -- first of all, you heard the discussion on the previous deviations that were withdrawn. I meant to ask, do you have any objection to those being withdrawn? MR. SCHMIDT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Nancy, you don't have any either, right? MS. GUNDLACH: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on to the one we're on. Six. MR. SCHMIDT: Looking at the imagizer or the image you see, here's a series of quarter -mile circles. It's the standard for what you may call your innovative village design. Because the village is bisected by a major road, for those people on the north side, they don't necessarily have that easy access or that pedestrian -friendly access which is required by the LDC, so staff still stands by its suggestion or recommendation to allow those neighborhood goods and services in the neighborhoods. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not asking to not be allowed to do that. We can do that. We're not required to do it. MR. SCHMIDT: What we're asking is that they be provided for on the north half of the village so that that quarter -mile distance that easy access be possible. Not just allow, but provide for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what the situation is, you've got a central village center. Ifs on the opposite side of a six -lane highway, and for whatever obvious reasons you want to -- you want to indicate that instead of an option of having some additional commercial on the north side for the convenience of the people up there, you're saying that it should be required to have some; is that an accurate statement? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAHZMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on the density of the units being built --I'm going to go back to the SRA. The SRA footprint is solely based on the scoring and the criteria, and that's where development is being focused. This SRA just happens to have a road running through it. So we've got two options. We eliminate the road, which is probably not a viable option, or we design around it. I believe that was the intent of this proposal; they designed around it. So what I hear you saying is the other option would be to split the village and have half of it on one side and half on the other? I'm talking about the --not the village, but the goods and services, the town --the little town center. MR. SCHMIDT: No. I may not have explained myself well enough. Simply in the neighborhood general context zone of the village, allow for those neighborhood uses and at some point make sure they're provided so that that pedestrian -friendly requirement is being met for those people on the north half of the project. Page 35 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But based on the density and the population, is there a sufficient capture rate? What are you looking for? Barbershops? Another department store or shopping center of some sort? Corby, I hear you, and it sounds very subjective. And I'm trying to put my teeth into the criteria that basically supports your position, and I don't hear it. MR. SCHMIDT: It's those things that are there to serve the daily needs of the residents. We're not looking for a corner gas station. We're not looking for another box store. We're looking for something where you can walk and get a coffee, get your hair cut, whatever it may be that serves the daily needs of the residents. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And where else do we do that in this -- in this -- other PUDs, I'll call it. Even though this is not a PUD. I really don't understand -- I understand your position, but I don't -- I can cite a community where it was tried. I think DiVosta tried, and all the businesses failed because they just didn't get the kind of capture of the residents using the services that were provided in the city center. MR. SCHMIDT: Well, I'd hate to think I'm going to use any failing example when there's so many successes to look at. So instead of thinking pessimistically -- staff doesn't do that. We look at those successes out there as examples, and we find that there's more than enough. And if we're going to use examples of failure for reasons not to do something, I would suggest you don't. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did you base your analysis on the analysis of a capture rate to residents that could support the businesses? Did you do any type of analysis that quantified your position that says, yes, a cleaners would be supported by -- if it was on that side of the street, and it would be a viable business? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm looking at outright requirements of documents, and the LDC and the Comprehensive Plan require these things. Pedestrian -friendly access to these neighborhood goods and services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the pedestrian friendly lack here is for the road that separates the village center from the north? Is that what you're -- MR. SCHMIDT: I may no longer characterize it as unsafe, but whatever the separation is from the north half of the project to the south half, it may be too far for some people who will live here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go back to whether it's -- MIH. SCHMIDT: Cross the street every day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to pedestrian friendly, regardless of the distance. Because we already discussed the distance, and I'm not sure that's as much of an issue as the dividing road would be considered, because that's where you started. If thafs the criteria, fine. I just wanted to understand what your criteria was, so --Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, as I said before, I think Oil Well Road is the 400 -pound gorilla in this project. And it could expand to six lanes, which is a pretty wide road. And as one -- I think it was Commissioner Schmitt maybe said -- or I don't remember. But the comment was made that either you -- either you need to afford a sufficient amount of commercial retail services on both sides of the road or you need to design around the road, and the road isn't going to be moved. So it seems to me -- I mean, we provide underpasses of roads for panthers in this county. What about for people? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What does a pedestrian overpass cost? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Overpass? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, a pedestrian overpass. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have no idea, but whatever it costs, underpass, overpass, that's how you design around a gorilla like Oil Well Road. And we did not choose this location for this applicant. The applicant, l believe, owns 44,000 acres in Eastern Collier County. The applicant is perfectly entitled to choose whatever location they want. But if they choose a location that inhibits the walkability, the ability to refrain from using the public roads to get to essential goods and services, then, you know, I think it's -- it is incumbent, then, upon the applicant to design around that and find ways of accomplishing the objectives which have been stated in all the documents I've read about Rural Lands Stewardship Area. MR. YOVANOVICH: How about --first of all, right now it's not a six -lane road. But let's imagine the Page 36 of 111 October 17, 2019 future when you have a six -lane road. What if we had a cross-section or a crosswalk that you walk from the north side to the south side? We do that every day. I would venture to say that Starbucks across the street of U.S. 41 is walkable to the government center. You and I at lunch, we can do it together. Every time we get a break at the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners for lunch, I walk to Starbucks. That's a six -lane road; probably one of the worst intersections in Collier County, and there's a crosswalk, and it's very walkable. When we get to the expansion of Oil Well Road, my guess -- and I don't know if Trinity is here -- is you'll probably have a traffic signal at what will be Oil Well Road and Big Cypress Parkway, and it would make a perfect location for there to be a crosswalk when the road gets expanded. People can do that all the time. We have access points from our community to the north to come to the south to drive if you wanted to. You can ride your bicycle. You can walk to this community as its currently a two-lane configuration and as it will be in a six -lane configuration. I don't think crosswalks area novel concept, and they're effective, and we can do that. So I would say we have designed this for people to be able to go from the north side to the south side village where there will be the requirement for us to meet the goods and services to satisfy the community. I do think it's been designed that way. And I don't think Nancy or Ray are saying we're not meeting the requirement of the Land Development Code for that to happen. Corby may have a difference of opinion. And I'd like to know -- because, you know -- cite to me, Corby, the successes that you are saying you don't want to measure the failures. Tell me, so we can evaluate -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- what successes for the neighborhood general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got -- you started talking as I was opening my mouth. Rich, you'll have an opportunity to cross-examine. You can discuss it at that time. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we were just talking accessibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby and staff, when we comeback to this, could have sometime to lookup what they need to look up in response to that kind of question. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's just do it that way. You should be directing your questions to us, not to the other members of the staff until we resolve all these issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I don't forget, would you mind asking Corby to cite the successes in the future? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We understand, Richard. Did you have anymore? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I --again, I congratulate enterprises like Collier Enterprises and the other companies for doing wonderful things for this county. But this site was selected with maximum achievement of a return on investment to capture, certainly, pass -by traffic. You see from the entrances to the village center, there are more entrances from the village center from the abutting streets than there are from the village itself. I don't even have a problem with that, frankly. But you have not, in my judgment, at least, sufficiently shown me how, with a big road that could potentially become six lanes right in the middle of this thing, how that satisfies the objectives which were written into the many rules in the FLUE, in the LDC, and elsewhere, also in the restudy, the many rules that are trying to create something that is unique, something that is not like an urban area PUD, something that is -- that is innovative. And that word "innovative" appears in a lot of these materials. And I don't think you have been at all innovative with the problem created by Oil Well Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think --Karl, did you have something you wanted to add? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You at one point did. Okay. Let's move on. Basically Deviation 6 is withdrawn by the applicant, but, Corby, you feel we need to have a consideration of putting some form of commercial on the north side of road to accommodate the local needs of the people up there; is that a true statement? Page 37 0£ 111 October 17, 2019 MR. SCHMIDT: More than fair enough. Mr. Chairman, keep in mind that one of the LDC requirements that they're not deviating from will more or less guarantee that they will. So let me remind you that it's neighborhood general J something. I'm sorry. I don't have the above letters here. But the statement is, in order to provide the diversity, which is one of those continuum statements, it's the most at the center and providing a lesser amount towards the village edge. Neighborhood scale goods and services, schools, parks, and open -space diversity, and then neighborhoods. So ifs provided for. And they haven't asked to deviate from that. So they'll be there. They just have to be reminded that -- on the north half as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when it comes to -- if they come through for their standard permitting, whether it be a master plan, a site plan or whatever, that is one of the RFI questions that they're going to be hit with. Is that what you're telling us? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on that basis, the applicant may want to decide what they want to do about that deviation. And that's why we're going through these one at a time. Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: I feel like it's Groundhog Day. We just --we just --we asked the question, are we required to provide neighborhood general retail? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The answer is yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it wasn't. It was, no, we weren't. That's why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When was it no? MR. YOVANOVICH: At the meeting that David Weeks was at, at the meeting that Ray Bellows was at, the meeting that Thaddeus Cohen was at, and the meeting that Nancy Gundlach was at they told us you don't have to ask for this deviation. Remember, this all went back to we asked the question a long time ago, and they agreed it's allowed but not required. So if it's now going to be required, then we need to put the deviation back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: I understand the applicant's frustration. What was said in a private hearing, Richard, as you know, is just --this is the public hearing. So let's get --to protect the applicant here, let's get clarity from staff right now. Are they required to put commercial on both sides of the road, yes or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Corby, we're going to -- if you want to come back and research this, we're going to go --break for lunch in about 25 minutes. We're not going to get through all the deviations before lunch. So you can answer some of these once you have time to think about them. I don't -- I want a good answer. I don't want a half-baked answer. Do you know what I mean? MR. SCHMIDT: It's onscreen now. It's a portion --as are many of these provisions in the LDC, there's combinations of requirements. And when these deviations came through, they seemed to be a portion of. And so whether some of those meetings were answering part of a request or not, I don't know, but here is that full statement. MR-KLATZKOW: We just need clarity for the applicant, for later on if there's going to be some allegation that there's a code violation. So I need clarity. Is commercial required on both sides of the road or not? If it's not, you do not need the deviation. If it is, you will need a deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you interpret this as being required if -- I'm only focusing on the first paragraph on A. The last line in the first paragraph says, the following design criteria shall apply within neighborhood general. A, residential neighborhoods, scale goods and services, civic, institutional, parks, schools, accessory uses shall be permitted. It doesn't say are required to be. It says shall be. Does that -- how are you reading that? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm reading above in the intro statement. MR. YOVANOVICH: It says we're allowed to do all of those things, Corby. It doesn't say we're required to. MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry, it's hard. Page 38 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Rich. You've got -- his name's Rich. He's okay. Let's just get past this, Corby, okay. I want to understand your philosophy. Where it says, shall be permitted, meaning that they have to be permitted to be there? Is that how you're reading that? Or is --the "shall" means they're permitted if they ask for them? I'm trying to understand the answer to that question. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, could we defer this till after the lunch? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. If you can come back with a clearer explanation, I'm all for that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, because I don't see anything about schools. And if I -- if they have goods and services, then we ought to put schools on each side of the street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I will -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Joe, they're going --they need time. This has just come up. They're going to come back and deal with it. Let's move on to No. 7. Bob, you want to explain to us No. 7 from your perspective, or wherever we are on No. 7. MR. MULHERE: Yes. So No. 7 -- I've got to get to No. 7 in the staff report. So I want to make sure I'm on the right one. Five, six, 7. Number 7 in the staff report was a deviation from the LDC to allow a larger amenity center than the maximum allowed of 15,000 square feet, to allow up to 50,000 feet. There are two amenity centers depicted on our master plan. One is on the north side. One is on the south side. The one on the south side likely would be the larger of the two since it supports the golf, you know, clubhouse, a staff -recommended approval. And, you know, we don't have any -- you know, we don't have any further comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff recommended approval? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby and Nancy, are you --you still standby that recommendation? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got some questions with it, but I'll defer to my Planning Commission members first. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The way it reads is to instead allow the golf club and amenity center sites and related use to a maximum of 50,000 square feet each. You said you've got one on the north and one on the south. That's 200,000 square feet. How do you --how could you support that? MR. MULHERE: We see it moreas a maximum of 100,000. There's two amenity centers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So instead of 3,000 and 15,000, you want to allow the gulf club and amenity center sites -- now, that could be more than one -- MR. MULHERE: Two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and related uses -- that could be additional stuff -- to be a maximum of 50,000 square feet each. MR. MULHERE: Right. So there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So tell me what's going to be 50,000 square feet. I mean, you've got 2,500 people split by a road. What --I mean, a 50,000 -square -foot clubhouse is like they've got up at Quail Creek. I remember because one of the commissioners 15 years ago got married in one. It was 50,000 square feet. It's huge. And how you going to use a club of that size? MR. MULHERE: So the -- again, the -- it's assumed that the clubhouse closest to the golf course will be the larger of the two, but there's two amenity sites. So it will only be --there's only two amenity sites. That's Page 39 of 111 October 17, 2019 why that term was used on the master plan. There's two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to have two 50,000 -square -foot clubhouses on 2,500 --for 2,500 units and a thousand -square -foot project. MR. MULHERE: So one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that make sense? MR. MULHERE: So one maybe 30,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, that's 50 percent, almost, less than 50. So why are we granting --first of all, it doesn't read this way. The golf clubs. The golf club is 50,000 square foot and the amenity center sites. MR- MULHERE: Up to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many of those are you going to have? MR. MULHERE: There are two amenity sites. They're labeled on the master plan. CHAIItMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say there's limited to two here. You could put another one on the master plan. MR. MULHERE: We can insert "limited to two." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want a 50,000 -square -foot clubhouse, two amenity sites at 50,000 square foot each. MR. MULHERE: No. The clubhouse -- the golf course is labeled as an amenity site; so is the northern amenity site. There's two on the --we can limit it to two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why have you decided, for a community this small on this little bit of acreage? I mean, what are you really going to use that golf course for? Because 50,000 square feet is what your bigger projects do in this county, and this is not a big project. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's 2,500, plus the golf course is -- may be open to the public. May be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we've got to go back and revisit that TIS to make sure that's written properly. But the question previously on that golf club was, are you going to open it up to the other villages? And I thought you guys didn't -- I don't remember what the answer was, to be honest with you. MR. MULHERE: Well, if it's open to the public, it would be open to the other villages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the interconnection issue's going to have to come in for discussion. Then it's more logical to have the interconnections so you're keeping those other villages off the main roads. And we didn't finish that discussion, so we'll have to go back and revisit, then, if that's what the intent of this golf club is. MR. MULHERE: So, I mean, the 50,000 was probably used as an outside number. I don't have the experience. Pat, my client, has the experience. He's built these kinds of things. So we used it as an outside -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, fine, Bob. And I can tell you that 50,000 serves a much bigger community than what you're building. MR. MULHERE: Again, we can talk about restricting the second amenity site to something smaller. If you look at the master plan, the acreage is also smaller on that site. So we can certainly talk about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to get this down to the numbers that you really want not just the flexibility "just in case you ever need it" type thing. MR. MULHERE: Understood. Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When it says the site is going to be 50,000 square feet, is that the structure or the site? MR. MULHERE: That was referring to the structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because of the square footage, yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because that's confusing tome. The site is generally different than the structure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, if I may. Page 40 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: A couple of points on the amenity -center issue. One, I think we're comfortable 30,000 -- no more than 30,000 on each of these centers; two, the amenity centers, you know, we've had these discussions. And I'll bring up some other communities like Esplanade, and you just have had one on Orange Blossom, and these amenity centers with the resort -style pools and the other clubhouses that go with that. And, obviously, communities like those features, so they're providing more and more types of lifestyle choices in these amenity centers. So, you know, we're looking at making sure we have adequate building square footage to provide the lifestyle choices that the community will want and, frankly, are demanding as time goes along. So that's what we're talking about is these amenity centers to serve those lifestyle choices. And it will be for our residents on the amenity centers. Now, the golf club we did talk about. We talked about that being open to the public. And we recognize that if we made that decision, the existing trip cap would apply which would mean there would be a corresponding reduction in some of the other allowed density or intensity to accommodate the golf course being open. But that's what we were thinking about the amenity centers is, you know, developers are --builders are providing a lot of different things for their people to come in and enjoy, and that's -- if you can go down to 30,000 square feet, limit us to two, no more than 30,000 square feet each, I think that would address our concerns and hopefully your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on that one? If not, we'll move to Deviation 8. MR. MULHERE: So Deviation 8 deals -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Excuse me. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the record, then, staff approved based on what you just noted on the record? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are they agreeing? I didn't think they were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff agreed for the first one, which was more than what they've just put on record. So they reduced it. I can't imagine they would object. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's Deviation No. 6 then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's actually No. 7 we just discussed. So now we're on No. 8. MR. MULHERE: So No. 8 is a deviation to allow what is typically allowed. You want a diversity of housing types. You want multifamily. There are certain products that are built either at zero or five-foot setbacks, typically. And so we've asked for that deviation that is regularly approved. Staff recommended approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aren't you just asking for this, though, in connection with townhomes? MR. MULHERE: And zero -lot -line type product, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That should be --the language should be changed to reflect that, right? MR. MULHERE: It says it in the deviation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it says multifamily residential. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm looking at --it says, a minimum of --to instead allow for a side -yard setback of zero or five feet and a rear -yard setback of 10 feet for a zero lot line and townhome development as set forth in the table. And the table only applies that setback to those types of developments. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do we need that word "and" in there before townhome? MR. MULHERE: They're two different kinds of development: Zero lot line and townhome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Different product, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sothis would not apply to single-family detached? MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Should that be clarified or -- Page 41 of 111 October 17, 2019 MR. MULHERE: I think it is clarified the way it's written. And it refers back to the table, and the table only allows that under those two types of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, a zero lot line is actually a single-family detached. It's just another type of product for that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And a townhome actually could be sold the same way, so -- MR. MULHERE: I don't have the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. It would be attached. Yeah. Well, no. You could do a -- do a two -unit. Multi's not till you hit the three. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Duplex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any -- staff is okay with that explanation? Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Staffs okay with the explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about Deviation No. 9? MIR. MULHERE: Okay. So 9 is the -- again, the resurfacing of the four -acre limitation. (Cell phone making noise.) MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's not me this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who the heck is it? MR. MULHERE: It's not me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why would we want to deviate from that? Who's that -- you're saying the staff did that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: His 8 is the 9 on the -- MR. MULHERE: Holden. I didn't get more than a half sentence out before I heard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you started walking way. MR. MULHERE: I heard Siri talking. I wanted to make sure it wasn't me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, you didn't hear it. MR. MULHERE: Number 9 is a deviation from the LDC that presently requires a maximum multifamily lot size of four acres. We had originally asked simply to exceed that with no limitation. After we met with staff, staff agreed they could support deviation to a maximum of 25 acres and within a half mile of the village center. And Corby referred to this earlier, that this sort of --this supports the idea of having your more intense or denser development in closer proximity to the village center as you move out towards a lesser. Now, I'd like to say that this is the first village that you've heard, although this was approved 18 or 19 years ago. And as we begin to practically apply these standards, we look at how that will affect conflicting purposes and intents in the code. And one conflicting purpose and intent, from our perspective, is to say, you can only -- because it refers you back to the town center, the urban core of a town, which has that limitation of four acres. So we do think that's appropriate in this case, certainly within proximity to the village center, because there are types of products that you would build that are multifamily where you're being penalized with additional buffers and things like that on a number of four -acre tracts that you would then have to, presumably, plat as opposed to having a single SDP that may have a number of buildings that might be more than four acres. And staff supported it with the limitation of 52 acres and also within --what was the distance? One half mile. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff denied it. It says denial. MR. MULHERE: They denied it originally. Again, like --well, wait a minute. On all of these, on your visualizer you can see in red the language, after we met with staff, that they agreed -- that agreed collectively to. That's why I have that up there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that's reasonable, for what it's worth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a problem with it. But, anyway, Corby, then Nancy. So, Corby, what's your take on this now that you've heard it was Page 42 of 111 October 17, 2019 approved, denied, approved, whatever? I have no idea where we're going with this one. MR. SCHMIDT: I think we're going to another staff member for a summary on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We are supportive of this, though the --and I don't have a problem with the cap of 25 acres. Though, maybe a little less would have been better, but I did agree to that. But my reasoning for support of that is we could come up with some development standards to address the building size. The concern would be a mega -structure. We really want to keep to the concept of the townhome type of developments. So the development standards we have a --just to ensure we don't get a massive type of building. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I'm sure we can do that. I think the issue, maybe not as it relates to this and I'll --so I'll stop with it-- but is if in a village or a town --because it applies to towns. I'm talking generally now -- you would like to see a diversity of housing types. This precludes you from building any kind of standard connected multiunit, multifamily rental or apartment or even condo that goes beyond a very small -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Having been in your business, I thoroughly disagree with the statement you just said. MR. MULHERE: How would you build an apartment for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't build a 250 square block of apartments because, basically, you've got 250 multifamily you're saying you would build. And -- MR. MULHERE: Minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you want 25 acres, that's 15 units, which you can fit 15 units of multifamily in pretty easy. So now you've got a big block sitting in the middle of this village. How is that even acceptable? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Strain, that's a minimum number. We very likely may build more than that in multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that's part of the -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --diversification that Corby and others have been asking for that you've been not willing to give. MR. MULHERE: It depends on the market. That's why we -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not true. We met -- Corby was not at the meeting, but we met with David Weeks, Ray Bellows, Thaddeus Cohen, and Nancy Gundlach after we got the staff report, and they agreed that we were providing the required diversity of housing types in our project. We had suggested that because we can't get greater than four acres, we would be prohibited from doing an apartment complex if you wanted one out herein the village. And when we started talking that concept through, Ray and Nancy said, you know what, that does make some sense. Two acres is consistent with several of the apartment projects that you've just seen go through the process as far as acres. Because it would be more of a -- it would be -- you know, your water management would be off site, so you can compress the land area you would need. So that furthered the ability to provide a diversity would be to allow us to do apartments, do condominiums and the like within the village, which furthers the goal for diversity. And we did agree to a minimum of 250 multifamily, because they were concerned we had not guaranteed the diversity. We had just talked about it, but the 250 was the guarantee that we would have a diversity of multifamily, single-family, single-family attached, single-family detached. So we did agree to the diversity, and I believe staff was comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What were you doing in 2002? MR. YOVANOVICH: What was I doing in 2002? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember. I've known you since you were assistant County Attorney. MR. YOVANOVICH: Since 1990. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So what were you doing in 2002? I can't remember. Were you with George at that time or -- Page 43 of 111 October 17, 2019 MR. YOVANOVICH: I was -- no. I was with my current firm, and I was actually working on the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: RFMUD, okay. Because George was handling a lot of it in the RLSA, and he was working with the Ave Maria group. And I -- I think I'm the only board member that was involved in it as a Planning Commission member back in those days. I saw this limitation in the block styling that was supposed to be this new village concept, the one that Ave Maria actually followed. And to be honest withyou, Ave Maria is --I like the way they came out. They got that core. They've got all the mixed use. They've got apartments above the commercial, which is --I've not seen that coming up for discussion. But part of the reasons for the blocks and the sizes was so we don't get a massing that's out of scale. That's how I understood it to be. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we didn't ask for a change in the blocks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking for 25 acres instead of four. MR. YOVANOVICH: As far as the complex could be -- or the community could be 25 acres. We haven't asked for any deviations from the development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your lots sizes to get to 25 acres, are you going to be changing the block sizes? MR. MULHERE: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: We haven't asked for any changes. MR. MULHERE: No. But also, if I may, there are other restrictions that limit the mass of a building. And the rural -- excuse me. The Rural Lands Stewardship Area for a village sets forth a maximum zoned height or a maximum height for multifamily in a village. It's 3.5 stories. A half story is defined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, yeah. MR. MULHERE: And not to exceed 50 feet. So, I mean, there are other limitations on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But what you could do here is you could have one lot, and you virtually put all your multifamily, instead of diversing it throughout the whole community, you put it all on one big lot. And is that the real intent of the new village concept in which people are concentrated by their product style as intensely as that, or was the design to break it up and to spread it out as you moved away from the core of the village center? And you're not going to be breaking it up this way because you're clustering it into one giant parcel or lot, if you want to call it that. MR. MULHERE: It certainly limits the type of diversity of housing types. That limits the type of diversity of housing types that you can do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What limits it? What you're doing will limit it. You're going to build one block of -- MR. MULHERE: No, the four -acre. The four -acre maximum lot size you will not get a -- any kind of standard multifamily -- multistory multifamily product, either rental or condo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. MULHERE: Because you can't do it on four acre. You can do a townbome on four acres. You can do zero lot line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's 40 -- if you do 10 -- if you do on 15, you're looking at what, 60 units? That's not enough to do an apartment complex or multifamily complex? MR. MULHERE: I don't know that that can fit on 40 (sic) acres. I mean, I haven't done the -- four acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four acres. Well, that's what --you can't build 10 units per acre? MR. MULHERE: You can, but there are other ancillary requirements for that type of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just said the water management's off site. MR. MULHERE: Car parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All you've got is underbuilding parking if you want or carports around the Page 44 of 111 October 17, 2019 perimeter. What are we building on Allura? That's 304. So if you break some of those up into smaller --you're going to do 420 (sic) on 35 acres up there. What does that break -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Three oh four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you are, but you came in at 420. MR. YOVANOVICH: We were taller. MR. MULHERE: Hold on. A significant portion of that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four stories. MR. MULHERE: --is conservation. So you really have, you know, a net that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That just proves my point even more. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just concerned about what you're doing as far as the quantity goes, concentrating it like that. That wasn't the intent of the new village concept. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that it wasn't. The issue is, if you want to have an apartment complex -- let's just focus on an apartment complex right now. If you wanted to have an apartment complex out east, you're not going to get one because you can't do it on four acres. There is no apartment developer who's going to do an 80 -unit apartment complex. They're going to want to have --and we've shown you a handful of them recently -- the amenities that go with these nice luxury rental communities. And same thing for multifamily condominiums. There's a requirement for amenities that they like, and that's the diversity of housing, and there's nowhere in the village that said you're not trying to have that kind of a diversity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rich, I'll certainly reread everything. MR. YOVANOVICH: We can agree to disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- I'm not solidifying anything. Now that I've heard your side of it, I'm going to go back and take a look at the documents again and see where it all lies. And as much fun and enjoyment as this is, I think a break for lunch would be appropriate about now. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that -- and when the Planning Commission comes back from lunch, one of the things we've got to discuss is our timing, not only for today, but where this is going to go in the future. And if the applicant wants to have a frank discussion with us in regards to their timing at that point, I'm willing to certainly try to figure this out, because this is going to -- we're going to be involved here for a bit. So with that, let's come back at 1 o'clock from lunch and resume. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., and Commissioner Dearborn is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you'd please take your seats. It's 1 o'clock, and we're going to resume. Okay. Now that the Planning Commission is here, Patrick had to leave for a meeting. I didn't know if it was going to be at lunch or when we got back. With that, at lunch today, I went to a Chinese place, and it says in my fortune cookie, "Men are apt to settle a question rightly when it is discussed freely." So, Mr. Yovanovich, let's discuss your timetable. And if have got a fortune cookie that said something good for you, good luck. MR. YOVANOVICH: It said, "Rich is right." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Rich is -- if I got one like that, you wouldn't have heard it. Let me tell you where my concerns are. We laid out an order of review. We've still got several of those to go through, including the SRA document. We've got to finish the staff review, which we're just now doing the deviations, and we're going to get into the rest of it. After that the other items that are up, there's the GMP/LDC language, of which there's a few issues that have to be looked at there; staff report, which we'll finish up right now. We've got to go to public comment, but there's still some CCPC questions that we need to go back and Page 45 of 111 October 17, 2019 make sure all the other areas are buttoned up. Then we've got public testimony, then at that point you'd have rebuttal, and then the Planning Commission can make a decision and possibly go to consent. It's 1:00. I'm not sure, at the rate we're going, or any rate we could do today, we could get through all of this. And I kind of wanted to talk to you about future hearings, because either way, it's going to have to either come back to finish up and then go to consent, or it's going to get as far as we can today and go to consent. And then I know you have a timetable with the Board that you want to hit. I don't know how we're going to hit that. So what's --how strong is your board date? How sure do you have hit that? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's -- from our perspective, we were told we would be on the November 12th BCC agenda. We have been in this process for longer than we should under the LDC guidelines for when we should have been in front of the Planning Commission. Our position is we could stay as late as you want tonight. We can come back tomorrow. We have all kinds of availability to continue on with this process. From our perspective, the SRA document is simply a regurgitation of the Land Development Code. We're going through the deviations to the Land Development Code right now. I don't know -- I understand the public has a right to speak, and we're happy with the public speaking right now. We -- frankly, we've gone out of order. Normally the public speaks before the commission goes into the questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not true, Richard. We always question the applicant and we go through staff reports before we go to the public, and that's what we're doing today. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm fine with getting to the public sooner rather than later. You know, I think at this point we don't anticipate further revisions to the SRA document. I mean, I think we've explained our position on all of the deviations and the requirements and the changes we've already agreed to. Again, we're -- I'd like to see if the Planning Commission can work past 4:00 today. I'd like to see if the Planning Commission can come back another day so we can continue on with this process. But we've been in this process for quite awhile. And I know that you all are volunteers, but, you know, we anticipated actually starting this process on the same hearing that Courthouse Shadows was on. We thought we were going to get a couple of hours there. That didn't happen. We are where we are. So we'd like to meet the schedule of November 12th. We have some concerns that if it pushes to December that there may not be a BCC December date that it will be eligible to be heard on. There's only one meeting in December, and we don't think that that's fair to us as an applicant that has been pushing with this and working with staff in good faith. And we'd like to take the time necessary to get it done and stay late today if we have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, the truth -- part about it is you weren't ready for the Planning Commission when we started. MR. YOVANOVICH: We were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This document is half baked. It's not complete. It should never have gotten this way. The issues you've now worked out because of the Planning Commission's involvement in the deviations are now getting done. They should have got done before we even got it. We wouldn't have wasted time. Plus, we kept getting different documents. We got 2,101 pages of documents, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Mr. Strain, let me start again. You have a hearing. Your code requires that from when we're deemed sufficient, staff report is supposed to be written in 90 days. That's your LDC. That didn't happen. We -- I could have, and probably, in hindsight, should have just simply said, write your staff report, recommend denial, let's have our hearing, and let's go. Instead, we gave staff some time to write their staff report. We met with them to go over their concerns that should have, frankly, been addressed much sooner because we responded to them. We're here through -- in good faith in dealing with staff. I don't agree that our document is half baked. Our SRA document is purely based upon the LDC. The deviations have been the same since day one. And the changes to the document, with all due respect, have been simply related to the width of Big Cypress Parkway, and that was because staff was working with what do they really need for a width. And the only changes you've seen is related to that acreage related to Big Cypress Parkway. We don't Page 46 of 111 October 17, 2019 agree that our document was half baked. You may not like it and you may not agree with it, but it is not half baked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's --something's wrong, because two days ago staff told me where they stood on things, and today they changed their mind again. Now, that should have all been worked out before this board got it. Now, I don't know who made the silly mistake of trying to schedule this thing early, but it was wrong, and it wasn't something this board should have to suffer with and us have to sit here and go through the minutia we're going through. We try all the time and give the Board the best recommendations we can. But it's almost impossible to do this the way this thing's been structured. So it's taking longer. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't explain why staff has changed their position since I presented this two weeks ago to what we had agreed to, and now apparently they agree that they did agree with it when we presented, in entirety, the document you're considering right now, including a detailed discussion on every one of those deviations during our original process. We are where we are. I didn't cause it. And we would like this thing to move forward with a recommendation of approval or a recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission as quickly as possible so we can make the November 12th date we were originally committed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to the -- I mean, that's up to this panel what you -all want to do. We could vote on it now. We could vote on it at the end of the day. We could vote on it after public speakers. But I can tell you one thing, I can't -- I will not see a way to support something I have not had the adequate time to understand and review, and that's the kind of box you're putting this board in. But it's fine with me if that insistence is necessary and this board wants to go along with it. I don't care either way. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how you can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm willing to try to get there, but if you are not willing to give us the adequate time to get there by putting a date of November 12th as the drop -dead date, I don't know how that's even anything to do with us. Whoever gave you that date, that's too bad. It's probably a wrong date, or it should have been. This board doesn't set that date, and you should have enough flexibility to understand you may not get that date, especially if you got the first time of an application like this that's ever come to this panel or any panel in Collier County, and it's got to be done very carefully. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, when we met with Mr. Bosi and Mr. French about the schedule, we were supposed to be in front of you in the -- in late summer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That was the commitment that was made to us, and it wasn't an unreasonable schedule based upon those commitments. Things happened. We shouldn't have to suffer for that. Your 2,000 pages has a lot to do with information provided to you by others in the general public, documents that, frankly, in our opinion, if we have to, have absolutely nothing to do with the rules of the game today. It's the desire to change the rules of the game, and they gave you documents about how the rules should be changed. You can read whatever you want to read, but we didn't give you that --those documents. The documents we've given you are purely related to what we told you, strikethrough and underline to the changes related to the road right-of-way. It may be a lot of pages that are duplicative, but we highlighted every one of those changes. So with that, we would like to have the decision rendered today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I know is I took this position to give the best service I could to the Board of County Commissioners, to the public, and to the applicants, and that means we don't default with a priority to one. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have an equivalent to all of them, and I'm going to continue to do that. And I don't really have a concern as to how we do this today. So you guys --if they want to vote on it before we've got all our answers, then it's obvious the way it's going to come out. They don't seem too concerned about it. So let's just go from there. Karl? Page 47 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to find out --I guess I have a question. We have a lot of public speakers out there, and I wonder if there's a way to honor their being here and allow them to speak today even if we took things out of order. Is that a possibility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I was already going to do that. If the decision of this board is to work until whatever time today and at that point we're simply going to render a recommendation, then we will hear the public before that point. The public input is imperative. We will hear them. But I just don't know what you want to do as a whole. What do you -- how do you -- do you want to for sure finish today, or do you want to go through today -- and I think our option to continue is one that we could do. I don't know. I have to ask the County Attorney's Office. If the applicant is demanding a time frame we can't meet, can we still ignore that time frame and go forward, or do they have a right to hit their time frame and us to come to some conclusion even if it's a negative. Give you something to think about, huh? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me discuss that with Mr. Klatzkow because I don't want to say something contrary to what he would like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he here? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'll discuss it with him. I'll give him a call. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, what I was hoping for was the opportunity to hear the public speakers and then have the ability to ask the applicant some questions that I have on more of a conceptual level and get answers to those, and then at that point I would be ready to make a vote. If you want to review the SRA documents, the LDC, I understand that. But that's what I'm looking -- that's what I'm hoping to achieve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And -- go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if we can --obviously, if we continue today, we have two choices. We either hear it again on the 31st, but we've already got -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not the 3l st. The 31st is created because of this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're not pushing those people back. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So then its deferred to the 7th. There's noway they're going to make a board meeting if we don't hear it on the -- if it -- if it's deferred to the 7th of November and Rich said he wanted it for the -- is there a BCC on the 12th; is that what they said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's what I was told, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The documents are already being prepared and commissioners are already getting documents. It would --there's just noway we're going to meet a 12 November date to the Board if we don't -- we either find another date tomorrow or Saturday or whenever we want to do this or we -- if it goes to the 7th, there will definitely be a new board date. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm trying to see if we can get a commitment that this would be heard in the December meeting. We're trying to work that out as we go along. So maybe by 15, 20 minutes we'll know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if we do hear from public speakers, I notice some of the public is missing because I couldn't tell them when they asked earlier if we were going to get to public speakers or not today. I simply said I don't know. I don't see them here, and I know that there are two environmental organizations. Meredith, are you -- I don't see you here. And Nicole. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nicole was here. She's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Is Meredith out there, too? MS. JOHNSON: I haven't seen Meredith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because she was trying to find out if we were going to get to public speakers, and I would like her to be able to participate. So with that, I guess, Ray, we'll wait to see what you get back on the December date, them possibly hearing this issue in December. hr the meantime, I -- again, if we have to settle this today, that's fine, but my vote can't be positive because I am not going to have -- I don't know how I can get through all my questions and answers by today. Page 48 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm in the same position, Mr. Chairman. CHARUV AN STRAIN: Okay. It won't be because I disagree with the project. It won't be because I agree withit. I just don't have the answers I need. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: I did get a confirmation that this item can be heard and will be heard if they meet all the timing for the December meeting. So it should be able to go on the December meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What does that mean? MR. YOVANOVICH: What does that mean? I mean, that's where I am. I mean, it's always the timing issue. MR. BELLOWS: There's not an issue with a continuance past five weeks, in other words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't worried --you're worried about that for advertising. I think the worry was that --that's not the issue. The Board routinely doesn't hear controversial items in December. MR. BELLOWS: They will hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray, you've got to do background planning. Typically, if it's going to the Board, everything's got to be done at least two weeks prior to the Board meeting. You're talking staffing the reports, and then putting into -- whatever they use now. I don't know what the system is. MR. BELLOWS: Accela. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's at least two weeks, maybe three weeks prior to the Board this has got to be done. So with --the Board meeting date is when? MR. BELLOWS: The board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You say in December. That means if we finish this on November 7th, they'd have plenty of time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It wouldn't make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't it? December. MR. BELLOWS: We should be able to make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: December, Joe. It's a month after we'd finish. You just said it would need three or four weeks. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What date in December? It's at least three weeks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll find out. It's got to be the first or --second or fourth Tuesday. It will be the second Tuesday. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the second Tuesday in November? Does anybody have a calendar? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe there's only one Board meeting in December. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, as odd as this sounds, with the advent of the computer age, you actually have to almost be done five weeks ahead of time of the Board of County Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to meet their internal agenda. And take five weeks from November -- December 10th. MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Hold on. We don't -- we can bypass staffs internal -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, all I heard was we will meet December 10th if we meet the normal schedule. So I'm going normal schedule, as I understand it -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is five weeks from -- MR. KLATZKOW: Richard, I'm trying to short-circuit this in your benefit. Ray, how much time do you need to get this on the agenda? Forget your internal deadlines. MR. BELLOWS: That should be enough, and if we need an extension on any of the internal -- MR. KLATZKOW: And you need 15 days to advertise it, right? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. Page 49 of 111 October 17, 2019 MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So other than the 15 days to advertise it, what else do you need to get this on the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: Nothing else. MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They've got to do the staff reports. They've got a staff report. They have -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: They have the staff report. They have everything done. All they have -- Joe, all they have to do is update it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At least four weeks. If he can do it sooner, I'll leave it up to the staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they've got four weeks. MR. YOVANOVICH: Could we revisit this after the public comment? I may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not -- no. Because if we're not -- if we're going to have to shut this thing down today, then public comment will be starting next. If not, then we're going to go to public comment when we typically do, when we finished our questions. So that's just the way itis. MIR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not changing the routine for this project. There's no need to. So that's the situation. Now, is that -- from that perspective -- from the applicant's perspective, do you realize that you'll be most likely continued to the December meeting of the BCC? MIR. YOVANOVICH: Can I have two minutes with my client? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. While he's doing that, from the rest of you, what time today do you want to work to? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll have to make a phone call. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is ten o'clock tonight too late? Let's just backup. Tell me when -- I mean, when do you -- when do you feel -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: As of right now, I made arrangements to leave here at 4:00, be home at 4:30. Let me make a phone call, see if I can stay later than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before you do, let's see where everybody else is so we can all break and make the phone calls at the same time. Tom, are you good for longer tonight? MR. EASTMAN: Sure. And I'm a nonvoting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but you're important. I like that. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, but not without limits. I mean, I'd like to seta time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your limit? COMMISSIONERFRY: Sixo'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Six forme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that will work for me, too. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Whatever you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Joe, you're good till midnight, right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At least midnight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll agree we'll go to 6 o'clock. Stan may or may not be with us. When we take a break, he can make a call and find out. You don't need to find out now because we have a quorum. So with that in mind -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we assume dinner will be brought in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? Page 50 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we assume dinner will be brought in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but the last time this happened, Stan brought a pizza. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And ate the whole thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ate the whole thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'd like to have it resolved today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you want to have a vote today? MR. YOVANOVICH: We want a vote today. I mean, we're concerned that we'll get pushed to the 7th, we'll lose members of the Planning Commission on the 7th, we'll get pushed again to the 21st. And, you know, we don't see light at the end of the tunnel. We think you'll hear your public comments. I think --we believe that we've answered all the questions, and we're willing to take -- we'll take the risk on the vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, is there any problem with us voting on something that we don't finish with, is that -- I mean, is there any prohibition on that? MR. KLATZKOW: You could tell them to pound salt if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, well, that's what it's going to boil down to. MR. KLATZKOW: And the reality is you can continue this to the other meeting. They don't have to show up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather not have all these people end up -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I understand that, and then you guys can vote however you want to vote. But, you know, I don't know what the rush is, because this damn project's been going off and on, off and on, off and on for over a decade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Twenty years. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. But all of a sudden we've got an issue with timing for some reason. And, you know, if you're comfortable to vote today, vote today. If you're not comfortable to vote today, then continue the meeting to another day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll move forward then. And what I'll do is on the premise that we may vote today, so the public can be assured they can be heard, let's finish up with the deviations and then go into the public comments for whatever it takes for the rest of the afternoon, then we'll go back. Because I do have a lot of questions from the first day's presentations and discussions that we need to go back and revisit, as I told you -all we were going to go back and take a look at things we didn't ask the first part. So with that, Corby, let's dive into those deviations again. And we'll work through those and then go to public speakers right after that. We're on No. 10, transportation standards. And this is probably -- Transportation Department's probably going to want to be part of this one, I would assume. Go ahead. Bob, it's yours to start with. MR. MULHERE: So all of the remaining deviations we're recommending for approval by staff. We have no changes to those deviations as we originally submitted them, nor did staff have any required changes. So I guess, you know, in consideration of your time, I'll respond to your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Deviation 10, Corby, do you have any position on it other than --it says, recommended approval by staff. Is that still consistent with your understanding? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, are you still signing off on 10 as okay? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, 10 is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation 11. Bob, you've got nothing you want to say on it anymore, right? This is about cross-sections, requiring five -foot -wide sidewalks on both sides of the street, to instead allow for a 10 -foot sidewalk and multi -use path on one side of such street only where residential development is located and only on one side of the street. I understand this is a -- we do this in the urban area. Page 51 of 111 October 17, 2019 MR. MULHERE: Very limited application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it doesn't dovetail properly with your sidewalk exhibit on your master plan. Do you know you put a sidewalk exhibit in? You don't break any of the sidewalks up, so how would you think this fits? MR. MULHERE: Not in -- are you talking about the cross-section or on the master plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the master plan. You've got -- MR. MULHERE: Well, it's just therein case there is a design where there is housing only on one side of the street, we can deviate from that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? MR. MULHERE: I mean, it's self-explanatory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: It's very limited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just --the only note I caught, it differs from the master plan, and 1 just was wondering why it did. MR. MULHERE: It's in the event -- you know, we really haven't designed the development in all those locations. It could be a linear park. There are a few places where there's no housing on the other side of the street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned had a-- we're going to backup to 10 before we go to Corby. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My concern is not actually with the width of the cul-de-sacs but that we have cul-de-sacs there in any event. And to me, instead of calling them cul-de-sacs, really what they are is dead -ends, and they're dead -ends that inhibit the transport across a major thoroughfare which, again, the way I read the RLSA, various rules and regulations, is that this is inimical to at least the spirit, if not, the intent and language of these regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby, your response toll? Any issues there? MR. SCHMIDT: At first we had some, looking at the way the wording is structured where one-sided sidewalks may intersect with a certain kind of intersection and have a gap between sidewalks crossing one-sided streets or one-sided sidewalks to one-sided sidewalks, but that does not end up being the case with the design. So, no, there's no objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No. 12. MR. MULHERE: So No. 12 is -- now, I discussed this, I think, at some length at the previous hearing, so I'll be very, very brief. The typical local road cross-section in a village that's in the LDC provide for 10 -foot travel lanes and a 6 -foot planting area. The --that was designed without consideration that utilities would be provided by Collier County. Both Dominic, who is the civil engineer on the project, and Collier County staff have reviewed what their needs are. And our cross-section reflects the ability to provide for the utilities and all of the required setbacks from certain types of utility lines in that cross-section, and we have 11 -foot travel lanes, which is a little bit better for cyclists, and we have a 5 -foot planting area instead of a 6 -foot planting area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby, your department have any issues with that? MR. SCHMIDT: We do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: No objections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Deviation 13 -- I mean, if the Planning Commission members have anything, just speak out or raise your hands or something. That's just directional signs? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's pretty routine. Does anybody have any issues with that particular one, Page 52 of 111 October 17, 2019 either staff or Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourteen, again, is similar to what we've approved in an urban area, on -premises signs within residential districts. Anybody have any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff? None? MS. GUNDLACH: No issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifteen, types of buffers -- outparcels located -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Type of buffers between outparcels located in shopping centers. I will try to talk slower, Terri. Someone forced me to have a cup of coffee. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The Devil made you do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Devil made me do it. I don't have questions on it. Does anybody on the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about Corby and Nancy, any issues? MS. GUNDLACH: No issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then 16 is parking space requirements. Now, this is a typical -- what we do in the urban --yeah, I think it says that right in your notes there. So is that any different than the urban area we've been granting for those routinely? MR. MULHERE: The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is that the application is for a commercial indoor recreational facility, not a private club. There's no difference in the LDC, but there is a difference in how many parking spaces are actually required. So staff supports this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any comments from -- nothing -- staffs okay with it? MS. GUNDLACH: No comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Deviation 17. This is littoral shelf planting areas, locational criteria. It had approval from staff. I'm not sure I remember this coming up before, but anybody have any concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff? MS. GUNDLACH: No comments. MR. SCHMIDT: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighteen, fences and walls, commercial industrial zoning districts, additional height. We usually end up doing that as a -- MR. MULHERE: It just gives more flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understand. Anybody have any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff doesn't have any either? MS. GUNDLACH: No issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last one is 19, potable water systems. MR. MULHERE: That was requested by utility staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I kind of wanted to ask a little bit about that. You're not going to have dual lines? MR. MULHERE: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to have a separate set of lines for your effluent, another separate lines for your irrigation from your lakes, and a third set for your potable water? MR. MULHERE: I'm going to let Dominic handle it just so I don't say something I don't know about, I don't know the answer to. MR. AMICO: For the record, Dom Amico, Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. Yes, we're going to have -- Page 53 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three sets of lines? MR. AMICO: -- water, irrigation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And effluent. MR. AMICO: -- and sanitary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're going to have sanitary, but you're going to get -- for irrigation from the county, aren't you getting effluent? MR. AMICO: We're getting reclaimed water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that's a separate set of lines. MR. AMICO: Well, it's one waterline, one irrigation line. There's not a third. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you've got -- but your irrigation for your golf course is not being provided by the county. It's coming out of the lake, so you're going to have lines for that, too, right? MR. AMICO: Thais correct, but they won't be in the right-of-way. They'll be internal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to pull those out of the lakes? MR. AMICO: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to understand. The county is going to maintain the affluent lines. Are they on public roads or private roads or how is that working out? MR. AMICO: They'll be in public or private platted right-of-ways in accordance with the Utility Standards Manual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we typically maintain those dual lines? MR. AMICO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't realize that. Joe? MR. AMICO: And one thing we need to under -- always remember -- not -- realize, that the county asked us to take reuse irrigation as a means of disposal for their new plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. AMICO: We have sufficient water supply on the property to where we didn't need that, but we agreed to take it to make the utility work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the lines that are going to come from our utility to your place are being put in by the county? MR. AMICO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you paying for any part of those? MR. AMICO: Prepaying impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, yeah. That was going to be my question. But you're also paying for the service, because you're paying for the reclaimed water. MR. AMICO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And part of that -- MR. AMICO: We're not getting the water for free. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're not getting it for free. And part of that payment covers the maintenance of the -- MR. AMICO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- county lines, yes. Okay. So it's not -- it's a fee for service, basically. You're paying for the service. MR. AMICO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Nope, we're good. And staffs okay with the balance of it. Corby, what we'll probably do is go to -- what we will do is we'll go to -- Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, go ahead and finish. Page 54 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go to public speakers and then comeback and try to resume any questions left in your Comprehensive memorandum, and then we'll go to staff report and any of the questions we have of them in their staff report. MR. AMICO: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to highlight --not based on Bob's numbering system. I'm going to the numbering system in the staff report. I noted Deviation 1, 4, 5, and 6 is still a question, have been withdrawn. Have we decided on 6? Did the staff have time to review that? This had to do with -- MR. MULHERE: Four acres? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. This had to do with the neighborhood -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Neighborhood. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --town. You were going to discuss that during lunch. I had noted it as withdrawn, but then there was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. That's the one that staff agreed we were not required to provide these level of services, and now maybe staff has changed their position. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. Are we -- where are we? Is it withdrawn? Your position, it's withdrawn? MR. YOVANOVICH: My -- no. My position is staff originally agreed that we didn't need it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So if I need, I want it. If I don't need it, I don't want to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There you go. MR. YOVANOVICH: Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I don't know what's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your current position it's withdrawn because it's not needed? MR. YOVANOVICH: Because there's nothing that requires us to do it. And we had the language up there that said it's permitted not required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they were going to review that and get back to us, which is where we're at. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. That's where we're at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, by the way, during the break, does anybody know how to reach Meredith Budd? MS. JOHNSON: She's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, because I couldn't answer her question earlier. Now that it's been answered, I didn't want her to think we did this because we wanted to avoid her, so... Go ahead, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. That question was discussed over lunch amongst a number of staff, and I think David is the most ready to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is he going to answer the issue about density, too? Don't tell me you forgot it again. This will be the third time. You're not that old. You're a young fellow. MR. WEEKS: Again, for the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning section. We agree itis not required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Now, the language speaks to what uses are allowed, and I forget --I think it was the word "diversity" or "mixture" of types of uses. But, bottom line, it's not required. It's up to you to determine if you think they're meeting the appropriate mixture or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the mixture they're meeting is what they've shown us on the master plan. MR. WEEKS: Right. Which is in the neighborhood general. There's two different uses. They're showing the residential and they're showing recreational uses. On the south side, that's amenity center and golf course. North side is amenity center. Page 55 of III October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. What about the density? MR. WEEKS: The Future Land Use Element does not speak to the density. It only says that for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The calculation of it does, though. Remember? MR. WEEKS: Yes, yeah. RLSA Policy 4.19 provides that for open space provided in excess of that which is required, as well as for public benefit uses, the acreages of those do not require the use of stewardship credits. It's eight credits for acre to title an acre of SRA, but for those uses, there are no credits required. The Land Development Code provision, as you had read it, Chairman Strain, that similarly, for density calculations, the excess open space is not used to calculate density; therefore, the resulting density is higher than two -and -a -half units per acre. I think it is little over three units per acres, which I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.04. So under the Policy 4.7 it says, the base residential density does not restrict net residential on parcels within the SRA. Location, size, and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis. During review and approval, the base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential use in the SRI (sic) by the overall area therein. Then the other language says it's calculated by the net, basically, the SRA excluding the open spaces and public spaces. Which should you have in your report and which should Zoning have in their report for density calculation then? MR. WEEKS: This is one of those cases where there is the potential to have two different densities calculations -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- because the Future Land Use Element addresses it differently. As an aside, there's a similar circumstance within the urban area in calculating density, but its a different scenario. But I'd just --the point is this is not unique, nor do I think it's problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think it is either. I just want to make sure we use the right number. It's either 3.04 or 2.5 is what it boils down to. MR. WEEKS: Right. Because the LDC has the specificity, I would suggest we rely upon that as the density calculation; therefore, it will be the 3 -point something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.04. Which then brings into other issues, because the CIGM that was just completed by the county doesn't rely on that kind of a number. It relies on the gross number, the larger number. So, anyway, that's a whole 'nother deal. But just -- if you take a look at that when you get a chance, they have the wrong -- they have the wrong values for, for example, Ave Maria. And if they also used 2.5 as the standard for the villages, which I know it's -- we know now it probably shouldn't have been, so... Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Highlight again, Deviations 1, 4,5 and 6, withdrawn. Deviations 2, 3, 7 and 9 are now approved based on agreed-upon changes between the applicant and the staff as noted on the record. All others were previously approved; is that correct? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made my notes, but I didn't summarize them like that. So I'll have to check mine against yours when I have time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So I had four withdrawn, four change, and all the rest remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will go to public speakers. And I'm going to have --ask everybody two questions. If you intend to speak and you have not been sworn in earlier today, please rise so we can swear you in through the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we are hereto listen to everyone. I'm not necessarily concerned about restricting someone from speaking, but at least I've got to ask you to fill out one of those little slips and to leave it with Ray over here so it can be part of the recorded documents for the parcel. If you haven't filled one of those out, please fill one out between now and the time you speak, and we'll be fine. Page 56 of 111 October 17, 2019 And with that, we'll start with our registered public speakers. So you can come up and use either microphone and just identify yourself for the record; we'll be good to go. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Susan Calkins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan? MS. CALKINS: I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, there you are, okay. MS. CALKINS: Sorry. SusanCalkins. Sorry, I didn't expect to be the first one up, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lucky you, huh? MS. CALKINS: Yeah, lucky me. So I'm somebody who's been coming here for a long time to Naples, also into this room periodically. But, anyway, I just wanted to sort of say I do recall when Pine Ridge Road was two-lane blacktop, and it probably ended at Airport. And it reminds me of Oil Well Road. And now I will not cross Pine Ridge Road, certainly. But, anyway, I think that as has been said up here, Oil Well Road is the elephant in the room. So my comments are more based on what, in the last meeting, I was observing, and one of the things that's kept sticking with me was that in giving the commentary by the applicant's representatives here, how many times I heard "we've done everything required. We've met all the requirements." By my count in my notes, that wasat least 10 times. And what I kind of thought of was thou doth protest too much. This is a case where I followed that LDC requirement, and I'm certainly -- I think we're all aware this does not conform to the spirit of the RLSA. And I'm one of those people who spent the last almost two years going through the RLSA restudy process. I think I'm somewhat familiar with what's supposed to be therein terms of villages and towns, and this is not it. I mean, this is a glorified PUD. It might not even be glorified, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, there is nothing in the sense of what a village should be that's here. And, sure, it might conform to each of those points but, you know, that's it. So it's ridiculous. The other thing is, that bothered me from the last time, was that there was no mention of the fact that the RLSA has been restudied for the last two years. It was also restudied in 2009. You know, it was presented as some beautiful program established in 2002, and all is well with the world. It's not quite the case. And next week the BCC will hear some of those recommended revisions to this program. It seems to me that it is not the time to push this through. No way. The other thing that bothered me, No. 3, three-quarters of the residences have to be sold before commercial and retail will be there. So where's the internal capture? I mean, you're just putting more people out onto Immokalee Road, onto Vanderbilt Road to get to where they want to. I mean, we're dreaming if we think that there's going to be some self-sufficient community here. I think -- I was also troubled by the fact that the consultant for the applicants talked about the fact that there was no problem with fiscal neutrality. Of course, the county lacks a model to do their own economic impact, so we're reliant on the applicant's consultants to tell us about whether it's going to be fiscally neutral or not. I have a number of other, you know, notes in front of me, but I think I will stop at this point to allow other speakers to make their points, and I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Judith Hushon. COMMISSIONER FRYER: As she's coming up, Mr. Chairman, may I ask Ray when the restudy will come before the BCC? Is that -- I thought I heard November. MS. HUSHON: I'll give you one, and I'll let you guys pass these down. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, again, Comprehensive Planning. The white paper will be presented to the Board at their November hearing and discussed. And what we hope to get is some direction from there to proceed with drafting amendments. Page 57 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you were to draft amendments, which would be either --will they include GMP amendments as well as LDC? MR. WEEKS: We think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And my concern there is you're looking at probably a year to get that resolved by the time it gets written, out through the stakeholders, back through the various boards and everything else. So we certainly can't expect everyone to stop out therefor a year while that's being rewritten. And that's, I think, one of the things that people don't realize. The white paper doesn't mean it's the right language. It just means its the beginning of it, so... MR. WEEKS: I would agree. It would be a lengthy process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will the BCC be asked -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe was before you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was going to be my point, David. As you well know, if it requires a Comp Plan amendment, it would be transmittal and adoption. That typically is an 18 -month process, minimum, to go through creating them, vetting them, transmittal, waiting to hear back, and then adoption. And then subsequent -- or following the -- what would be LDC amendments, we could be two -and -a -half, three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, since you left it got a lot faster. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the reason. I made them do their work harder. MR. WEEKS: There's the potential that there could be some overlap of the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Makes sense. MR. WEEKS: But still, it's a lengthy process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Makes sense. Is)aMIkyjGIMcT" 1\ ZIINC-1 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it planned that the BCC will be asked to approve or disapprove or change the restudy as an intermediate step before you get to substantive law changes? MR. WEEKS: To my knowledge, it's not, but I have to admit I'm not intimately involved in that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: By the way, thanks for participating in the restudy. That's an important process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Judith? MS. HUSHON: Okay. I'm Judith Hushon. And I served on the Environmental Advisory Council starting in 2004 and chaired the 2009 review. I wanted to speak to the Natural Resource Index which we talked about last time but which actually has some real problems to it. We don't have all of the input values, and the input values that we don't have are for threatened and endangered species for the 998 acres. What you have to be able to do is have all the inputs to each of those cells and add them up. That was done for us, and right now all we have are sums. Back in 2002 when the NRI background data were made up that are used for this threatened and endangered species, we had a few collared panthers. They were collared in CREW and the panther refuge and other public areas. They were not in Collier properties. So we really don't have any data from monitoring those animals. They were also only monitored during the day. And they come out at night, and we now know from several studies that have been done in the last several years as part of Panther Protection Plan -- creating the Panther Protection Plan, we know that they come out onto farm fields and into groves and into other range lands at night and hunt their prey. So that is part of their Primary Panther Habitat. And this being done, we have ignored that in this particular property where about two-thirds of the property --and I don't have the picture. I think Nicole may show it to you --is in primary --the primary habitat. And the Panther Protection Plan said we should protect all of the land in the Primary Panther Habitat to keep this population viable. It's generally recognized that the panther NRI values would have to be updated after the panther study, and this wasn't done. Page 58 of 111 October 17, 2019 We did hear from Mr. Passarella that he put some information in based on some inspections that they had done of the property; however, we don't have copies of where they walked when they walked the transects. We don't have copies of exactly what they saw and where on their -- we don't have their transect information. What this means is when he said they were on the property in March, May, June, and July of 2007, we don't know where they went on that property. It's 998 acres. My guess is that during most of the time they went on the high and dry land. This property happens to get up to about three feet of water during the wet season in parts of it, and this is, of course, where the birds go, and this is their threatened and endangered area, species areas. That's where they forage. We don't have -- that is not included in this, and it should be, because we know that. We know that. We don't need to be told. That should have been added into this survey. It was not. So the NRI values are inadequate and inaccurate. The other thing that we need to do -- and this is looking forward to redoing the Land Development Code and the GMP. We need to include those panther --those FLUCFCS codes for where those panthers go in defining the threatened and endangered species. These are the 200s and the 300 codes that define cropland and range land, and they should be included, because they are panther territory. That would result in some of the area -- some of this area going well over 1.2 if we put those two sets of information into this scoring. I think the scoring needs to be redone. That's where I'm kind of coming out. I'm requesting that you postpone consideration of this action until the recommendations can be implemented, until the NRI rescoring can occur. I know they're pushing to push this through. I don't think that's advisable. And I think there's a real deficit in terms of NRI scoring, because any area that scores over 1.2 you can't build on. That's the rule. And I'm sure that if we went back and did this, looked closer and looked correctly, we could find that. Mr. Passarella said he did not include certain data that came from the state. Well, why not? He did not -- this is kind of where I have real questions. So I'm very, very skeptical. It's the only layer in the NRI that I'm skeptical about. There are eight layers. This is the one. It's the threatened and endangered species one that is the problem. And if you -all have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Judy, to change the scoring and the criteria, of course, that criteria was developed 18 years ago when -- I think Wilson Miller did the first study. MS. HUSHON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And developed the criteria --and this maybe a staff requirement-- or staff to answer. But to change that scoring, would that not require a change in the Comp Plan and in the LDC? I mean, you're asking us -- you're asking for something to be done, and -- MS. HUSHON: Well, that score --I don't know the extent to which --the rules for the scoring are there -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. HUSHON: --are in that, but what scoring was done we don't even know because we don't have the detailed data to even know exactly what was scored in any one of those boxes, and the county has not gotten those data. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: First of all, the data should be made available. MS. HUSHON: Yes, I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Undisputed. That was talked about at the last meeting, and it should be available for the public to review. There's no argument. But I want to go back --and I'm not disputing your position. I'm just trying to clarify that the applicant submitted an application based on the current criteria as described in the LDC. You're asking for the criteria to be changed. Would that not -- would that have to be changed? Page 59 of 111 October 17, 2019 MS. HUSHON: Except for wading birds. Because wading birds, we know what their area is. They did update -- do some updates on wading birds, and they didn't take into account then habitat, which is the land that gets inundated in the wet season. They did not take that into account. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They just negated it? MS. HUSHON: Well, they didn't do --they only did one inspection out of all the ones that Mr. Passarella listed during the wet season. And my guess is that that one inspection, I don't know where they went on the property. There are high and dry parts, and there are wet parts. But if they didn't go to the wet parts and look for birds, you aren't going to necessarily find them because they're down on the wet parts. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But if that data --I'm going to move one step further. You present that information to U.S. Fish and Wildlife as part of when they open the permit for comment, which they will. They're going to have to follow up with the federal permit. They'll have a comment period. And that goes to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife could turn around and say I want a complete, full reanalysis of all listed species. And, of course, HCPs, Habitat Conservation Plans, for each of the identified endangered or listed species, and that could delay this -- I mean, that figuratively -- MS. HUSHON: Actually, they got back comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service that asked why they had not included the panther studies in with their application, and they did not, even though that application went in well after those studies were published. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I mean, that's a reason -- MS. HUSHON: This is a conundrum, because it's all being done with 2002 data. Itis now 2019. We know better, and we need to act smarter. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Would that, again, require a change in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it would, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The problem is we have to judge this project on the basis of the code that they're under right now today. They have property rights that we have to honor. I don't disagree with you, there are things wrong. I do disagree whether we knew it or not back in 2002, but we all passed it in 2002. MS. HUSHON: We didn't -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, yes, they did. We've got documentation. You'll hear testimony from Meredith Budd and others that they signed off on this back then, but I don't think anybody understood what those FLUCFCS codes meant and how they spread out over the farm fields. MS. HUSHON: No, we didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's our mistake. The applicant has a right to apply under those rules, and that's what we have to -- we, as a board, that's our limitation. MS. HUSHON: Well, the wading bird data should be questioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're -- Passarella, if their people are here, they can comment on that during their period of rebuttal. MS. HUSHON: But I'm just saying, you know, the wading bird data I do not think were adequately considered here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can comment on that during rebuttal. And even if they did, the NRI values still may not get up 1.2. MS. HUSHON: That may not bring it up. But if we consider that and the panther, we'd definitely be up there over a large portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the panther is already defined in our code, and it doesn't contain the FLUCFCS codes that are in this property. That's unfortunate -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Judith, that's not what we're here to do today. You want to change a program that exists. This village wants to come under the existing program. That's all we can weigh in on it. Page 60 of 111 October 17, 2019 So that is the limitation on our part today. MS. HUSHON: Well, I just wanted you to know that there were real flaws in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I think we all know that. We've worked with it long enough to realize that as well. So next speaker. Oh, I'm cony. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Hushon mentioned the constituent data or the foundational data that went into the grid of the 997 acres. I thought we were -- I thought we had asked for a spreadsheet or at least some data that showed the arithmetic of how it was calculated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we saw this morning when our staff provided that supplemental report that they worked on between last meeting and this one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That was exactly how they got to it; polygon by polygon. It was as detailed as you could possibly get. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I didn't --well, I'll look at it again. But I didn't see --I didn't seethe arithmetic. Was it there and I just missed it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'll give you my copy. It's the same copy -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I don't even have this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. It just came out --actually, I saw it --was it this morning I called Matt? Yeah, it was this morning at quarter to 6:00 I found that, and I called Matt when he got in and said, I'd like staff to walk us through that when they got here today as part of their presentation. So that's why -- and I thought it would explain the calculations. They're all there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All 997, 999 acres with polygons. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Neville Williams. Neville. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's gone. MR. BELLOWS: Sue Schweizer. MS. SCHWEIZER: Hello. My name is Sue Schweizer, and I live in Ave Maria. And I really don't have any issue with this development except for the concern of Oil Well Road. And it's my understanding that the road will not be widened at construction. And its a two-lane road. It's already dangerous. Fifty-five miles an hour, passing zones. And there have already been very serious accidents there. There's considerable traffic from Arthrex, and left turns at DeSoto are also a problem during peak times. I and others in Ave Maria would like assurance that this road will accommodate construction safely for everyone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, ma'am, we'll --during --after we finish with public speakers, we'll ask staff to answer your question, okay? MS. SCHWEIZER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Doug Hartman. MR. HARTMAN: Thank you. My name is Doug Hartman. I represent myself here today as a private citizen. I had some prepared comments, but based upon the discussions that have gone on today, I must first express some concern about the differences that seem to be evolving about the language that states something is required versus something is permitted. If something is just permitted and that is treated as if it was not there, which is what appears to be the Page 61 of 111 October 17, 2019 position of the applicant, in other words, they comply or they not comply regardless of statements as to the quality issues that have been raised, which is compactness, interconnectness, walkability, bikeability, and these other quality statements and quality tests, then there's no need for most of the regulations where it states something's permitted. It's either we have a board that brings their judgment and their skills to the issue, looks at the facts as presented to them, and then looks at these quality variables and says, is that sufficiently in compliance with the quality objectives, or they don't. It's very clear that, fust of all, this particular project is not compact, it is not walkable, it is not interconnected, it does not contain a rural to urban continuum with a mixed-use spread throughout, it does not -- or it is bisected by a high-speed arterial freight -carrying highway scheduled for expansion to six lanes eventually. Now, looking at compactness. The project footprint is not compact. It's stretched out along two intersecting road; one of which, of course, is Oil Well Road. The irregular and elongated footprint appears to be composed of land that had no other income-producing potential and, thus, was made available for development. We cannot build our towns and villages gerrymandered to fit on the junk land not wanted for anything else. We need to locate a compact plot of land not on wildlife breeding area or wildlife transit pathways and certainly not divided by a major highway to build the initial village. I would point out, which is obvious to everybody here, that if you have ever visited the rural areas of southern Europe you see towns that were laid out by the Roman engineers 2,000 years ago. They haven't changed. That same rule will apply to what you're doing now in the rural lands area. What we build as the initial village will become the example for the future, and this is not just our lifetime or the lifetime of our children. It's your children's children on out for a very long time. We must get it right. This particular application does not. That highway is the 400 -pound gorilla through the middle of the thing. The concept laid out clearly in the character study from 2002 that the people expressed their desire for envisions a town center with a main street with small commercial activities that would allow the members of that town to make 50 percent or up to 50 percent of their trips local for errands, whether it's getting a haircut, going to the hairdresser, going to the library or whatever. That is not what we see in this first example you're setting forward. Ifs not compact. It's spread over two distinct and totally separated units. I really -- when they say we're going to make that intersection like an activity center, l would call the attention of the commissioners to Activity Center No. 18 adjacent to where I live in Lely. That intersection, traffic moves at 65 miles an hour on both 41 and Collier Boulevard there. They're contemplating a continuous turn intersection. Itis 10 lanes wide in one direction and 12 lanes wide in the other. Two of the crossing paths that we expect our senior citizens to cross are the size of a football field. Is it really reasonable in this particular village to expect that a young child on a bicycle sent out to get a loaf of bread or a quart of milk gets on his bike, comes to that intersection -- what's he going to do, walk across it? They say crosswalks. How about that 80 -year-old woman? I was chair of the Senior Affairs Committee for the county last year. One of the findings we make was that we're not addressing walkability for those over 65. I would remind the Commission that in this county today one of every three citizens is over 65. Do you really want 65 -year-old people trying to cross a six -lane highway to get to the grocery store? Is this what we have for the future? Is this what we have as a village image? I think not. I had several other points, but they're going to be covered or they have been covered, so I won't delay my presentation any further. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Nicole Johnson. MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I will be giving the first part of the Conservancy's presentation, and my colleague, April Page 62 of 111 October 17, 2019 Olson, will then follow up with some of our concerns about the design of the village. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, before you start, you had submitted some detailed letters. We may have questions from those. At what point would be best we ask the questions? After you? After April? Or at what point? MS. JOHNSON: How about after April we'll both be available to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. JOHNSON: Now, to begin the presentation I did want to do a little bit of housekeeping, because at the beginning of your hearing two weeks ago, the statement was read from Gary Davis, our at -that -time policy director in 2002 when the Conservancy was supportive of the RLSA. I remember that very well. I actually helped provide Gary the comments that went towards his public comments for the record and have been involved since before the RLSA had the title the RLSA. So very familiar with the Conservancy's position and why we took that position, and I thought it was important that we share that with you. What the RLSA was anticipated to be is something very different than what we now know it is. And so what the Conservancy supported was this: We were actually on the oversight committee that heard presentations from the consultant who created the RLSA. And it was very clear the intent of the program was to take what could have happened at one unit per five acres throughout the RLSA and compress it down into a much smaller footprint. These are some quotes from Wilson Miller that their final report was provided to that committee of which the Conservancy sat on it, and it clearly stated only 16,805 acres would need to be set aside for the buildout density in compact rural development. Maybe if we misunderstood that quote, again, another quote from that same document from May of 2002: The incentive -based stewardship program fulfills all final order objectives. Approximately 16,800 acres are required -- oh, for -- sorry typo -- compact rural development. So were we the only ones that thought this? Obviously not. This is from your county staffs executive summary at the adoption hearing on October 22nd, 2002, and it states, although there are 115,300 plus -or -minus acres of potential SRAs, private lands less FSAs and HSAs, it is estimated that the eight -credit requirement will set aside approximately 16,800 acres or 9 percent of the study area for cluster development. And then one final quote from that staff report. And I'm not going to read all of it, but this states that it was assumed that this program would not really increase the population, but it would simply reallocate where that population would be into smaller compact developments. So when the Conservancy stood up and said we supported this program, this was the program we supported. Now, moving on today and Rivergrass Village. There are really three points that we want to highlight in our presentation. We have sent in a lot of different letters, and, you know, we certainly are available to answer questions on that, but we do want to focus on three things today, and the first is this NRI data and evaluation, and the second two items are really about design characteristics. In looking at the NRI data, I mean, what we're really talking about is protection of wildlife, listed species, habitat, vegetation in the RLSA. This was one of the points of the final order and one of the hallmarks of the RLSA program. And it's stated in the Group 3 policies, which requires us to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitat. You do that by directing incompatible uses away from wetland and upland habitats. The Conservancy cares because these are some of those listed species that utilize those habitat areas in the RLSA. They use the more obvious of habitats, the vegetated areas, the wetland sloughs, but they also use ag fields. When we talk about those NRI values, we tend to, just by the functionality of the program, really convert them to mathematical equations. It's the environmental math behind the program. But this is what we're talking about. Those six factors look at, is the land located in an HSA, FSA, WRA, open area? Is the land located proximate to conservation lands? Does the habitat have the value for restoration? What are the land -use codes? Page 63 of 111 October 17, 2019 What are the soils? And what about the listed species? So these are kind of the faces behind that very complicated mathematical worksheet that is the NRI value. And, of course, you get your NRI score by adding those six factors together. What is required when a new SRA application comes in is verification of those NRI scores, and that's contained in the Land Development Code. That requires that the applicant and, by default county staff makes sure that the index scores assigned during the RLSA study, that original study, are still valid, and through recent aerial photographs, satellite imagery, all of those things is verged by field inspection. To verify the score, the sum total of those six index layers, the applicant and the county must, first of all, have those original scores assigned when the program was created, then those original scores need to be modified based on best available survey and science information, and the final score should be a representation of the current conditions compared to the conditions from the program when the NRIs were originally created. This is what the applicant has provided as their proposed NRI values. That very information -- and while I appreciate that this provides some information, this provides the answer without math. And what the Conservancy had needed as far as this application was to understand the math, understand how those six factors equated to the numbers on each raster cell that was part of this application. We tried in good faith to find that information. We met with county staff back in August, and we raised this question of how can you verify the data if you don't have, fust of all, the original data; second of all, the new updated data? No answer was given. Really, you could hear a pin drop it was so quiet in the room. On September 10th, the county staff report was completed based on the date stamped at the bottom of the staff report. On September 12th, that staff report was submitted to the public, to the Planning Commission. On September 16th, the county did provide some -- a report from Natural Resources Services, Inc., questioning how the county could verify those numbers without having that new data. Got no response from the county. Interestingly, the day after that, September 17th, an email from the county staff that was flagged "high importance" was sent to the applicant requesting those updated GIS files for Rivergrass' NRI scores. On September 17th the information was provided in GIS files. That was two days before the first hearing, but you didn't actually hear Rivergrass on the 19th. And then on October 3rd, voila, this information was provided. It's the first time that the Conservancy had heard about this data being received or even existing. Our concern is that unless we're missing some sort of exchange of information, it seems like this verified information was received on September 17th, and how can that have an input into the September 10th staff report? And, if something was submitted earlier, why would county staff not acknowledge that and share it with us? In looking at verification, I think the listed species data layer is one of those that probably has the most conversation around it. And, indeed, for most listed species, it talks about the intersect of having a -- documentation and then having the preferred -- occupied preferred or tolerated habitat, and for the panther there are certain FLUCFCS codes. Now, the question is, did this intend for the panther to only be considered if it was contained in those FLUCFCS codes? Every other PUD, every other plan that you look at, you have the ability to look at best available science. So is the point of the RLSA that you can't look at panther best available science and apply it to these SRAs, to the SSAs? Was the RLSA intended to be static in the year 2000? The Conservancy believes, no, that's not the case. And we believe that the intent for this additional flexibility can be documented in some of those foundational documents that created the RLSA. This came from the hnmokalee study area Stage 1 report created by Wilson Miller, and this was issued in the year 2000. And it talked about the fact that panther science was evolving and that panther science was supposed to complement what was going on with the county's RLSA creation and review. In looking at the five-year review for the RLSA, in looking at can the county ignore best available science, county outside legal counsel, Carlton Fields, provided a memo regarding updating the RLSA through an amendment process. I know that's different, but they said data relied upon must be the best available data. If a more recent analysis or study is available, then that must be considered. So just because this isn't tied to an amendment, does this mean that the county cannot look at best Page 64 of 111 October 17, 2019 available science? We think that's ridiculous. You should be able to. In further support of using panther best available science, Al Reynolds of Stanteo, one of the primary authors of the RLSA, states in a communication with county staff in 2011, one of the basic principles of the RLSA is that there will always be more recent and more site-specific data available as the program is implemented. And this is best addressed at the time a property owner and the county evaluate a specific application for SSA or SRA or when a property owner uses their baseline uses. Again, this supports the intent that you can look beyond those specific FLUCFCS codes and incorporate best available science. Best available science for panther includes the 2006 Krauts best available science, which created the Primary Panther Habitat, and in the middle slide, that shows the primary zone habitat, secondary zone habitat. Primary zone habitat are those areas that are critical for the panther and that need to be retained in their existing state in order to retain the current viable population of panthers. And it acknowledges some of these areas are farm fields. And then we look at 2015 new complementary best available science which is done by Dr. Robert Frakes. Frakes looks at adult breeding habitat, and that overlaps quite a bit with the Primary Panther Habitat, reinforces the importance of the primary, and shows some additional areas outside of primary that are important. And the slide on the right shows the RLSA and those areas of adult breeding and primary habitat. And this just, again, gives some background from the panther recovery plan about primary. When you look at Rivergrass on the left-hand side, that shows, generally speaking, where Rivergrass is located vis-a-vis the Primary Panther Habitat. The middle slide shows 71 percent of the village is proposed in Primary Panther Habitat, that being in the pink area, and then the slide on the right shows that almost 35 percent of the village is in adult breeding habitat, that depicted in the purple. So on October 4th and then again on October 8th, the Conservancy did receive the -- some GIS shapefiles and information from Collier County so that we could do, I think, Ned, what you were talking about, which is really go in and not just see what the applicant has shown for their NRI values, not just see what the county had done to verify, because it looks like verification didn't happen until at least seven days after the staff report was written, and really understand, if you looked at factors differently, what might you come up with? For example, the proximity index. We looked at the proximity to conservation areas. Now, understand, FSAs, HSAs don't qualify for that 300 -foot buffer proximity; however, if you're looking at something that is an SSA, that is conservation land. Those are also lands that are being offered as part of that massive incidental take permit, also called the Habitat Conservation Plan, as mitigation. So we believe that you could and should consider applying value to those areas. We also looked at the listed species index. And we believe again, because you shouldn't be static in the year 2000, you need to look at Primary Panther Habitat. You need to look at the fact that panthers have been utilizing the edges of the Rivergrass area, that you have interconnect with adult breeding and Primary Panther Habitat. If you do that, then everything on the left-hand side in the lavender gets a 0.8 value. And you cansee the secondary habitat then gets less as a 0.4. When we do our composite with all of the layers, we come up with higher numbers than what the applicant has put together, and there are certain areas that do get to 1.3999. So this is the type of critical analysis that we had hoped the county would be doing for this application. This is the type of critical analysis that the public needs to be able to go in and verify for themselves. The only way you can verify this is if you have very expensive GIS software and someone who has a master's degree in GIS or at least quite a bit of knowledge in GIS. I can't do this, but we have people on our staff that can. This is not, for all intents and purposes, public information. This needs to be made in a format that the public can go in and do this type of analysis. You may not agree with how we came up with our analysis, but this is foundational to the program. The public deserves to be able to look, recreate, and provide comments on it. As late as October 15th, more information was coming in for the GIS along with other things. And while this has primarily a lot of data points, listed species points outside of Rivergrass, there are some new ones that are inside Rivergrass. We didn't really have time to play with that a whole lot and, you know, we will continue to do Page 65 of 111 October 17, 2019 that. But bottom line, we don't believe that this NRI issue has been fully vetted. This is foundational to the program. Even though there is this federal review for this incidental take permit, that does not abdicate Collier County's responsibility to take a look at this. You have a listed -species layer in your NRI values. You can't shirk that responsibility to the feds. They're not going to review this application. Sothis is something that is the county's obligation and responsibility. If the county wasn't supposed to do that and wasn't supposed to potentially find new numbers, different numbers, higher numbers, there wouldn't have been the requirement for this reverification of those NRI scores when new applications came in. So we believe that this can be done. It can be done under the current GMP. It can be done under the current LDC, and it really needs to be better evaluated, and -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you move to April, the Planning Commission's representative for the environment is Joe Schmitt, and I know he stepped out for a phone call at 2:00, and he just happened to miss your whole presentation, which I wish he was here for. What I would like is to take a break. We were going to take one at 2:30. I'd like to take it now before April starts so maybe Joe could be here by the time at least one of you get to speak so he can hear the environmental community. And I know Meredith will be probably shortly after that, depending on when she's in line. So why don't we do that. We'll take a break till 2:35 and resume at that time. (A brief recess was had from 2:12 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. We're resuming from our break. We'll be taking another break at 4:00, just to give you a heads -up, and then we're going to end today at 6:00. So with that, our second speaker on the Conservancy side of things, I think, is April. MR. BELLOWS: April. MS. OLSON: Good afternoon, Chairman Strain and Commissioners. For the record, my name is April Olson. I'm here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our over 7,000 supporting families. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak on Rivergrass SRA -- Rivergrass Village SRA today. We spent considerable time reviewing Rivergrass's plans for consistency with the RLSA overlay policies and the Land Development Code. And Nicole touched on the environmental aspects. I'm going to talk more about the design today. The Conservancy is very concerned that the plan for Rivergrass Village is significantly inconsistent with numerous Land Development Code and Growth Management policies and is completely contrary to essential principles of the RLSA program. Based on the design and location of the project, it is apparent that the applicant not only does not embrace the ideals of the program, but the project is so counter to the rules of the program that it seems the applicant is actually mocking the essence of the RLSA program. The program is supposed to create compact, walkable, and self-sufficient communities in an environmentally sustainable manner. Instead, the plan for Rivergrass is sprawling, it is dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the site is proposed directly in habitat of listed species. On September 4th we provided you with a copy of our August 5th, 2019, comment letter that we wrote to Collier County staff outlining the Conservancy's concerns of the proposed development. We also provided you with the summary, the letter including a list of the numerous LDC and GMP policies where the project lacked consistency. And today we would like to elaborate on our concerns from that letter and answer any questions you may have. I'll first start with our issues regarding the design and then talk about -- well, Nicole already talked about the location. Collier County's Land Development Code states that, quote, villages shall be designed in a compact, pedestrian -friendly form. I want to put this on the -- which is this policy right here. And you can see -- you can see that exact policy highlighted in green there. And here are other LDC and GMP policies requiring Page 66 of 111 October 17, 2019 developments -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me. Could you bring it in a little bit. We're losing the margins. Ah, thank you. MS. OLSON: Okay. Thank you. And here are the other LDC and GMP policies requiring developments to provide safe mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. But instead of following the program's rules, the applicant has chosen to design their village so that residents are forced to cross a busy 55 -mile -per -hour freight road to get to the village center. Oil Well Road carries 800 trucks and thousands of cars a day. And I'll put the master concept plan on there. Thank you. You can see from Rivergrass's master concept plan that residents who live north of Oil Well Road have to cross -- have to cross -- residents who live north of Oil Well Road would have to cross to get to the village center. And those who live -- would live on the south half would have to cross to get to the amenities center. And to make matters worse, Collier County has plans to widen Oil Well Road from two lanes to four and eventually six lanes, making it even more dangerous for residents. Not only is it completely irresponsible for the applicant to plan a village around a soon-to-be six -lane freight distribution route, as it poses extreme danger to pedestrians and bicyclists, but it violates those basic principles of the RLSA program that I showed you. The second major design flaw of the project has to do with a lack of continuum of densities and intensities. Put that up there. Thank you. The Land Development Code requires villages to provide, quote, a progressive rural to urban continuum with the greatest density, intensity, and diversity of the housing occurring in the village center to least density, intensity, and diversity occurring with the neighborhood edges, end quote. And Collier County's Community Character Plan provides this picture showing what a continuum of densities and intensities could look like for a walkable community. You can see that the densities and intensities are higher near the center and lessen as the project extends out to the neighborhood edge. The picture also shows a variety of housing options within walking distance to the center. Instead, the applicant has chosen to design Rivergrass Village as a homogeneous swath of mostly low-density, single-family homes, which are prime characteristics of sprawl. There are only two context zones: Neighborhood general and the village center. Neighborhood general is shown in tan and is spread throughout the plan, and the orange is the village center. Wait. Thank you. And it provides only one direct connection to the neighborhoods. There's no continuum of densities and intensifies shown here or discussed anywhere else in the plans. hi fact, the project would offer very limited housing choices because 90 percent of the project will consist of single-family homes. As expected, the applicant asked for a deviation from this essential rule, but they provided no justification regarding the lack of continuum. Instead, the applicant states, quote, locating the village center at the intersection of Oil Well Road is the only location that makes sense to ensure a viable market condition for these uses, end quote. But what does this have to do with the program's requirement for providing a continuum of densities and intensity? It doesn't. Furthermore, Policy 4.2 states that, quote, because the overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed use and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities, and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally apply to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs, end quote. So the applicant's argument that they need to build their village center along Oil Well Road, it falls flat, because traditional standards do not apply in the RLSA. After all, Ave Maria which was the first SRA in the RLSA, did not place their town center along a major roadway. So why should Rivergrass bean exception? And I wanted to read to you a statement regarding Rural Lands West from the County Attorney's Office. And the county was concerned that Rural Lands West was located along Oil Well Road. And this is from a letter dated to the same applicant November 1st, 2018, from the office of --the County Manager's, excuse me. And it Page 67 of 111 October 17, 2019 says the -- quote, the county has consistently expressed a concern about the way you've designed the RLW project to overlay onto the county's major cast/west future arterials: Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard. Then the letter goes on to say, from the County Manager, the project looks to take advantage of the county's existing and future transportation grid in an effort to increase the marketability of both your residential and commercial properties. Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard are intended to be major transportation corridors serving multiple population centers and the movement of freight and goods for longer distance travel needs. Your design significantly diminishes the intended use by placing community and neighborhood commercial retail centers along major roadways. The SRA town core and town centers are meant to be pedestrian friendly at a human scale, same as villages. By placing them along freight and goods corridors, you're creating similar conflicts and deficiencies that exist in the City of Naples along U.S. 41, downtown Immokalee, along SR 21, and along Pine Ridge Road and Airport. So this is the same situation that is happening with Rivergrass Village. So, in conclusion, the applicant was an active participation -- excuse me -- an active participant in the creation of the RLSA program, which was adopted, as you know, in 2002; therefore, the applicant, Collier Enterprises, has had 17 years to get it right, 17 years to perfect the design of a village based on principles of the RLSA and also based on Collier County's Community Character Plan, but they haven't gotten it right. What is more troubling is that we recently found out that the applicant will soon be submitting applications for two more villages, Belhnar and Longwater, both of which are also proposed within primary zone panther habitat, as Nicole had mentioned. So right now is the time to require the applicant to play by the rules. Otherwise, if Rivergrass is approved, the applicant may consider that the door's open for them to build more sprawling, auto (sic) center communities within listed species habitat, which is 100 percent the type of development that the RLSA program is supposed to avoid. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. April, I don't know which one of you is going to start answering questions, but if you could both stand by the microphone and -- MS. OLSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions at this point of the Conservancy? Joe, you had -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do, but I'll hold. Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll let you go first. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. April, this is one where I don't disagree with what you're stating, but I have a hard time understanding that what you're asking for is even a bigger development, is what I'm hearing you say. You want a bigger development that is more -- possibly more condensed but -- or intensity and density than what is currently being proposed. That's sort of what -- the interpretation I'm hearing. And when you talked about smart growth and concentration, before you answer, I mean, that's one but, two, I'm almost hearing you say, well, if it was -- we ought to just eliminate Oil Well Road, and maybe put a bypass around this entire -- which becomes even more intrusive into what I would believe to be protected lands. Two comments. And I'll hold off until you answer those, because I have other questions. MS. OLSON: We are asking for the applicant to play by the rules of the RLSA program, which is to create the compact, walkable, mixed-use towns or villages. In this instance it's a village. That's what we're asking them to do, and outside of listed -species habitat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So if you --if I interpret that to mean compact, would it be about half the size of what they have now for the same density? MS. OLSON: They could increase their density. They have up to four DUs per acre. Right now they're at 2.5. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But wouldn't that be more environmentally -- MS. JOHNSON: No, because if you place a more dense community outside of important habitat areas, Page 68 of 111 October 17, 2019 then you can avoid habitat, you can create a mix of density/intensity that's walkable. Say you take the concept of this, you move it outside of environmentally sensitive areas, you maybe put it on 300 acres, you have that true continuum of a very dense village core and then you go outwards from it. You don't have to create big, massive new sprawling towns to fix the concern of medium-sized massive sprawling villages. You just need to think about designing differently and using a smaller footprint. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's go back to the beginning, and I -- sorry I was out in the hallway. I was on a conference call, but I did hear your presentation at the same time. You talked about the beginning of the entire program. This is an SRA. It's been a Stewardship Receiving Area for almost 20 years with a major road bisecting an identified area by all parties concerned that this was going to be where we want growth to take place. And now that it's being submitted, all of a sudden I hear the Conservancy saying we don't want growth there anymore because we don't think now it should be an SRA. MS. JOHNSON: Just a clarification. You had said this had been an SRA for ahnost 20 years. It hasn't. This is open area where, on a case-by-case basis, when an applicant comes in, they can, based on submitting new information -- you have to update those NRI values, and you have to do that to make sure it still qualifies for a town. And based on meeting certain criteria for development, then you can apply for permission to do that and be granted. I think a comment was made earlier, if all of this was just supposed to bean SRA, we wouldn't have the LDC for implementing it. So the overlay was just that, an overlay -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. JOHNSON: --where, when applications came in, they would be judged on an application -by -application basis. And now this application has come in, and that's exactly what staff is doing, what the Conservancy's doing. So we're evaluating it as it's come in. MS. OLSON: Yeah. We're evaluating based on the existing Land Development Code and Growth Management policies, and it's not meeting those requirements for the reasons that we've stated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on your assessment. What we heard from staff is that it does meet the requirements. MS. OLSON: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If I'm not mistaken, that's what I thought we heard. MS. OLSON: In their, what was it, September --their 10th staff report, they've got on here --I've got a quote that I hadn't even mentioned that Rivergrass Village does not conform to fundamental village design characteristics. I'm not sure why that changed in the past couple weeks -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't know that it has. We just haven't gotten that far with our discussion with staff because of the changes that occurred this afternoon, so... MS. OLSON: Okay. I've been out for two weeks. I think a lot had transpired, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There were a lot of changes made this afternoon. And based on all the deviations, have either been withdrawn or amended -- again, we haven't got a final determination, but it was my understanding that staff does agree. Of course, you disagree, and I respect your opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, I have to interrupt only because we did not finish our discussion with comprehensive staff. The statement that she's reading and the one that you seem to be talking about is one we hadn't gotten to yet because we bounced down to the deviations at the request of the applicant to walk through those to see how those balance out. As I said to Corby, when we finish with public speakers, we need to have him come back up and deal with the issues that we have not asked about that are still in his comprehensive staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it was good for the public speakers, because that just brings all that issue to light. MS. OLSON: Staff had a lot of comments in their September 10th staff report about it not being walkable, concerns about Oil Well Road being dangerous, and that it doesn't conform to the fundamental village characteristics, which is what we're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, that's -- I'll defer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. Page 69 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Does the Conservancy have an opinion with respect to the evolution of this project, if you will, from Town of Big Cypress to Town of Rural Lands West to now several villages from the standpoint of conservation but also from the standpoint of planning and, if so, what would that position be? MS. JOHNSON: Well, all of those areas are anticipated for some form of intensification. When you look at the federal mega -permit, that incidental take permit that's been mentioned as the Habitat Conservation Plan, all of that is going to be developed in some form or another. The Conservancy's concern is, of course, locational first and foremost. Certain areas are less environmentally sensitive, especially to the panther, and those are the areas where development should be directed, but not just any type of development. It really needs to conform to those principles of the RLSA, more the compact and walkable. So from our perspective, I think that we're seeing now just on the forms of development that perhaps this idea of breaking up a town into a number of villages creates some concern for staff. I hope that that's something that staff considers as the upcoming review and potential amendments come forward. But, you know, all of that -- Town of Big Cypress, Rural Lands West, all of these villages, they're all part of a massive federal take permit, so they're all anticipated, I would have to assume, to be developed as part of a massive 45,000 -acre intensification permit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think you've answered, but let me try it another way. In the interests that you advocate, let's say, conservation and planning, would they be better served with quadrifiction or with one compact and connected town? MS. JOHNSON: It depends on how it's designed. It depends on where it's located and how it's designed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You, I think, have seen the preliminaries showing where the other villages are going. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you have a point of view on that versus a single town? MS. JOHNSON: If it were three villages like it is now or one massive town -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: -- it would still be horribly problematic from an environmental standpoint. And if the villages were designed or a town were designed with this type of design, it would be problematic. We don't know about the two new villages, so I can't really comment on that. But it doesn't matter if it's a town or a village as long as the location and the design really conform to the RLSA. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: Then that's a more positive thing, and this doesn't --Rural Lands West didn't. Town of Big Cypress didn't. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: So a couple of observations. When I look at this plot of land, it's open farmland primarily surrounded by a WRA around the entire eastern border. It looks like, if you were going to pick land to build on that was not already preserved land or on -- you know, unchanged land, ifs a pretty good spot to start from. But a couple caveats that are obvious. I think there's been a lot of discussion about Oil Well Road and, obviously, it sounds like to you that is a killer for the concept of compactness and walkability having that in the middle of it, and the other is that you've introduced this concept wherein a lot of this is Primary Panther Habitat which, if I remember that exhibit had the red and blue squares that were 1.2 and 1.399 or so, there were -- quite a bit of this was area that really shouldn't even be built on. Am I correct so far? MS. JOHNSON: Certainly around the edges -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Edges. MS. JOHNSON: --you have numbers that triggered that. And the concept of the Primary Panther Page 70 of 111 October 17, 2019 Habitat, it's -- this is the first time it's been brought into the discussion for this application, but this was something that the Conservancy brought into the RLSA five-year review back in 2007 to 2009. So it's been information that has been out there. And it's unfortunate that the Conservancy is one of the few organizations that's really bringing it forward to discuss these future towns/villages. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess what I'd like to understand is, from the standpoint of the Conservancy, it almost sounds like you might be more supportive if this was two villages. One-- a village is 100 to 1,000 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: One north of Oil Well Road that had a village center in the middle of that and avoided the Primary Panther Habitat but at a higher density and one to the south with similar characteristics, like two individual villages that more followed the spirit of the RLSA. I guess I'm trying to understand what the Conservancy would consider acceptable and would support. MS. JOHNSON: And, unfortunately, I don't have our vision map with us, but south of Oil Well Road, you get into a lot of the really critical habitat, so don't really see a lot of options south of Oil Well Road. There are areas north of Oil Well that could be appropriate. Ironically, some of those fields are what Collier Enterprises recently sold to Gargulio. That doesn't mean that those still couldn't be the areas targeted for this type of development. The property owner owns quite a bit of land outside of the sensitive areas, so they certainly could put compact development in those areas. And, quite frankly, you know, as I mentioned, they plan to at some point because we know that footprint of development that the 11 major landowners want, it's all part of 45,000 acres of development that they're asking for a federal mega -permit for to take listed species. MS. OLSON: And as Nicole mentioned, we do have a vision map that shows the areas that we consider appropriate for development outside of the primary zone and adult -breeding habitat. And I actually might even have it in my attache case. I'll take a look at it. But there's about 37,000 acres of open lands where these landowners could build their communities, and they're actually close to hnmokalee. They're close to Golden Gate. They're close to Ave Maria. And it would really make these communities more compact and more efficient from an infrastructure standpoint if they build these more compact and closer to the existing developments. COMMISSIONER FRY: Has the Conservancy been meeting with the applicant? I mean, this is one large applicant that has a lot of property. Have you been meeting with them on a continuing basis? And if so, how is that -- what have been the discussions? MS. JOHNSON: We met with them when it was Town of Big Cypress, when it was Rural Lands West, not so much when it was Rivergrass. You know, they certainly know our position and we know theirs. So, no, we haven't had Attache lot of interaction. COMMISSIONER FRY: The last thing I'll comment is, I'm just scratching my head how here we are at this point in the process, and this Primary Panther Habitat seems to a major NRI score impact. And how did we get to this point when the consultant and the staff have both reviewed this and said, you know, we're well under the 1.2 but, yet, this seems to -- you're saying this is current, the latest science, and that it's clearly a factor in this. I just -- I'm scratching my head how we got to this point without that being factored in. MS. JOHNSON: Well, we would like for staff --we'd love to sit down with staff and talk about some of these factors. Like I said, I don't believe staff got the GIS layers until September 17th, which was 10 days after the staff report was finalized. So I'm not sure where that breakdown came, but we did not even hear that the data existed till October 3rd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Nicole, I think that it's a more fundamental question. The definition of panther habitat is in the LDC written prior to 2006, which may have been the result -- it may not have had the benefit of some of the studies that you've brought up. So -- and that might be the answer to explain it. At the time we adopted all this language, the studies that now show some of the primary and secondary panther habitat didn't show it because they didn't exist. They came after that, I believe. If I'm not -- and correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's part of the reason we have the discrepancy between the FLUCFCS codes and what Page 71 of 111 October 17, 2019 we're now finding -- or some people believe is primary and secondary panther habitat. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. And the primary and secondary is considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be best available science. And so what I was trying to build the case for in my presentation was to show that while there are speck FLUCFCS codes tied to panther habitat in the LDC, you need to go back and look at the intent of the program. And the concept that every other planning development/PUD approval can look at best available science but for some reason SRAs can't is just completely inconsistent. So in looking at the intent of the program, we believe that county staff does have the latitude to do that, should be doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: No, I think that's all I have. I mean, so the issue is that the FLUCFCS codes don't adequately coverall of the types of land where panthers have primary habitat. It's just not up to date. MS. JOHNSON: Correct. MS. OLSON: And I think Nicole mentioned this in her presentation, but this is a statement in the Immokalee area study Stage 1 report that says that the panther habitat areas will be implemented (sic) once U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finished their recovery plan. And that has not happened, but that's what was stated was supposed to have happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said, "will be implemented"? MS. OLSON: Well, complemented by ongoing computer modeling of potential habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Complemented, not implemented. I mean, that's a different word. So let's -- since you put it in front of us -- MS. OLSON: But it was never complemented either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure we understand, because I didn't see that word in here. But, Joe, did you have more you want to ask? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Karl said it better than I, because I was trying to get to the same point about the design of the town. And I'll go back to the purpose of the final order, which was directing compatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat. So we can -- you know, we can expand on all that. But that was basically the purpose. All the years following the criteria, the studies, the outreach with the public, the Conservancy, the Wildlife Federation, Brad Cornell -- MS. JOHNSON: Audubon. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --Audubon, thank you. And though there was points of saying, yeah, there's going to be things we don't like, but this is the best we got from what we did when we put this whole thing together -- no argument. The Colliers have had this property for a long time and now coming forward based on the market and based on what they believe they can sell in today's housing market. I'm just trying to understand, you're looking for the county to specify to a builder. The builder's saying we think we want -- everybody wants to live at the end of the cul-de-sac on a private street. That's what sells. High density may sell if you're three blocks from the beach, but when you're out 30 miles inland, it's probably not very marketable unless you build a product that they can sell at a price point they know they can sell at. So I believe what you're trying to say is, well, we don't really care what the market demands. We don't -- we want to basically say the county -- we want you to build a condensed community, multifamily, two-, three-story buildings, whatever it may be. But, look, my point on this is the same as yours, and it was when I was in the staff 18 years ago, was to pass a program to make sure that we protect the lands that were identified to be protected. Those were the WRAs and the -- and basically all the Stewardship Sending Areas that were identified. Now I'm really confused because now all of a sudden they come in with a product, they come in with a design, and Conservancy is saying, we agreed about it -- agreed with it many years ago, but now -- we disagree Page 72 of 111 October 17, 2019 with it now. Is -- am I wrong in following this? MS. JOHNSON: Yes, you're -- but you have to understand the timeline of events. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. JOHNSON: What we agreed to was a much, much smaller footprint of what we were told would be the ultimate buildout in the RLSA. We also were told that each project would be a rezone and a DRI. It ended up being DRIB, but the rezone happened as part of the LDC. We also found new best available science when it came out in 2006. And when the county did their first review of the RLSA, we brought this forward. The RLSA, just like everything else in the Comprehensive Plan, should not be static. It needs to be updated based on new information, new technology, you know, new concepts for how the county wants to move forward. So we brought forward that new best available science. That was something that, unfortunately, the review committee decided they didn't want to pursue. But this is nothing new. This is the Conservancy advocating that best available science be used for this RLSA program. And as far as what we're looking for for the SRAs, we're not asking for something that is so different than the code. What we're asking for is for SRAs to be those innovative master plans that they were intended to be. We do not believe that Rivergrass Village, as it is currently proposed, meets the intent of the RLSA or the actual codes within the LDC, because these were supposed to be something above and beyond just a PUD 20 miles from the urbanized area. And so when you look at what Rivergrass is supposed to be, we're saying take it above and beyond what the LDC requires. We're saying, make it conform to those principles in the LDC. And we do not believe that it does that. And when you look at marketability, your job is to really make sure that the county is protected; that what is being proposed is good for the people of the county. And so just because an applicant says this is what's marketable, this is what I want, that isn't necessarily your job. You need to be protecting the county and looking towards the future of what do we want the county to look like consistent with the code, and that's what we're asking for you to do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would say that job is really the Board of County Commissioners. My job is to make sure -- MS. JOHNSON: But they look at your recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My job is to make sure that what was submitted is fully compliant with the existing codes. I may not like the project, but I'm looking at the project based on the criteria that I have in front of me. If the Board makes a decision, that's their decision on -- in regards to whether they want to look at it and add different criteria, and then it's to the applicant if they -- but I'm looking at it from the existing codes. But one last thing. You did have a slide that said we ought to consider— I think it was your second or third from the last in your presentation, Nicole, that said we ought to have to -- we could consider all data since the passing of the LDC and -- well, the Comp Plan and the LDC, and that is -- is that a legal position as well? I mean, do you have that slide? If you could put it up. I don't know if -- that we could at anytime consider any -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not a matter of can we. Is it required to be updated, and is that requirement something that we have to take into consideration? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I think you said it perfectly. Your job is to look at the code as itis, look at the application as it's presented. Does the application meet the code? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. That's what your job is. Frankly, that's what the Board of County Commissioners' job is as well as a quasi-judicial -- in a quasi-judicial matter. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, I have no argument that --I wish the restudy was started five years ago and was in the process of going through the reviews now for LDC -- for the Comp Plan amendments, but we're not there. MS. OLSON: But Rivergrass does not meet the codes. It is not consistent with the codes, and that -- Page 73 of 111 October 17, 2019 MR. KLATZKOW: Which provisions of the codes --it would be a helpful discussion if we focus on what provisions of the code do you think they do not meet. MS. OLSON: Right here. We've got several of them. This just --this just gets to the fact that it's not -- does not require safe mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. We have the very -- this very first code up here: Villages shall be designed in a compact pedestrian form. All of these codes right here -- and there's several codes in there that we've provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the most important code is the one that I don't see here that I've been waiting to ask this. And I think it dovetails into what both Jeff and Joe are talking about. You have repeatedly said we were supposed to use best available science. Where in the code, either GMP or LDC, does it say that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was my question as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's just some --that sums it up. I'm not disputing your ability to believe that, but if we have to rely on the code, and we do, where in either one of those codes does it say we are supposed to use the best available science to review these SRAs? MS. JOHNSON: In your CCME it talks about the fact that for listed species the county will -- oh, what is it, 7 -point -- basically, while you defer to the agencies, you also look at their recommendations, technical assistance. We see Primary Panther Habitat as a form of technical assistance to show the county that these are the areas that are critical to panthers and for SRAs; that is an obligation that the county has because you have an index layer in that NRI score that speaks to listed species. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then that backs up to the next question. If these agencies are supposed to tell us these are important considerations and we're supposed to consider and utilize their technical advice, do you have any documentation that shows they've called this out as either secondary or panther habitat within these areas from those agencies? I mean -- I know you've got reports. I've seen them, too. And I understand the reports. But if you get right down to it, we've got to look at the black and white of what the code says. And if -- okay. Say we get to the point where we have to accept that technical guidance, have agencies written to the applicant or to us saying you've got primary and secondary habitat impacted in these farm fields and if -- do you have that? That's what it boils down it. MS. JOHNSON: We have the map showing that. And, no, the federal and state agencies are not going to be commenting on this application. Now, the federal agencies are looking at this issue as part of the incidental take permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the HCP process? Aren't they looking at these in the same basis? MS. JOHNSON: Right. That's the incidental take. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And where have they -- after all this time, I think it's been, what, two years or more, have they taken a position on where -- the primary issue out there, which is panther habitat? MS. JOHNSON: It has not -- the take permit has not been issued or denied yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. But it's been going back and forth with, I assume, RFIs on all kinds of issues. Tome, that's an important-- I mean, that's a-- that's the elephant in the room. That's a big issue. MS. JOHNSON: Well, it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Haven't they brought that up as a concern? And if they have, did they say it's concerning us that you're -- some of your areas of -- some of your 37- or 45,000 acres are in primary and secondary panther habitat and they have isolated where those areas are? MS. JOHNSON: Most of their comments have not been provided to the public. I know they're in discussion with the applicants, but a lot of their information has not been provided to the public. I know that there have been conversations about the road network, but I can look back through those things and find that for you, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may be moot for us if this ends up today as the end, but I would suspect if you really want to have an issue with the Board, you need to get down and prove those points. And it would Page 74 of 111 October 17, 2019 have been helpful if we were to continue to see how those agencies have delegated where primary and secondary is. And if it matches yours, that coincides with the best and considered -- considerations given by the agencies. Now we've got a different ballgame, but I don't -- MS. JOHNSON: This -- now -- but to be clear, oh, sorry. I have on the PowerPoint -- this isn't the Conservancy's science. This -- these are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your name's up there in the upper right-hand corner. MS. JOHNSON: We created the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: But this is the data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and from the --Dr. Frake's adult -breeding habitat. This is their data. We created the map. We downloaded their shapefiles. Those are the agency's shapefiles with that information. And, here, we can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The agency being U.S. Fish and Wildlife or one of those? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It would be important for you to take the original document that this was part of and supply it to the Board for your -- for their consideration, because this isn't going to get resolved probably here today now. But that would be the next level. Because, honestly, if we had to resolve this and we had another meeting in which to further discuss it, what I'm trying to whittle down is the actual bottom base documents that everything is supposed to be relied upon and the proof that we are supposed to rely upon it. I think the tie-in to the agencies by the fact our code requires us to consider and utilize agency technical data, or however it's worded, is correct. I've seen it and read it. But I haven't seen that data. And you're saying this is that data, but it's on your document. Joe. MS. JOHNSON: I think we did provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you provided, what, 500 pages or how many pages of stuff? MS. JOHNSON: Well, if you want us to provide this, then don't get mad when we provide it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, I'm not mad, but this is a point. Focus on this point. Don't give us 500 pages to describe one point. Give us the pages that zero in and focus on the biggest item at hand. And I haven't seen that in a succinct format that --out of 2,101 pages that I've had thrown at mein the last two or three weeks. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. We will pull those specific pages out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me go back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. They do three things: They tell you to avoid, to mitigate, or compensate; same under the Clean Water Act. They're not -- most likely not going to tell the developer you can't build here, but they may make it financially painful through -- that's how they're going to assess the scores for Panther Habitat Units, PHUs. The agency's going to look at this. They're going to say, you're in Primary Panther Habitat, and based on that, if they say, this is where you want to build, they're going to talk to the applicant and say, no, we think -- you may have to submit an alternative analysis. They are not even at that point yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Joe, the issue here is if they consider this the Primary Panther Habitat -- it's not an issue of panther habitat mitigation for this board. If it's considered Primary Panther Habitat, and they're saying that in a consideration to the county that we're supposed to utilize, then the NRI values would theoretically change in the property, and then we've got more of the 1.2 above to deal with. That's the piece we haven't got put together if it's true. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's kind of my --where I was going, because then we would have the data to refute the NRI score as we know it now. But even after -- if this was approved and after they go through the permitting process, they've still got to go over that hurdle, and it's going to involve a lengthy process. Believe me. I know the system -- MS. JOHNSON: Oh, I know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you know it as well. MS. JOHNSON: I do, too. Page 75 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this is probably going to costa significant amount of money. I could probably put a figure on it, but I'm not going to do it publicly. But the fact is, Mark is exactly right, if that data were available today, then we would have something to sink our teeth into in regards to the NRI score, and the staff could then say we dispute the applicant's scoring of these areas. MS. JOHNSON: And I'm sure your environmental staff is very familiar with Primary Panther Habitat. The two maps on the right-hand side actually are cut specifically from those studies, so we will provide you with the front page of the study and the exact page so it can be assured that the Conservancy didn't create. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that wasn't my concern. I've seen these kinds of maps before. I have no question about whether or not we're in an area that has a lot of primary and secondary. I'm mostly concerned that we meet the intent of the code which says we have to consider and utilize the technical information from the agencies. A Krauts document isn't an agency. We need to see the agency, and that's the piece that seems to be missing out of everything we've talked about. MS. JOHNSON: Yeah. We will get you Fish and Wildlife Service -- MS. OLSON: Oh, the page that considered best available science. MS. JOHNSON: We'll provide it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To be frank, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife would probably prefer no development out there, quite honestly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've got to say that in order for us to utilize it, and we've not seen that. So that's kind of a big hole in the side of it. I do have a quite --a few other --just a handful of other questions. You have referred to the original NRIs as necessary for a comparison to the most recent data. What good would that do? MS. JOHNSON: Well, at this point -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's an issue for the whole program, but what (sic) is it an issue for a village, since we do it on a current up-to-date transect review? MS. JOHNSON: Well, at this point, and after we received the actual raster cell data from the applicant and went in there and took a look at things, I think that having that original data is even more important because we want to validate that the underpinnings of the program when it was created are actually valid. I mean, we had a lot of questions about the updated math that went into the NRI values that were provided for the updated Rivergrass. And so if we have questions on that, the public should be able to go in and feel confident with those original numbers. This --this isn't just about NRI values. This is about the foundation, the underpinning of the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you, but today is about a village consistent or not consistent with the program as its written now. And -- but those are two separate levels of review. MS. JOHNSON: But the LDC does require that it be verified as compared to the original data. And if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. JOHNSON: --don't know the math behind the original data, it makes it difficult -- it makes it impossible to know that today's math either matches up or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you know that the applicant's environmentalist in one or two different paragraphs indicated they had compared it to the original data? MS. JOHNSON: That would be great to have because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just telling you it was there. I saw it. I highlighted it, but we haven't got to that part of it yet, so... MS. JOHNSON: Yeah. The county does not have that original data, and -- MS. OLSON: We've been asking for about a year now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you may be asking. I don't know what they used, but they said they did compare it. So my assumption is somebody's got something somewhere, so... MS. JOHNSON: Yes. Page 76 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have anything else at this point. I do have some questions to answer (sic) from our staff, but we'll wait till we finish public speakers, then I'll get answers to some of the public's questions that were raised. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A couple of comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: These guys beat to death one of my questions, so I'll pass that. I used to bicycle to work twice a week, 15 years. Come down Airport Road, come down Livingston Road. I was in my 60s. I was still crossing Airport Road and Pine Ridge at a diagonal. You know, it's not that hard to bicycle across these major highways. All you've got to do is wait for the light and cross the road. Yeah, occasionally you're going to get hit, but I -- that's other people. I never got hit, okay? All you've got to do is pay attention. I have a friend that got hit twice on the sidewalk because he was coming out of a project. And it's a divided highway, so everybody's coming from his left. The traffic is coming straight at him, but he's coming at the traffic that's heading this way, and the person coming out of the driveway is looking left and turning right. Me, I go around behind them. No, he goes in front of them. He got hit twice, okay? All you've got to do is pay attention. It's not difficult to travel these roads. We area fairly bicycle -friendly community. Yeah, none of you think so. But I'm in my 70s. I bike all over the place, okay. I never had any problems, and I travel long distances. MS. JOHNSON: Your friend got hit. You're proving our point. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not everybody has reflexes. Okay. That's --so, you know, when you make these kind of comments, they don't sit well with me. Maybe other people up here that don't bicycle actually take this seriously, but I do bicycle, and I don't take that seriously, okay? Second comment: I hear a lot of about how these things were static in the year 2000 and used the best available science. Well, I just want to remind you of one thing. The Republicans in the state senate have finally recognized that sea level rise is happening. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that sea level is going to rise 1.1 meters by the year 2000 (sic). That's 3.7 feet. That's almost four feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 2000? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: By the year 2100, I'm sorry. By the year 2100. That's almost four feet. That's going to put two feet of water twice a day at high tide over the seawalls all around Port Royal. It's going to completely flood a lot of panther habitat. It's going to completely flood all our coastal cities like Goodland and Chokoloskee and Everglades City. You're going to need room for these people to move. You keep talking about updating your codes and policies to best available science. You really should look at that as best available science, because it's going to affect a lot of what you're going to do, and you should start changing what you do, because even your Conservancy office is going to have to move. Just -- that's a comment. And I don't care if you do it or not, because I'll be dead by then. MS. OLSON: I want to address your first comment about the fact that you don't mind crossing a six -lane road. My sister's husband is blind. He lives on Immokalee Road. And he said it's just flat out terrifying. He just wants to go get a beer, and it's like taking his life in his hand. And there are a lot of people that are blind and disabled, elderly, that can't quickly cross a six -lane road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, we're getting off on tangents here. I don't think it's really necessary. So let's get back on and working towards the next speaker if you guys are done. We don't have -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, I just want to say one thing. With all the bicycling I do in the morning, I see people bicycling to work. I never see anyone walking down roads in Collier County. I see people exercising through the subdivisions and all, but I don't see people walking to Publix. I don't see people walking to the Galleria. I just don't see it anywhere. MS. OLSON: Because we don't have many walkable communities. But you'll see them in downtown Naples. Page 77 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you call the next speaker. You got one of those hooks we can pull those two girls off with? MR. BELLOWS: Meredith Budd. MS. OLSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Alison Wescott. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meredith is here. MR. BELLOWS: Sorry. MS. BUDD: Good afternoon. Meredith Budd on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation. I will be quite brief today. The Federation has long advocated for landscape scale conservation planning and, in fact, the Federation, as many of you probably already know, was a party to the litigation back in 1997 that resulted in the final order to develop growth plans in Eastern Collier County, one of which the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. So the RLSA will becoming before the Board. I did want to correct, I think there was a mis --someone misspoke about when the RLSA was coming before the Board. It will be before the Board, as per I just checked on the agenda, on Tuesday. The white paper is coming before the Board on this upcoming Tuesday. And they are going to be reviewing the white paper process. The Federation has been a part of the review process for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area in addition to the white paper process to address a lot of the concerns that were raised here today by some of the public speakers and concerns that the Federation shares. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down a little bit. You're getting worse than me. MS. BUDD: She even said to me, gotta go slow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take your time. We're not rushing you. MS. BUDD: So we have been involved in those processes, and we share some of the concerns regarding the imbalances of that program. But that is distinct from today's application. So I look forward to talking about those imbalances and how I think that those can be corrected or shifted to the Board on Tuesday. In terms of the application before you, I just wanted to address something that a lot of people have addressed, which is Oil Well Road. And there's been a long discussion about how, obviously, Oil Well Road bisects the plan. It also bisects the adjacent SSAs, and so it bisects wildlife habitat. So when you're looking at growth out in Eastern Collier County, and you're looking at these roadways, I just wanted to flag the opportunity for connectivity for wildlife and the connectivity of opportunities underneath Oil Well Road in the adjacent SSA. So there is opportunity along with the widening, and perhaps that could be, in some way, related to the SRA to facilitate crossing of wildlife underneath Oil Well Road. Now, there's also been a lot of discussion here about people crossing Oil Well Road, and I do understand that concern. And so I wonder if there could be consideration of maybe a creative design for a multi -use overpass, perhaps, to help both of those challenges. So -- now the ingress and egress for such an initiative would obviously have to be within the SSAs or protected area for the benefit of wildlife, but it could certainly be considered to join in onto trail system within the SRA footprint. That could perhaps benefit people getting across that large roadway. So I just wanted to flag the opportunity for underpasses underneath Oil Well Road for wildlife and make sure connectivity for wildlife is considered, and then also just bring up this potential creative design idea if it could be implemented to maybe help address both of those issues in terms of getting people across Oil Well Road as well. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSI{I: A shared pathway with people and panthers? MS. BUDD: Yeah. So there's actually an example of one that bisects --that goes right over I-75. Itis Page 78 of 111 October 17, 2019 called Cross Florida Greenways, and so it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? MS. BUDD: Yes. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has anybody been eaten on that one? MS. BUDD: Most of the time the wildlife will utilize the pathway at night. And so there are multi -use corridors. One, specifically, I believe it's in the Ocala area potentially. It's called the Florida Cross --or the Cross Florida Greenway, and it does benefit both wildlife and people. So there are many examples across the country and then one just in our backyard up in Ocala. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan's so adept at crossing, we thought he could be a -- MS. BUDD: Don't want to see any accidents. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's another excellent example in California for a wildlife crossing over an urban -- through an urban area. Pretty amazing, but very expensive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Meredith. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Alison Wescott. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alison, it's been awhile since we've seen you here. Welcome back. MS. WESTCOTT: Thank you. Okay. Thanks verymuch. I'm Alison Wescott. I'm a citizen of Collier County, and these comments are my own. I ask the Planning Commission to withhold approval of the proposed SRA for Rivergrass Village until the recommendations of the RLSA restudy white paper are fully considered by the BCC and decisions are made about which of the 51 recommendations will be adopted. I recognize this is different from asking that you wait until they have been implemented, okay. But I'm just asking for -- that you wait for that meeting that will start on the 22nd next week for a more full discussion. Look, I think it's important to consider the spirit of the RLSA overlay and its historical context. The RLSA overlay emerged in 2002, as you all know, when the state forced the county to take action in response to three complex challenges the state faced, and these were -- this is not unlike our situation today. An overheated real estate market put intense development pressure on the county and threatened the protection of natural resources, including critically important groundwater recharge areas and the last remaining habitat of the endangered Florida Panther. A contraction of the agricultural sector resulted in a conversion of ag land to real estate development threatening to change the character of rural Collier County and, third, there was a perceived need at the state level to re -think and reevaluate the state's policies on development and the environment. At the same time the state government wanted to be seen as an innovator and an early adopter of the experimental RLSA program operating at the nexus of economic progress and the environment. It seems to me, as currently designed, the applicants of Rivergrass Village have not upheld their side of the grand bargain struck with the state and the county nearly 20 years ago. The spirit of the RLSA overlay calls for innovation and smart growth. To achieve this, the State gave landowners incentives afforded by a zoning overlay rather than to require rezoning for development as with a PUD. It's clear that the State's intent was to bring economic vitality to the rural areas of the RLSA and not to build bedroom communities far from the urbanized coast that would force residents into their cars in search of services and jobs. Developers should not propose villages to circumvent the LDC and GMP's requirements for towns. The acreage proposed for Rivergrass Village, 997.53 acres, is just under the 1,000 which, as you know, is the LDC threshold for anew town. By doing this, the developers are complying with the form of the law but not the spirit of it. The same can be said for other SRA villages owned by the same applicant with applications pending, like Longwater at 999 acres and Bellmar at 999 acres. If Rivergrass Village is approved, it will set a very bad precedent for the RLSA. And what does this Page 79 of 111 October 17, 2019 mean in practical terms? Well, it looks like towns are required by the LDC to be larger and more diverse than villages with urban level services and infrastructure that support compact mixed-use human -scale development and provide a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. This includes commerce, entertainment, and jobs, whereas villages, by contrast, are primarily residential, offering a village center as -- to serve as a focal point for the community -- for community support services and facilities. It's actually not clear -- I don't think we've heard in the meetings that I've attended who we expect -- who's the target market for this community. Are these older people, as in the rest of the county, over 55, or are these young families with children that will be crossing Oil Well Road? At the same time, according to the LDC, villages would offer a full range of housing types and mix of uses; however, in the case of Rivergrass Village, only 90 percent will be single-family -- 90 percent will be single-family housing, and only 10 percent will be the multifamily housing. So I also noticed that in the current proposed Rivergrass Village they will not need to show fiscal neutrality until buildout, and this is a high-risk bargain for the county and its citizens. So it's not smart growth to split a master planned town into three separate parts with little interconnectivity and little potential for jobs and services. If you look at Rivergrass Village together with other SRAs also under consideration by the county, Longwater, Bellmar, you see a great similarity to the former Town of Big Cypress and the Rural Lands West development that's been mentioned several times today. The RLSA restudy white paper recommends greater clarity in this matter and suggests that if villages are adjacent and under common or related ownership or judged to be part of a unified plan, then town standards should apply and if the aggregate acreage exceeds the maximum of villages. So it would not be right to approve the current Rivergrass Village SRA without first considering all the white paper's recommendations. The white paper was generated by a highly participatory process to finding consensus, and it took almost two years. And while not perfect, this participation remains the core principle of the RLSA overlay and should be honored. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alison, one point I'd like to make. There is no provision for us to be able to not vote on something in front of us. We're here to vote on it, to hear it, give it the best recommendation we can to the county board. So, I mean, just because there's a pending paper and there's pending changes, there's pending changes on everything in Collier County. We'd be delaying everything for that reason. And I don't know of a provision that allows that, but -- MS. WESTCOTT: Sorry. Are you saying there's no provision to delay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know of one that would allow us to delay a vote because of some pending discussion that mayor may not turn into language some year in the future. That just doesn't --that doesn't seem to be anything I'm familiar with. If Jeff has an answer to that -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. You're hereto make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then what I do want to point out is since you told us the date is going to be next week, the Board will have an opportunity now to use the white paper segments that they review next week when this gets to them in November. So it would be more relevant for the Board to be able to do something based on their review of that white paper than it would be for us to delay it. So I just wanted to clarify that. MS. WESTCOTT: Yeah. Thank you for that point of clarification. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm still --I guess I'm hearing two different things about the proposed action that maybe taken on the restudy white paper next week. Is it going to be presented to the BCC on the question of approval or for discussion or what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just concepts to move forward with, I think. Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's just direction to --for the Board to --well, it's an executive summary for the Board to direct staff to move forward with the process of putting together various comprehensive plan amendments, LDC amendments, public hearings. You maybe talking multiple years before it's finally done. Page 80 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So, in essence --and maybe this is not a good characterization of what you're saying, but if the BCC votes to take the next step and draft ordinance language, is that tantamount to an approval of the restudy white paper? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It has to go through -- after they get done, it will go back through all the processes you get -- have to go through to get GMP language adopted and LDC language adopted, all of which goes through --back out to the public, the stakeholders, and things like that. It's a long process. That's why holding a vote -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We can't get to even go there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand it's along process from hereto ordinance. I just was wondering what, if anything, we could infer from the action that might be taken. MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, because the -- the reality is is that the current board that will direct staff to start this process will not be the board that ultimately reviews at the very end of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's areal inter --you're right. That's a true statement, too. It can be. MS. WESTCOTT: Could I just make one more point? That is, what I want to get across is that I hope you will take into account the spirit behind the RLSA and the fact that there were incentives put in place that would distinguish this area, the RLSA, this rural Eastern Collier County, as distinct from just a regular PUD division. Very different. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Michael Tanguay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael Tanguay? There we go. MR. TANGUAY: Yes. My name's Michael Tanguay. I'm a resident living in Golden Gate City. I'm here to voice my concerns about the Rivergrass Village and the other future villages being proposed, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area off Oil Well. These developments as well as the other proposed villages will have a much more negative impact both environmentally as well as on the neighboring communities as well as paving over the agricultural heart of Collier County. This will affect the rural aesthetic and tranquility of a lot of the people out there who love and enjoy. There's also the fact that there are many unique and endangered species. For example, the panther, there's also the bears and many other unique creatures and plants that are unique to this part of the world, and we are just simply displacing them out. As was mentioned earlier, you know, we have -- the oceans are rising. A lot of this environment's disappearing. And it is a debate. We have to live somewhere, too, but I think that we have to look at the future as well where these people are, how it's going to affect the animals, not just now but down the road as well. I have my concerns, too, about the environmental studies, you know, that have been done. Obviously, there's a lot of debate on that with the numbers. How do you use the data that's collected? Just -- it seems there's a lot of slack, for example, just going out and observing, looking and counting some birds, where you go and look, when, what time of the year. That affects what you see. And the other issue, too, is, for example, the traffic. You have all these thousands of people moving out there. And, again, I've seen -- through the meetings there's been a lot of argument on how do we adapt? Of course, there's the widening of the roads and all of that, but -- of course, there's the debate, you know, all these people moving out there, where are they going to go? There's no services out there. They're all going to have to cut through the Estates. And I don't look forward to having all these major highways and thousands and thousands of more cars going through there. It already takes a long time to -- look at Immokalee Road and all these other routes out. Page 81 of 111 October 17, 2019 They're bottlenecks. And we're going to put all these thousands of people out there. They're all going to have to go through the same roads, and I just know that driving home from work, it's going to be quite a nightmare, because sometimes there could be just a little fender -bender and, say, a 40 -minute trip's going to take you an hour and a half, even more sometimes, depending on the conditions. Overall, I think this increase in traffic that's going to be expected from all of this development, it's going to affect us, our commutes, the communities that all this traffic goes through. Overall, just statistically, the increase in traffic, it's going to cause the leading cause of death of panthers to go up substantially. Just the number of cars being there during the day and night increasing, it's going to increase the odds, you know, that one of those panther -- the panthers are going to be out on the road the moment a car's going by, and bam. There's only a few of them left. They are growing, but with this growth, I think the growth itself will actually exceed the abilities of the panther to -- you know, to populate. These roads, too, developing, they're going to create barriers, motes. You could create pathways, but they are territorial, the panthers, and I think that having all these little land bridges, it's still going to create bottlenecks for them, you know, because they do fight over territory. That's also the other leading cause of death of the panthers. And I think that will have a huge effect as well on them. And this is something that we may not see immediately, but I think within our lifetime, if we don't look at this more seriously, we could see the extinction of that species. I insist that this commission vote against this project. There's a lot of holes in the studies. There's a lot of debate still. And I think what others have said, that, you know, if we allowed this, it's kind of going to -- it's going to open up, you know, a whole mess of future projects and debates that, in the meantime, the whole point of the environmental concern is to protect and preserve all these animals and species, and I think that, overall, we need to address a lot of the current issues. This county, too, has a lot of issues. The bear -proof trash canisters and everything, there have been some studies going on. I know it's still having to go through the whole procedures, but I think a lot of things --for example, the bear -proof canisters need to be finalized and figured out before we start putting thousands of more people out here, because this development's in the heart of where these guys live, all these creatures, and the human conflict with the animals is going to go up. And I think that we should find ways to resolve these conflicts before we start jamming more people over there where just, overall, it's going to happen. People are going to meet up with the bear, a panther, or something, and as we all know, usually when that happens, it results in the death or the removal of the animal. And I just think that we should be looking at other ways of addressing these issues before we create a whole mess, with this being the start of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Gaylene Vasaturo. MS. VASATURO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Gaylene Vasaturo. I'm speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Collier County, and hopefully maybe I'll be your last speaker. It's been a long day. We ask that you recommend denial of Rivergrass Village. We -- this village will set a bad precedent for the RLSA, and it is the first village, so this is what you will be doing. First, Rivergrass Village presents a tremendous safety hazard for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars. We've heard and seen this village is designed to be bisected by Oil Well Road, and that's a high-speed, high-volume road that the county approved for expanding to six lanes at some time in the future. Earlier this year the Deputy County Manager, Mr. Casalanguida, expressed the deputy -- the county's concern about the proposed Town of Rural Lands West being bisected by Oil Well Road and with a town center being proposed in the same location as Rivergrass. I think April Olson read some of that letter to you. Mr. Casalanguida pointed out in that letter that the majority of bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and serious -injury crashes occur on high-speed, high-volume roads. And Oil Well Road is a major freight and goods Page 82 of 111 October 17, 2019 distribution road. So as far as I can tell, the Rivergrass Village now is designed at this point to only have one access across Oil Well Road from the north section to the south section, and there is no traffic light at that intersection. So how are residents bicycling, walking, or even driving going to safely cross to the village center and get home again? I think another commenter addressed this well, Mr. Horowitz -- Hartman, Mr. Hartman. And, I guess -- I mean, can you imagine that you or your family members are trying to cross that road with all the truck trips that will be going on? I mean, how long before there is a death? Second, Rivergrass Village is not consistent with the requirements of a Stewardship Receiving Area for the RLSA. Something in the intent of the RLS (sic) overlay has been lost. It's touted as innovative. These are new towns -- new town and new village concepts that everyone understood, when they agreed to that, that it was going to be different. People were not going to have to -- the idea was people would have what they need out here. They wouldn't be driving on all the roads, and that was part of being -- the overlay requires that the Stewardship Receiving Area, SRAs, in the form of towns and villages be compact, mixed use, and self-sufficient. That would be the idea of keeping people out there in their communities. And that -- and the overlay requires that towns and villages be designed to encourage walking and biking. Now, Rivergrass Village is not compact. It is a sprawling automobile -centered golf course community much like we see everywhere in Collier County. When most of the development is spread out along major roads or on streets that have cul-de-sacs, that is a characteristic of sprawl. When most of the homes in a development are single-family, that is a characteristic of sprawl, and here we have 90 percent single-family. Sprawl is when residents have to leave the community to get what they need on a daily basis, and that will happen here. Rivergrass Village does not provide a sufficient mixed use to meet the daily and community -wide needs of their forecasted population. Sprawl is when a commercial area of a development is automobile -centered and has lots of -- many square feet of parking, and that's Rivergrass Village center. It is designed for drive-by business, not for its residents. Rivergrass Village is not designed to encourage walking and biking. Clearly, as you're putting a six -lane -- a future six -lane major highway through the center of a village, that negates the concept of a bikeable and walkable community. It doesn't have the required interconnected street, sidewalk, and pathways system serving all residents. It has many long cul-de-sacs. Not just cul-de-sacs, but long cul-de-sacs, not short, walkable, interconnected blocks. Walkable communities provide -- typically provide higher density housing towards -- and close to the village centers. Now, at this point we don't see this in Rivergrass, and maybe the design will change based on what -- some things have been said today, but right now the residential area near the village center and in most of the southern section will be primarily single-family homes with large lots surrounded by an 18 -hole golf course. Village centers are intended to be pedestrian friendly. By putting this village center on the intersection of two major roads, the pedestrian -level interaction is going to be greatly reduced or eliminated. Third, Rivergrass Village does not meet the RLSA overlay's goal of directing development away from wetlands and listed species habitat. Now, we've heard a lot about this today, so I'm going to cut my remarks short, very short. I'd like to say, we fully support the comments of Nicole Johnson and Judy Hushon on the problem with the NRI scoring for listed species. And I guess just a couple points. The county does have a responsibility to protect listed species in its land -use decisions. Those are the decisions you have responsibility over, such as approving an SRA. And so we know the applicants scoring for the panthers is inaccurate because of all the studies that have been completed since that provision was enacted in 2002. Now, I hear that -- I've heard you say that you have to just apply the code, but I would hope or expect that you would -- in applying the Land Development Code you would also apply that in the -- along with the RLSA Page 83 of 111 October 17, 2019 overlay and the policies contained in there and that your decisions implement the intent of those policies, and I would submit that that should be, and I would think you would have the authority to do that. And so the intent of the overlay, clearly stated, is to direct development away from listed species habitat. I ask that you do not allow the applicant to ignore all these panther studies. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adopted in its 2008 Panther Recovery Plan -- they have adopted the studies that identified primary panther zone and where it's located. And, further, they said that this area is essential to the long-term survival of the panther, and development should not be there; it should be -- they should preserve that area and -- to the extent that it can be preserved and developed elsewhere. Okay. That's all I'm going to say on that. Fourth, Collier Enterprises should not be allowed to avoid town infrastructure cost and town mixed-use requirements by splitting a town into multiple villages. Now, we all -- it's been well established here that Collier Enterprises wants to put Rivergrass Village and two other neighboring villages in the same area that the Rural Lands West was proposed for. In a recent Naples Daily News article, Mr. Utter explained that Collier Enterprises was moving to villages instead of towns to avoid infrastructure cost needed for towns. He noted, for example, that major four- to six -lane roads were needed to serve Rural Lands West, driving up the cost. Well, if you're going to put multiple villages in the same area, it seems to me that the same amount of infrastructure is -- especially roads, is going to be needed. The three proposed villages together are going to create tremendous sprawl. They're spreading it out even further than the town was spread out. And together they won't provide the economic activity and the employment base that RLSA needs to work. That was the concept. They have these mixed-use, self-sufficient communities out there that people can work and live in and not have to get on roads and travel to the other places. Yes, the county can't require you -- the county can't require a landowner to build a town, but it can withhold approval of a town that is masquerading as three villages. Finally, the League would like to see a moratorium on approving Stewardship Receiving Areas like this one in the RLSA until the overlay is revised. This -- as you've heard today, RLSA restudy has been ongoing for two years. The meeting on Tuesday is for the county to present its recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on how the RLSA should be revised. And then they will get those directions from the -- this is my understanding from Mr. Cohen -- that the Board of County Commission will then -- the county will then go forth and proceed to implement those -- those directions, which would be revisions of the GMP and the LDC. So we think that the -- that before any changes -- we think that the county should take a time-out until this process is -- this revision process is complete. And that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Just a couple points. It's not our decision to take a timeout or not. If the Board wants us to take a timeout, they've got to tell us they want us to take a timeout. That's at least my thoughts on it. MS. VASATURO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The issue about the panther habitat, I understand what you're saying. I've read the reports. But I have not yet seen evidence that ties an agency who has to be consulted to develop in that area to the -- recommending that those reports be adhered to and us utilizing their technical memorandums. Until that happens, again, we don't have the report to hang anything on. Now, the Conservancy thinks they've got one. It will be interesting to see if they produce it at the Board hearing, but for today we don't have it, so... MS. VASATURO: Well, the applicant is the one responsible for updating the NRI scores, and they should be looking at the best available data. That was the stated intent at the time of the overlay, that these numbers would have to be updated as the panther data studies were completed. It's their responsibility, not yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --but it's not their responsibility to take any survey that pops up and says Page 84 of 111 October 17, 2019 we're going to use this as the best available data. They've got to use something adopted by one of the agencies, and that's exactly what we talked to the Conservancy about that they believe they've got. If we get that paper, that might be useful. But I just can't have a survey brought in saying we're going to use this survey to determine primary and secondary panther habitat. It doesn't work like that. It doesn't meet our rules. And that's kind of what we're stuck with. I mean, I understand your point, but I don't know how to get there. So I just wanted to make that comment. MS. VASATURO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Ray, next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Marcela. MS. ZURITA: Good aftemoon. My name is Marcela Zurita, and I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates. I'm here to urge you to -- excuse me -- to deny the SRA application for Rivergrass Village as the project contradicts the fundamental goals of the RLSA. The RLSA must meet three goals on the planning overlay, which are, one, protect agriculture; two, direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and listed species habitat; and, three, discourage sprawl by using innovative planning techniques. Let's not forget agriculture is integral to Collier County's economy. In addition to providing long-term food security for the region, they also provide important connectivity to the landscape. The proposed site is also home to a multitude of unique species, many federally listed as threatened or endangered. With the 120 to 230 panthers still remaining in Florida, 230 panthers are not sustainable population site. So what do you think is going to happen as we continue to develop in these areas that are so vital for their survival? The applicant is aware of the importance that it is to preserve the primary habitat zone of the panther. The applicant was one of the owners who signed back in 2008 the memorandum of understanding, MOU, to work together to enhance the future of the Florida panther. For those who are not familiar with the MOU, the MOU is to promote conservation management and recovery of the panther, and it aims to protect panther habitat while preserving agricultural lands. With that say (sic), the applicant does not show a consideration but chooses to ignore the MOU or RLSA principles, as a large percentage of the proposed site for Rivergrass Village is within primary zone panther habitat. I used to live in Miami, Davie, Plantation, and Parkland. I saw firsthand everything being paved away. I don't want to see rural east Collier being completely paved away. We don't have much of natural Florida left. Wildlife depends on their habitat, and it's critical for their survival. These are the areas that the best available science says development need to be rejected away from. Commissioners, I'm urging you, once again, the denial of the SRA application for Rivergrass Village. They do not comply with the policies and principles of the RLSA program, and no construction should occur all within the important habitat areas of endangered Florida panther. I want to see truly sustainable development in the RLSA and not "business as usual" type development. We cannot continue to grow at this rate with this little foresight. Decisions that are made today, tomorrow will affect the fate of Southwest Florida and the fate of the Florida panther and other species, our water resources, and our farms. So, please, I'm urging you for the denial. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, we're going to take a break, but do we have any more speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to take a break till 4:15 and resume till we finish today at close to 6:00. (A brief recess was had from 4:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., and Tom Eastman is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, everyone. Would you please have a seat. We're going to Page 85 of 111 October 17, 2019 resume our discussion. Okay. We finished up with public speakers. We were going through this process to try to understand the various documents here. The applicant wants to meet a certain date with the Board that probably wouldn't work for them if we had another meeting on this matter, so they've asked to expedite a decision today. And I'm --basically, that's a decision of this board. Rich, I didn't know if you wanted to speak on the issue any more than you already have. You're more than welcome to, because I want a fair understanding what you're asking so that all of us weigh in on it appropriately. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me finish Terri's brownie. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, its past the break. You're not supposed to be eating. MR. YOVANOVICH: Usually I can do multiple things, but I can't chew and talk at the same time. We prefer, frankly, to have you all, the six of you that are here right now, vote yea or nay on our project. We believe -- you've had public comment, you've had staff comment, you've had several weeks to review all the backup documents, and we believe we meet all of the criteria, and all you've heard from the public is please change the rules. Don't apply the rules. And thafs my take on what they're saying. They may not agree with my take on it. We think we've got the information in the record enough for you -all to make a recommendation to the Board one way or the other, and we'd like that to happen while the six of you are here, and that's our request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only issue that I'm concerned with is sending the Board a package that hasn't been as thoroughly vetted as we would normally do. Ave Maria, when it went forward here, it was a bigger project, granted, it took longer than two meetings. We've had others that takes longer than two meetings. It's not unusual to get into the heavier projects with more questions and concerns. A fair review of this project would take more time on my part. I have a lot of questions we didn't get into originally. We've got two or three sections of the order of review we haven't even got to. And I understand your argument. I understand your need to want to be on a certain date because you were given that date. Again, I wish whoever in staff established this dating hadn't done so. I think it was a mistake. But, regardless, I'll turn to this board as a whole. Well, except for just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You just lost -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I keep losing people every time I turn around. But when Joe gets back --okay. I'll ask this board as a group what they want to do, and whatever it is, I'll abide by, and I'm sure we all will. But I think the options are, we can come to a conclusion today -- I can assure you my option today won't be good because I have not had my questions answered because I've not had the complete time to ask them. That maybe irrelevant in the big picture, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm willing to go forward, you are willing to live with it, and --or we can continue it without the consent of the applicant. We'll just continue it. And the applicant can show up or not show up at the next meeting; we can decide what to do then. But that's the other option we have, and that's our call. The applicant can object to it, but that's --they're willing to do that. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I sat through the first meeting, the morning. I went home, I watched this on television in the afternoon, much the same as Joe, with an adult beverage, which I needed at the time, and I've sat all through today. And I think I've heard enough to make my mind up, and I'm ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else want to weigh in on it? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SC14NIITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe -- Karl, then Joe. COMMISSIONER FRY: Too soon for me to entertain a motion. I have some specific questions I'd like Page 86 of 111 October 17, 2019 to ask the applicant, at which point -- after that point I think I'm ready to make a yes or no vote, notwithstanding your point is that the details of the language in the SRA and the LDC may not have been vetted fully, but I just need a few minutes to ask some questions of the applicant before I'm ready to vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not --we don't have to leave right away, so you'll probably get that few minutes if that's what you need. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, remember, I'm leaving at 5:00. So whether we make the motion or not, I'm leaving at 5:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try to accommodate everybody. We'll try to accomplish whatever we've got to accomplish. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And don't go out of your way to accommodate me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're one of us, buddy. Even though you walk across the streets and don't get hit, that's a good thing. Joe, did you have something you want to add? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's because he wears colorful shirts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody sees him. COMMISSIONER SCHNIITT: No, I'm still waiting to hear the final statements from staff as far as the staff report and their final conclusions. I know what it says in the staff report. I know there's been amendments. So I'm waiting for a verbal report in regards to -- from -- and I'm talking -- when I say staff, both Comprehensive Planning and the Zoning staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd be prepared to entertain a motion after I hear from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comment? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're going to finish up with this, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's what we're talking about. The decision's going to be we vote on it today, and we don't get through the in-depth data that we normally do to provide the Board with a complete recommendation, and the applicant's willing to take the chances on how we come out of this today. That's what it boils down to. So I know we haven't done that before. It's at the request of the applicant. I'm just telling this board I'm flexible enough to go either way. But in the 20 years I've been here --I've not sent a half-baked recommendation to the Board since I've been here. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to clarify that we're also sitting as the EAC, or environmental, so that would be part of the motion, so I just want to make sure Stan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have two separate motions. Okay. So that will settle both of them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you don't think we'll be walking through the SRA document then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got --if Stan's going to leave at 5:00 and the desire is to have the vote before -- so that there's as many of us as possible up here, we need to kind of wrap it up and start talking about the vote by 4:30, 4:35, something like that. I don't mind spending --getting first Karl's questions to the point where he feels a little bit better, then we can go to your questions so that you get some of that comfort level. My questions cannot be answered in the amount of time we've got left today, I can assure you of that, because I haven't even seen all the documents I need because there's documents I still need from last week, and that's just a matter of things I've got to have. I don't do --I have not ever had to put something aside for a vote. But, again, I don't mind doing it. I just want to make sure we all are -- we do it by a vote of this panel. And is Trinity Scott here? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: She's out in the hallway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is she? Because my questions --you area shy person. If we get through Karl's questions and then Joe's, I have a couple questions about the overall road system that are really important to me I'd like to at least hear before we vote on it, okay. So if you could stand ready, I'd appreciate it. I didn't even Page 87 of 111 October 17, 2019 know you were here, so its --your husband looks totally different. I haven't seen him in years. What a change. Anyway. With that, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm pretty much in the same position you are, Chairman. I'd be surprised if my questions could be answered in the time remaining, particularly as others have questions. One of the things that I would want to do is to find out whether there is room for significant concessions on the part of the applicant on some very important points, at least points that are important to me. And so I think when my time comes, I will probably focus on asking questions that relate to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think that if we're going to have a lot of discussion or any discussion, if we start debating it at quarter to 5:00, do you think we can wrap it up in 15 minutes after you get as many of your questions on the table to the staff and other people in the next 20 minutes? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd be surprised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when do you -- the vote's -- if Stan's going to participate, we've got to have it done before 5:00. If that's the decision of this panel or, otherwise, we've got to decide to continue. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Otherwise, you can just canyon without me and just put it on the record that I would have probably made a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, you can't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You've got to be here to do that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Well, it's already on the record, because she writes down everything I say. So I didn't do that. Put that on the record that I didn't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just move forward the best we can. Karl, ask your questions of whoever you have to ask your questions for to -- COMMISSIONER FRY: And, Rich or Bob, it doesn't matter tome who answers, but I notice --and I don't know if this is accurate, but I think it was in the RLSA restudy document it said that the county commissioners have observed we have only about 10 percent of land in Collier County that's left to develop so we have one chance to get it right. All right. So I just --I take this responsibility serious, and I know everybody up here does. Attorney Klatzkow the other day said, we can plan for misery or we can plan for success. I think there's a great loss in this where we are today, and that great loss is that Collier Enterprises came forward previously with Rural Lands West, and for one reason we're now -- that was a bigger, more integrated holistic vision of a much larger area, much more dynamic plan than this village is. And so, for whatever reason, we're now sitting here looking at a village, and then we have three more villages following this. So I think it's still our responsibility to look at this as part of a holistic vision for the county to get it right on the bigger scale. So my first question, Rich, what happened to Rural Lands West? Why are we not here today reviewing Rural Lands West? Why did Collier Enterprises, the applicant, pull it -- pull it and come back a village? MR. YOVANOVICH: When we were going through the review process, there were -- for one thing, one of the environmental groups that you heard from today was fundamentally opposed to even the town concept. They want nothing south of Oil Well Road. They made that very clear in response, I think, to your questions. Unacceptable to the town concept. Two, the level of exactions that were being imposed upon the landowner broke the bank. It became -- towns are very, very expensive and very, very risky; a lot of capital up front. The client was willing to take the risk of X in capital, and there was a significant addition to the X to potentially get staff to come along to support a town concept. At that point, the money --it just makes absolutely no economic sense for the town. And we said, if you push with the exactions you want, you're going to end up forcing us into this village concept, and that was what happened. COMMISSIONER FRY: And that's where we're at. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's 100 percent --again, we are allowed to ask for villages. There's no requirement for a town. But initially the developer -- or the property owner was willing to take that risk, and it became too risky. Page 88 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you for that, because I think that perspective is important here. You know, on a fundamental point, this program, the RLSA program, I believe in this case we're preserving 6,200 acres to build 1,000. If we added two acres onto this, we'd now be town, into a town, and we would have additional requirements, as was said, for infrastructure and more integrated building and concepts. So I think we've got to find a middle ground. You know, I look at this --you know, I'm not a planner, I'm not an engineer, but I think that the applicant is going to great expense to build something, and I'm sure -- I believe in the best of people. I believe the developer's intent is to build something that promotes the future of Collier County as part of the success of the RLSA program while realizing a return on their investment. So that's where I'm coming from with my questions. I do also believe that the intent and the vision of the RLSA does have some significance in this process. So I wanted to ask you about a couple of concepts, the major tenets in the RLSA program, and just get your answers on these. So one of the -- one of the missions is that the -- that it be interconnected, that these communities be interconnected. I'll just read the main ones that I'm going to touch on. Innovative planning techniques, interconnected, progressive urban to rural continuum. So maybe tell me how --in what ways is this project using innovative planning techniques. MR. YOVANOVICH: A couple of things. You have to remember that the entire process of the Rural Lands Stewardship program was the innovation, because if you developed under the baseline criteria, which you can still do out there. Don't forget, the baseline still applies. And the baseline is one unit per five acres; one unit per five acres under the baseline. What was preferred was to have the open areas and have the village form of an SRA, the town form of the SRAs, the hamlet form of SRA. That's the innovation that was discussed in the overall program. Now, the interconnection is internal interconnection, not interconnection between all of the various types of SRAs. I've asked your staff to show me where in the Land Development Code there's a requirement for interconnection of village to village, and I still have not seen that. I can't find it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. David Weeks has already testified that its not in the Growth Management Plan; there's no requirement of interconnection of villages to villages. We do have the continuum. We have the village center where you're supposed to have the focal point for your community -related retail, office, services, and then go less intense as you get further away. We've made these revisions today to make sure that any multifamily development has to be within the half mile of the village center, so that gives you your continuum of more intense to less intense. You can't do --everybody says, oh, this is just a regular PUD. Well, its not a regular PUD because under a regular PUD you can't have any commercial. Under the regular PUD, we'd be in here for a purely 100 percent residential development, unless we were within an activity center; then that's a different issue. We're not. So what the village gives you is it gives you the opportunity to provide for community -related retail and office uses to support that. It doesn't prohibit others from using it. In fact, Golden Gate Estates, eastern Golden Gate Estates wanted these types of retail uses because they're woefully underserved with those types of services. So innovation is right there with the fact that we're able to put the village where we're putting it, we're able to serve our own, and we're also to serve other nearby residents. So I think we've met all of the innovation you need, and it's not a glorified PUD. It's consistent with the standards in the LDC as well as the Growth Management Plan. So we went through -- you know, you saw the development of related standards that exist in the Growth Management Plan and the LDC, and Bob's already testified that we meet all of those, and I believe your staff also, in their staff report, acknowledged that we met all of the Growth Management Plan related requirements for development standards, et cetera. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think I'm of a similar mind to Commissioner Fryer in that I'm not --I respectfully don't see innovation in this. If you're saying that the basic RLSA and the mere fact you have villages and towns and hamlets is the innovation, I believe it says there should be innovation in each project, and this Page 89 of 111 October 17, 2019 village should have some innovation. So in that respect, I would look to see innovation in terms of flow of traffic, flow -- the ability of people to be interconnected not just within their development through sidewalks and roads but to be able to get out of the development in certain points so we don't create the urban PUD environment -- we have just another gated community you could only get in and out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and, Mr. Fry, if you look at the master plan on the south side of Oil Well Road, you never have to leave the community to get to the golf course or to the village center, and there's an easy ability to cross from the north side of Oil Well Road into the village to get to the village center. That all exists. That interconnectivity exists through this project. And if that's your concern, we meet that. And, in fact, we're actually helping you with your road system by putting road -- by giving you road right-of-way for Big Cypress Parkway. All of that is part of the overall program. Bob, do you want to add anything else on the innovation? COMMISSIONER FRY: One of the points you made earlier, which I agree with, Rich, is that --I happen to -- one of the points you made the previous meeting was that it was not reasonable to expect the developer to pay for roadways that are not within the boundaries of the project, and I'm not-- I kind of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I don't think I said that. I said it's -- we're -- it's unreasonable to ask us to give road right-of-way for an entire transportation network beyond the footprint of the Rivergrass PUD. I didn't say you couldn't ask us to do that. Asa matter of fact, I said we were planning on doing that with the other villages. I never said we're not willing to participate in that process. It was the fact that the county asked for it all up front when we don't have that level of impact on the transportation system. That's -- if I gave you a different answer, I apologize for that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you for clarifying that. I noticed in the master plan for Rural Lands West that there were roads exiting this section of land to the northeast that went across the WRA and also to the southeast that joined up with what would in the future be Longwater, and yet this plan is a gated community where there are no interconnects or stub -outs even for anywhere on the eastern border other than Oil Well Road for interconnectivity with areas. So the only interconnectivity this development offers is with Oil Well Road and Big Cypress Parkway. And the town concept had additional interconnects. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, remember, we went through that town. I know -- I mean, I get that people would like there to be a town. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm not even talking about a town. I'm talking about a village. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those interconnections -- if I can finish. And maybe I interrupted you. So if I did, I apologize. Those interconnections are through environmentally sensitive lands, and those interconnections come at a price. You have to mitigate for those interconnections. And, you know, Mr. Schmitt will tell you that's not an inexpensive venture. What I'm telling you is when there was a town concept and we had two million square feet of retail/office/business parks on Oil Well Road -- which, by the way, people were objecting to it being there, even though Ave Maria has their town center right on Oil Well Road. That's where Arthrex is. It's in the town center right on Oil Well Road, but we're not allowed to have that here. So when we were -- when you had two million square feet of that, it made sense to mitigate for that interconnection. It makes absolutely no sense. And what is the public benefit of that interconnection? I would -- I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if you live in either one of these villages, you're not going to wind your way through Rivergrass to get to the corner of Oil Well Road and Big Cypress Parkway. You're either going to go right out on Oil Well Road anyway to go to the west, or you're going to come out on Big Cypress Parkway and head north. You're not going to wind your way through Rivergrass to try to get to the village center. Page 90 of 111 October 17, 2019 So the environmental impact and the cost for that impact makes no -- it doesn't make any either environmental sense or economic sense, and that's why we were pushing back on that interconnectivity. COMMISSIONER FRY: I take the economic point. I think that one of the things that has been a theme since I've been on this commission is we want to allow more interconnectivity, different routes to go to different places. There are times when I might take Vineyards Parkway instead of Livingston Road to go south or go over to Logan. I've got three choices to go south, whereas this really is a peninsula. This is surrounded by water really, on three sides with no way in or out other than Oil Well Road bisecting the development. And I guess when I -- as I read the intention of the RLSA, I envisioned something where -- gated communities are fine with me, but why not a road that travels through -- kind of through the center of gated communities to the side? Maybe a separate bike path that winds through? There's a lot of opportunities that have been missed in this development where we could create something that does capture the vision of the RLSA. Bike path, walkways, just interconnection where the main road traveling through this does allow an interconnection out of different points other than just the major public roads. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. And that's -- if you go far enough back, at one time there was a -- Randall Boulevard was going to extend through. That became, under the new plan, Big Cypress Parkway. So what you were talking about is that interconnectivity got shifted to become the north/south leg of Big Cypress Parkway. So that transportation planning aspect was addressed through the revisions to the Long Range Transportation Plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: I feel --let me just check my notes real quickly. I'd just summarize by saying I believe that we've got to work as partners. I don't feel this --as of now, with what I've heard, I don't feel this captures the vision of the RLSA. 1 think there could be some improvements made to it where I could easily vote for it if it became a village that I thought was part of a larger holistic vision for the RLSA. And at this point it seems like it's a gated PUD that's been moved out east a little farther, and I just think there's the potential to do more, and 1 would -- I hope that that opportunity occurs where we could work together, the county and the applicant, to create something a little bit more innovative and interconnected than this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You haven't got much time left, Joe, but you were next. And then if there's any time left, Ned, then I'll be last, if there's any time left for me, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I have to go back to the 19 September document which staff is making its recommendations. And, Nancy, I don't know if you're ready to walk through those, what I'm reading here. And there's been a lot of amendments from this first document that you recommend approval, and then you have several provisional that however -- subject to the following provisions, and there's nine or 10 -- 11 of them. So I want to know where we are on these, and are those still standing? MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you walk through each of those? MS. GUNDLACH: I certainly can. I'll go as fast as I can. Beginning with No. 1, that one has been completed, so that's no longer a condition of approval. Conditions 2, 3, 4, and 5, Comprehensive Planning staff could address for you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: -- but I'd like to continue because of the time constraints. Number 6 has been revised to state the following: Prior to issuance of, cross through "the fust development order" and change those words to "SDP or PPL." The rest of it remains the same. COMMISSIONER SCIIMITT: Well, isn't that provision sort of simply stating the obvious? They have to go through the permitting process. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Page 91 of 111 October 17, 2019 MS. GUNDLACH: And then 7, 8 and 9 and 10, can you -- I am Eric Fey. I spoke to Eric briefly, and he says that they still need to be addressed, but if you have questions we'll bring him down here. And No. 11 still remains. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Number 11 is what? MS. GUNDLACH: It still remains --it still remains as a condition of approval. And we have Cormac here to address that. MR. BELLOWS: David Weeks had something he wanted to -- MR. MULHERE: A condition of approval. MR- BELLOWS: -- put on the record. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, David Weeks again of the Comprehensive Planning staff, particularly because earlier in the meeting we had some flip flop, and I want to read something into the record. Comprehensive Planning staff does have concerns -- some concerns with this SRA petition. Is this SRA innovative? Is it self-sustaining? Is it providing an adequate mix of uses in the neighborhood general area? Is it providing housing diversity, including affordable housing? Is it providing the gradient of intensity of uses, et cetera. FLUE consistency within the RLSA we could think of as a range. In staffs opinion, this SRA is nearer to the lower end of consistency than it is to the upper end but, nonetheless, Comprehensive Planning staff does find this petition to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer all your questions, Joe, or do you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It does. CHAHiMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only other one is No. 11. We haven't even discussed that. I know it was brought up at the last meeting. And is staff still -- MR. YOVANOVICH: David, that was -- No. 11 is the housing needs analysis, and I believe you testified that I can't be required as a condition of approval. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, I thought we'd agreed at the staff level that it cannot be a condition of approval because its not a code requirement. It's something we very much would like to see. We would like to see some affordable housing provided, but we have no code basis to say you've got to add this as a condition in order to approve it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But there's a code requirement for diversity of housing, is there not? MR. WEEKS: Yes, there is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then --but you did find that this meets the code requirement for diversity of housing. Now, affordable housing, of course, is a fully accredited affordability housing program where they would even be eligible for a density bonus or other type of criteria that would be eligible under the housing program. MR. WEEKS: Yes. I think I'd mentioned earlier today that the housing diversity could be viewed in a couple of different ways. You know, one would be a mixture of different housing unit types. Another would be income ranges. And even if you look at it at income ranges, simply by virtue of the different unit types that are going to be offered, we would expect there to be different pricing levels for the units that they offer. I mean, that's typical in the market. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So basically, in a nutshell, No. 11 is withdrawn? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. The only other question I have is the SRA document itself, which lays out all the criteria. And from a staff perspective, the latest version I believe I have is from the --well, October 3rd version, I believe. The redline version, SRA document, and then that's the redline version. Is that the one that will be forwarded? That was part of the 3 October package, or was there another one -- I didn't -- I don't believe I'd seen one in the 17 October package, which, of course, to today. Is there a new version? I don't see it. Page 92 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, it's in there again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We agreed to go to 4:45. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we have a decision to make. We can continue on without Stan, or we can make a decision on this before Stan leaves. I'll leave it up to this board to decide what route you want to go. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Don't do anything on my account. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have any preferences? Because we can go on for another probably 45 minutes to an hour with questions and then vote after Stan leaves, or we can provide the benefit of Stan's presence here to call the vote now -- or call the vote in 15 minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If we vote, which --still, the SRA document itself has to still be updated and edited based on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not going to have a consent. They're not going to have time for a consent. You can't have a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We could come back for November 7th -- the original schedule, Mr. Strain, if I can, if you don't mind, was to have the final vote today -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was the schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may have been your schedule. That wasn't mine. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. I'm just telling you, that schedule contemplated bringing back on November -- whatever your next meeting is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wrap-up day is the 7th of November. MR. YOVANOVICH: Your --Nick Casalanguida told us if the Board --the Planning Commission brings a motion to approve with whatever the stipulations are, we would have enough detail for it to go -- for staff to do their staff report and have you -all review on consent, if you needed to, November 7th to make sure it was properly codified, whatever those conditions were and the things we had agreed to during our presentation, if you need a consent hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your forcing this board to vote today doesn't mean we've got to force us again to vote on the 7th. I'm done today with this project if that's what's going to happen, because this is getting out of hand. This is not --in 20 years I've never seen anything like this. And this was --this project I strived to make sure the decorum that we went through for the past two meetings matched and was perfect and was free of any kind of something different than we've done in the past. I wanted that continuity. I thought I've given it to you. And in return, we're asked to rush this thing through today. So after today, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't need to come back for consent unless the rest of this board wants to, and that's a vote we're supposed to take to make it come back. Anyway. Enough of that. What do you guys want to do? Do you want to continue talking -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask you a question? Rich said a motion to approve. But what if the motion is to tum down? Then what? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then there's no consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then there's no consent. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Then there's no consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can see what happens with the way this is going. I haven't asked -- I mean, I've got transportation questions. I'm still not settled on the Big Cypress Parkway issue. We never worked that out. We talked about it last time. They were going to talk about it amongst themselves, get back to us, and none of that stuff -- Heidi? Your mic's not working, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Before you vote, I just have two changes to the master plan, if you want me to read that into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 93 of 111 October 17, 2019 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They're just quick. One is, there's a reference on the master plan to a category, and that needs to be changed to a context zone, and then I'm also going to ask that the required acreage for the 35 percent of open space, which is 349.14, be included on the master plan next to the 35 percent. And that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Heidi. Quickly, what do you guys want to do? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't mind voting before 5:00, but I'm going to want to make a record as to why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you will be able to. That's why we need to start now. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would like to hear Ned's questions, your questions, and Joe's questions, and Karen's as well before voting, if possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Weare. That's the reason we're starting a few minutes before 5:00 so everybody can say their piece and we can take the vote. But if we're going to take the -- we're going to do that, we need to close the public hearing now and then go into discussion, and then go into vote. Is that what you -all are -- is that the consensus of this board? Go into discussion means you'll hear the remaining questions, but we won't be asking them of staff. We'll be discussing it among ourselves. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was under the impression that Commissioner Fryer had some conditions he wanted to discuss with the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, we need -- then Stan's not going to be here to vote. That's fine. Again, that's why I'm trying to ask you -all. Let's sort this out. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So then we're not going to even think about continuing it and do it the right way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? COMMISSIONER HOMUK: We're not going to --we're just going to vote today and not continue and finish through everything that -- we're not going to -- we're really not going to finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not going to finish -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We've just got to vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --we're just going to vote, yeah. The applicant has a date they apparently were given. They were told --they were committed to by somebody in this county that they would meet the date on November 12th in front of the BCC. We're trying to live up to whatever that commitment was, and that's the only thing that I can of why we're doing this, because other than that, we're not done asking our questions. I'm trying to get out of you -- I'll tell you what. Stan, we'll see you. We're going to continue talking. So go ahead, Ned, with your -- Joe, are you finished your questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I am finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was waiting for Stan to make a motion, but we'll standby, and if somebody else makes a motion, I'll stand by because -- I'll make my closing comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not going to sit here and talk back and forth for 10 more minutes while we're burning up time. We're either going to get on the stick and do something, or Stan's going to leave, and we'll just continue on without him. And thank you, Stan, for staying as long as you did. And be careful crossing the street. Joe, did you have any more questions you wanted to get to? (Stan Chrzanowski left the boardroom and is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can take your time, because we've got plenty. Page 94 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I will. I have seven concerns that I'd like to express, with one overriding concern, and I'll start with that. Depending upon how that comes out, I probably have 25 or 30 questions on smaller issues which we may or may not have time to get to, but we'll approach, if I may, by starting to talk with the seven. The first thing that I would like to raise is an overall concern is that, in my judgment, based upon the documents that I've read, including the restudy, including the FLUE, including the Land Development Code, and all the history that's been brought to my attention tells me that what is being proposed here is not what was intended for the RLSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we take a quick break? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick wants to address us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Nick is one of those high-up people, so he gets to address us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I apologize for not wearing a coat. Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager. There is no guarantee that these guys go on November Board of County Commissioner meeting if you're not complete. What we told the applicant was if you guys get to go through all your questions and you had time to deliberate and get through everything and it was completed today, we'd get them on November agenda. But if you need more time, one of you or all of you, you take the time you need to make the determination you need to. If its today, great. If not, they'll go in December. Is that clear? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's different than what -- we've been pushing for the 12th because we thought that was a mandatory commitment, but thank you, Nick. Okay. With that, Ned, I'm sorry to interrupt. Now you can really take your time, because if we don't get done close to 6:00, we are continuing this whole mess until November 7th. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sounds good. Thank you. So my first point has to do with the elephant in the room, Oil Well Road. I have not yet heard a substantive proposal from the applicant of an innovative, meaningful solution from a safety standpoint, from a compactness, walkability, interconnectedness standpoint, a meaningful, significant solution to the Oil Well Road problem, that it divides this in two. So I guess I'll put this in the form of a question to see if there's room for further discussion. What is the most that the applicant is willing to do to solve what virtually everybody in this room understands is a serious issue? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I disagree that it's a serious issue, and we've made our proposal with regard to the master plan layout and how people will get back and forth from the north to the south. And, you know, I know -- I don't understand, frankly, the, quote, "safety concern" when people cross six -lane highways all the time to get to -- there's going to be a signal at Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well Road when the six-laning occurs. So that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But Big Cypress Parkway will probably not even be built before you guys finish your 10 -year buildout, unless -- is Trinity here anywhere? MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, people walk across two-lane roads all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just wait a minute. Let's take it one step ata time. Trinity, would you mind giving us an inkling at to when Cypress Parkway at Oil Well Road intersection will be completed? We're going to take your --we're going to start going back and forth one question at a time and get it as ferreted out as best we can. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. Commissioner Strain, you're correct. As of right now in the Long Range Transportation Plan, Big Cypress Parkway is not scheduled for construction as far as the north/south through 2040. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone had the master plan for this project on the overhead. Can that be put back on? Nancy? Page 95 of 111 October 17, 2019 The reason I've got to ask you is I've got to show you something on the master plan, and I want to see how it reflects the, for lack of a better word, safe crossing of Oil Well Road. That's the master plan. The yellow on the left is Big Cypress -- potentially Big Cypress Parkway going north and south. If that's not going to be built within 10 years, this project's phasing says they'll be built with commercial completed within 10 years. Commercial's coming approximately six years after the starting of the residential. So that means the entire buildout and operation of this project will have to use that one entrance on the -- going to the north and the one entrance going to the south off of Oil Well Road for everything going on, and that's the only crossing. Where are the other crossings and where are the other intersections on Oil Well Road that will allow people to go from north to south? MS. SCOTT: If I could, there was -- there is a provision within the developer -- I'm sorry -- the landowner contribution agreement that does allow the applicant to construct a local roadway -- a portion of Big Cypress Parkway to gain access to the commercial so that it does not all have to come off of Oil Well Road. I mean, it will ultimately because it doesn't connect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that kind of like the 951/Immokalee Road intersection to the north where that kind of semi -road that goes off into where the CVS pharmacy and the hospital is? I mean, that functions okay, but if it becomes a crosswalk, though, you've got to still get across six lanes. MS. SCOTT: No. It would only be two lanes for them to gain access. And I'm going to put my pen on where it would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in 10 years from now, Oil Well Road's only going to be two lanes in that location? Which answers a question from someone from the public earlier. MS. SCOTT: No. That was Big Cypress Parkway that I was speaking about. So Oil Well Road currently is operating at a Level of Service B based on the 2018 and the 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report. Now, certainly, Ave Maria is building quickly. Hopefully we'll -- if this is approved, you'll start seeing people moving out here as well. So we will continue to monitor that. And at such time that it's necessary, we will turn that project on. We have a developer agreement with Ave Maria that once a certain level of funding is collected from impact fees in that area, we must -- that's --we must move forward with the project. However, as I said, we're also looking at it closely with the AUIR each year, and if it becomes deficient prior to that time period, we'll have to have that conversation with the Board of County Commissioners to start that project. That project, Oil Well Road from Everglades to Oil Well Grade, is designed, permitted. We have one section where we still require right-of-way, which is in front of Hyde Park. You'll be hearing that petition next year at some point. We also have a Developer Contribution Agreement with them to work with them to gain that last bit of right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's right, Hyde Park's coming online for this location as well. They're right at the same corner, aren't they? MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Notch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So that means between Hyde Park and this project, we're looking at 1,800 plus 25, almost, what, 4,000 units, 4,300 units that are going to come out within less than a 10 -year time frame, most likely, or most of them, and two commercial centers. So the likelihood of the parkway being built, then -- not the parkway, but Oil Well Road going six-laned is kind of what your ballpark idea is when that's going to be scheduled. The AUIR might have it, but we haven't reviewed that yet. MS. SCOTT: My guess is within the next five to 10 years we will need to widen that roadway. And with regard to Big Cypress Parkway, if you recall during our last meeting, we talked about the Alternative 2 Plus that the Board had adopted with the Randall corridor study. Page 96 of 111 October 17, 2019 One of the directions that the Board had given staff at that time was to work through the upcoming Long Range Transportation Plan update, which is currently underway, must be adopted by December of next year. So when we're looking at that, we're going to be taking into consideration all of this, and we'll be updating our Long Range Transportation Plan. It must be updated every five years with a major update. And so we will take this into consideration. And I'm telling you today the Long Range Plan says that it's not contemplated through 2040. The next Long Range Transportation Plan could very well contemplate that being constructed sooner. But I don't have a good crystal ball. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to end up having two crosswalks across Oil Well Road. So people coming through the north to go to the south or vice versa, they could go to one or the other, and they'll be able to cross at those points? MS. SCOTT: In the ultimate configuration, once the roadway -- once it meets signal warrants and signals are in place, yes, there would be a crosswalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as walkability goes, if someone wanted to walk to the commercial center from the north and they lived to the left or the right of one of those main roads, they simply walk over to the main road, walk down to where the crosswalk is, and cross over at that point, and then over to the commercial center. MS. SCOTT: Yes, consistent with what we see in the urban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. And that was your question -- did you have any more for Trinity while she was up? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, no, not with Trinity. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: I'll standby. I'll stay inside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we get to my questions, whether today or the 7th, make sure you're here, because I do have questions of you. MS. SCOTT: I'll be here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Chairman, with your leave -- and I understand that the staff report that goes to the Board of County Commissioners is under the authorship and control of staff, but I would respectfully ask that -- not as the position of the planning committee, but that the points that I am making in support of my personal vote on this, that they be recounted in that material. Again, not as the --as what the Planning Commission did, but the reason why I voted the way I did. Thank you very much. So, again, the first one, no solution for the Oil Well, that it's in any respect innovative, at least in my opinion. And so tome that is the biggest problem that faces this application, but not the only one. There's no percentages of walkability or even -- well, anything that would enable us to infer that a larger percentage of the concentration is going to be in the central area, whether it be on the north or the south side. So from a walkability standpoint, we really don't know -- let's say at the point of full buildout, we don't know what percentage of the people would have only a quarter of a mile to walk, what percentage a half, one, one -and -a -quarter. We don't know that. Tome, there are too many dead -ends, also known as cul-de-sacs. But tome they're tantamount to dead -ends which I think does offend at least my understanding of what was to be the purpose of the RLSA. One of the public speakers aptly mentioned the word "gerrymandering," which I'm not sure if this in itself is a good example of gerrymandering but when taken together with the other villages that might come online, it looks to me very much like a gerrymandering shape and urban sprawl. Next, there's a principle of equitable law that you shouldn't be permitted to do something by indirection that you can't do directly. And I think that's what's happening herewith multiple smaller villages instead of a single larger town. That's a legal discussion we could have. And we might disagree, but that's my opinion and part of the reason why I'm going to vote the way I'm going to vote. Next, I don't believe the case has been made for economic neutrality. First of all, I have some familiarity with EMS in the county, and I don't believe that was adequately addressed. I don't believe -- it seems to me that the calculations were inadequate how many additional potential customers of EMS or patients there would be. I think it would be more than has been projected and, as a result of that, I think the percentage of contribution by Page 97 of 111 October 17, 2019 Rivergrass should be larger. Right now it's been stated that Rivergrass is fiscally neutral for EMS. EMS runs ata loss everyyear. Impact fees and fees charged to patients are insufficient to support the 25 ambulances, plus or minus, that are on the street every day and, therefore, the county has to supplant -- make up the difference out of General Funds. And so when you're losing money, you can't make it up in volume. I think that's just a fundamental principle. The next point I want to raise has to do -- oh, in the school system as well. And the -- Ms. Gallo, I believe was her name, had indicated that in her view three times as many students would be generated for the school district by single-family residences than by multifamily, attached or connected occupancies. And I wanted to make the point that although her argument to us was at three times, in another case that is online -- and I have the paperwork for. It's available on the Internet --she actually, in a very similar situation, at least in my judgment, said that the ratio is really four times, that four times as many students are generated by single-family as by multifamily. So I don't believe that the case has been made for that. Next, again, staying with the economic plan, the horizon date that has been selected for this project -- in other words, the date when we could say that it is going to be break-even --is 2042. That's along ways away. And so between now, 2019 and 2042, there is potential for, perhaps, every single year in between to be a loser year for the taxpayer, and I don't find that's reasonable. I think that that horizon date is just too far out. I don't think that the case has been made for diversity of housing. There's no workforce or affordable housing that's been offered. Not that there has to be, but there does have to be some way of striking a diversity of housing. And with 90 percent of single-family detached housing and 10 percent of multifamily, that falls, in my judgment, woefully short of diversity. Now, I had about 20 other -- 25 other smaller comments, but I'm going to yield to the Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, we're not under a timetable any longer, so we'll just move forward. I want all the questions on the table. I've got a lot of questions I'm going to ask that aren't conclusions; they're just trying to find out answers. If you've got answers (sic) you haven't had -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: They are not what I would call deal -breakers. And, personally, I would prefer to hear your concerns first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trinity? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask Mr. Fryer a real quick question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Come on up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where'd the year 2042 come from? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Materials. MR. YOVANOVICH: Would you mind texting me or emailing me what material you're relying on in 2042? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Certainly. Yeah, sure. You don't have a representative from your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: She's here. And we think the year's 2032. I just want to know --if there's something that's 2042, I just want to -- we're scratching our head. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If she's here, can she come up? MS. GALLO: Am I allowed to address a couple of questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, absolutely. We're here to find out information. MS. GALLO: Lucy Gallo -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please give us any information you have. MS. GALLO: -- planning and financing group. I think it may be helpful to kind of talk about how we got to the economic model, because part of your concerns about student -generation rates, persons per household, are county numbers by the county consultants. So the model creation essentially started with Rural Lands West. We had a number of meetings with staff. I think Mr. Strain was part of how we were going to design the model. How was it going to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think I was, but anyway. MS. GALLO: Were you invited to one -- Page 98 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I may have, but I don't usually -- I let staff -- I listen for the most part. MS. GALLO: And that's exactly --because we wanted it to be collaborative. And based on standard methodologies -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to ask, if you don't mind --I want to quickly answer the question of Mr. Yovanovich, and then I won't interrupt you again. MS. GALLO: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the material -- let me read it to you. And it's on Page 1215 of 3,549 where it says, "DPFG measured the fiscal neutrality at the horizon year (2042 buildout) using a margin average, cost hybrid methodology to determine the project's impacts on capital and operating costs." And there is another reference to that on Page 1,357, two references on Page 1,357 of 3,549. Sorry to interrupt. MS. GALLO: That's a typo, because that's not from my report. But, anyway, so what we decided --a date is not provided at the horizon -- for the horizon year. It's at buildout, which -- 10 years, whatever that year was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So I'll accept that its a typo; 2032. So it's 14 years from now, 13 years? Whatever is it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't do that in my head. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, itis what itis. Sorry to interrupt. MS. GALLO: Yeah, from when we start, right. So, anyway, what was decided upon was for the base model we were going to -- the county staff, together with DPFG and the team, to use methodology that was designed and adopted by Sarasota County and their consultant A Com Economics as an economic model that had been peer reviewed and was a standard, a well -credentialed, kind of a best -practice model, and that was the base model. So part of the basic assumptions that were fundamental to the model, we were -- we all agreed upon; very open collaborative process. The most objective measure would be to use units and levels of service adopted in county impact fees in terms of persons per housing unit student -generation rate. So the student -generation rate that we used is what the school district is using. And in part of our discussions, we wanted to make sure that in the impact fee study for schools that's currently underway, did they see any big changes between the student -generation rates and the current study and the one that's going -- undergoing review right now. And they told us, no, they're very comfortable with the single-family detached and the multifamily student -generation rates that are used in our report, and that's one of the items, when we met with the school district, that they specifically review what are our estimates of student -generation rates. So that's not an assumption DPFG came up with. It's what -- the county's own consultants. The same thing with persons per household. Those are based on what your impact fee consultants are using by housing unit type within the impact fees. So I just wanted to clear up those couple of points so that there weren't any misconceptions about population measures and students. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any more of her? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. Ma'am, I have a few more questions for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And since you're up here, I've got a few questions -- MS. GALLO: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I want to get cleaned up, so -- MS. GALLO: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I was referring to your study in North Carolina, the Briar Chapel development. That was in 2017. Do you recall stating in your report, which I found on the Internet, that the student -generation rate for single-family dwellings was fully four times that of multifamily? MS. GALLO: In Briar Chapel that is the case for that specific development. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So how is this different? Page 99 of 111 October 17, 2019 MS. GALLO: That's a completely different master plan, completely different housing units -- mix. That's in the -- there aren't one people in three people over the age of 70 in Chatham County, North Carolina. You can't look at -- student -generation rates in Orange County, Florida, are very different than student -generation rates in Sarasota and Hillsborough County. It's really based on the demographics of the local community, so you can't kind of pick and make that kind of benchmark comparisons outside of your own community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. My next question then, I assume you're before us as an expert? MS. GALLO: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes? MS. GALLO: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And giving us your opinion as an expert? MS. GALLO: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. Okay. I noticed in your report the following language: It says, further, DPFG has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions. This report is not to be used where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client. Any use of the study not specifically prescribed under agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by DPFG shall be at the sole risk of the party. The study is qualified in its entirety by and should be considered in light of these limitations, conditions, and considerations. MS. GALLO: That is language that is -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know. Its boilerplate, but it contradicts what you're saying. MS. GALLO: It's intended for any of our reports that are typically part of public finance bond agreements that those -- that we have appropriate approval before any of our reports would be attached to a bond document. So it is just standard disclaimer. It has nothing to do with my testimony here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the language, then --as it pertains to this case, the language is incorrect? MS. GALLO: That disclaimer would not apply to this report, correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the language is incorrect in this case? MS. GALLO: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. That's all I have. Oh, no, I don't. With respect to EMS, did you take any -- did you give any consideration to the extent to which personnel would have to be increased and paid for? I didn't see that in your study. MS. GALLO: Yeah, absolutely. And I'm glad you brought that up, because one of the major things that we look for in making sure that our cost allocations are appropriate is to what degree the General Fund is subsidizing other services that would be outside its General Fund. EMS is one of those. So if you look on Page 13 you! 11 note that the proportionate share allocation -- I'm sorry. It's Page 13 of my hard copy. I'm on Table 8. But we did take into consideration -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Table 6, Table 7. MS. GALLO: So we did take into consideration --and this was a question we talked with Jacobs about as well, the methodology, to what degree that the General Fund is subsidizing other funds of the county, and EMS is certainly one of those. So we did take into consideration how the county's General Fund subsidizes EMS services. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It looked tome from your report that you had focused exclusively on the cost of the building either as a purchase or a rental, because it will be owned by North Collier, so it would probably be rental. MS. GALLO: No, actually, the -- what is planned in our report is the news station at DeSoto and 22nd of which the EMS portion is going to be funded by the new county's infrastructure tax. Fully funded. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What number of patients did you use per ambulance? MS. GALLO: That's not part of what we are -- the level of service that we -- that you use in your impact fee calculation and in that it's a -- the EMS station that will serve Rivergrass is not funded by impact fees or by the Page 100 of 111 October 17, 2019 county's General Fund. It's going to be funded by the new sales tax. And it's already an existing need, and it's going to serve not only Rivergrass but existing development in the area either. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're right. That's true, but I submit to you that the population of Collier County in 2020 is estimated to be around 375,000, and I also submit to you that there are around 25 ambulances on the street in a given day, and that comes to about one ambulance per 15,000 and some change. So you're going to be adding people into that area. And, you know, whether or not the county pays for these improvements out of the one -cent sales tax or not, still, the presence of Rivergrass is going to burden the system to a degree that can be calculated. And you've made an effort to calculate it, but I think you came in low. I don't think you took account of the fact that there will undoubtedly need to be another battalion chief out there because of the development. And I grant you it's not just Rivergrass, but it's the other developments under the same ownership group. I think that you undercounted the number of residents of this area. I think you came in at around 4,900. And the way I look at it it's more like 6,000. And so when you have a service that operates at a loss, as in the case of EMS, and you've concluded that it's going to be breakeven, if you undercount and under -calculate, it's going to be worse than breakeven. So that's my concern on that. MS. GALLO: Yeah. For EMS, though, again, we relied on the county's population and employment estimates to project the capital needs of EMS. So -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that you have undercounted it, and that's my concern. I guess that's all I have her -- yes, for her. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got -- what? MR. MULHERE: I mean, if you have a question about how the county calculates it and if they're undercounting, Amy is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't. Well, maybe Ned does. Go ahead. Do you have a question of Amy? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Gallo. MS. GALLO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have just some items I cannot understand. MS. GALLO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need an unlocked version of your spreadsheet to understand them. Would you please send that to me, or send me the unlocking code so I can unlock the version I already have? MS. GALLO: I will be happy to accommodate running the model with sensitivity analysis if I understand the validity of the sensitivity factors, but it would not be appropriate to have the model manipulated otherwise. It would be like me trying to, you know, run the transportation model. It's big. It's complicated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 153 pages. That's how many spreadsheet pages you have. Your links go across all those. You go from one link to another link to another link to another link. I spent quite a few nights trying to track your links to get to the bottom line. I couldn't do it. But it could be simplified after I realized I could not, on your spreadsheets, insert my need about the values that I have like I could for Ave Maria's FIRM that they provided for us in an unlocked version so we could use it and experiment to see if there was an issue that we would then bring up at this meeting. Now, I didn't get back to Richard that I needed an unlocked version, because by the time I figured out last week, and then I got into meetings this week, I had no time left anyway. So I figured I'd bring it up today because we're going to be talking about this again on the 7th. I figured I have time then to unlock it, go ahead and experiment with the PPH, and figure out what the problems were if there were any. Now, in Ave Maria, they used a PPH of 2.2. At the time the U.S. Census said, for Collier County specifically, 2.39. You have now used 1.71, that's rounded from 1.70 -something, which is even lower than Ave Maria's but, yet, the census says as including BEBR. Every year we've been going up in PPH, not down. So I don't seethe reasoning for you to be less than Ave Maria. I never did seethe reasoning for Ave Maria, and I think looking at it today, I doubt if my reasoning was not -- was probably -- my reasoning was Page 101 of 111 October 17, 2019 probably correct, why they would have a lower PPH. My goodness, its a Catholic community. If anything, they're going to have more persons in their houses than regular places. Right now we have a BEBR --in 2015 BEBR said the persons per household was 2.47. U.S. Census in 2017 said Collier County's was 2.55. The TIS that the other expert, for your applicant's team, provided said its 2.72. Now, I'm not asking you to go to the highest number, but I can't figure out why you would pick the lowest number. I don't care what staff says. If we accept it --what staffs says, you know what? We shouldn't even be here today, because we just pass everything on to the Board. So staffs wrong, flat out. And, by the way, staffs latest population conclusions are 1.8. So I don't know where they got the numbers to tell you what they told you. MS. GALLO: I used the most recent impact -fee study prepared by Tindale Oliver for population per household which was based on American Community Survey five-year estimate, and that was -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you just explained tome why we're deficient on our road revenue, because we're understating population. We're understating everything even in our impact fees. That folds through this whole document. I want to see how far it does and what the difference in fiscal neutrality is by running these other PPHs that other agencies have adopted for Collier County, and that's what I'm trying to figure out. That's the only reason I want to see the unlocked version, so I can run it, sit back and figure out how it works, and I don't know why I can't do that. MS. GALLO: Because I -- you know, I don't think it's appropriate to run persons per household from a source other than using an American Community Survey, which the county's own consultants are using. I mean, that is the source. The American Community Survey five-year estimates. So I would be very questionable of using something other than kind of what would be the gold-plate standard for population. Its just so -- it's just kind of best practice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what agency -- what government agency is that particular -- MS. GALLO: The U.S. Census. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. You just said something about the American standard, the survey. MS. GALLO: It's the American Community Survey, so it's the population estimates that come out in between the decennial census years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the U.S. Census? MS. GALLO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go -- I've got the sheet. I can probably --I can print it out, and I'll send it to you. But if you go on the U.S. Census like I did last week, and go to Collier County, and tell --and it tells you in the scroll down, what do you want? I want persons per household, it pops right up, 2.55. If you go to BEBR, the latest I think they used was 2015, it says 2.47. I can't get from them to you. MS. GALLO: Are you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a big jump. MS. GALLO: Are you using persons per housing unit, or are you using persons per household? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd have to go back and look. I can't remember if there was a difference. MS. GALLO: It makes a difference, because persons per housing unit takes into account that there's always going to be some inventory of apartments that are vacant and some inventory of houses that are for sale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What one are you using? MS. GALLO: It's called units and structure. That's what you should be using. That is the total housing count. And, again, that's what Tindale Oliver, your impact -fee consultants, is the basis that they use for all of their impact -fees studies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would be interesting to see, then, how they compare. I'll look up what you've just referred to and see how that fits into what I've been looking at. MS. GALLO: And another reason that we needed to use the -- what your impact -fee consultants use is because they also do some manipulation to be able to striate for the impact fee -categories. For example, Page 102 of 111 October 17, 2019 single-family detached above and below 4,000 square feet. And so that's, again, why we wanted to rely on what your consultants are using so we have some consistency. We don't want to behaving capital planning and financing going on for impact fees and fiscal neutrality using two different sets of numbers. So that was why we were trying to be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, our consultants use what they're told by staff to use, which isn't necessarily, as I've been finding out, what the government -- what the government agencies tend to use, and that's the piece I'm trying to correlate. Someone's right and someone's got a less -than -right number. MS. GALLO: It's not -- Tindale Oliver doesn't pick and choose. Impact -fees consultants allover the country rely on American Community Survey population counts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the titles that I remember seeing in your spreadsheet, though, were persons per household under which were the numbers that I found for yours. So if you were -- MS. GALLO: Persons per housing unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So yours is spelled out as persons per housing unit? MS. GALLO: Yes. Household is occupied units. So you would be leaving out part of your inventory of housing units that are just vacant for whatever reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how much of a spread do you think that is from the permanent? Because according to our numbers that we use from BEBR, it's 20 percent. According to your numbers, it goes as high as 33 percent. I'm wondering why you have a bigger spread in seasonal or non -occupy -able units than are other agencies -- or than BEBR has that we've adopted as part of our AUIR. MS. GALLO: The AUIR uses a factor of 1.2 for peak seasonal population, which we did the same thing in ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I found that, yeah. MS. GALLO: Yeah. The homestead percentage comes from the Shimberg housing study that is a direct download from the ad valorem tax base. So in order for us to make sure we didn't overstate property taxes by making sure we have the appropriate amount of units that, quote, qualify for homestead exemption, we relied on the Shimberg. It's national housing clearinghouse data at the University of Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you used two different studies for the same parameters? MS. GALLO: No. I mean, again, we used the county for population, because that is consistent with your impact fees and your AUIR for estimating peak seasonal population, which can differ from the whole homestead qualification matter, because that's the six-month rule. So for homestead we relied upon, essentially, the property tax database to tell us, for single-family homes, how many -- what's the homestead percentage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wouldn't get you renters and people like that, though, would it? MS. GALLO: Correct, you're correct. Because it's only owner -occupied units that would be eligible for the homestead. I wish there was away we could make those tie, but they're just two different things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'll ask you --and I just need ayes or a no. Will you give me the code to unlock your spreadsheet or not? MS. GALLO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I've got. Anything else you want to go with -- what's your next questions, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think I've reached the end of my questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trinity, are you out there somewhere? I need to understand better the issues concerning the road system. And I went through some of your -- was it a presentation or whatever -- where there was talk after the stewardship district was formed about what they would do, what they wouldn't do, what had happened, what didn't happen, papers that didn't get signed but were produced by, I think, our board. So let's start out -- can you explain what the special district commitments and mitigation issues were that we either got, were promised, and/or didn't get? MS. SCOTT: Yes, sir. Page 103 of 111 October 17, 2019 I'm bringing up my prior presentation just in case I need to refer to any of the exhibits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to switch over to the -- MS. SCOTT: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: However you do that. Stan's not here. He can't help guide us. MS. SCOTT: Bob's my technical expert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. Okay. MS. SCOTT: I'm good. Just in case -- and I have to thank the applicant. Previously in my slides I had some scanned versions, and Ms. Pike was nice enough to send me some nice crisp versions of some of the documents I was using. So I did flip those out. So with regard to the original special district, based on the information that I was able to gain from the October 28th, 2003, BCC meeting minutes as well as the October 26th, 2004, BCC meeting minutes, there were provisions --in October of 2003, Collier Enterprises came forward to establish a special district. This is from a "frequently asked questions" that I pulled from the agenda item when I was doing my research on this. The purpose of the district is to provide public infrastructure and services in a timely manner within Collier County in order to provide the necessary infrastructure to promote smart development of Rural Village communities and to protect the environment. The district was being requested because the property -- it was a single landowner, and they believed that it was the best mechanism to provide timely infrastructure to protect the environment and to further effectuate the intent and purpose of the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Area. So they came before the Board of County Commissioners because they wanted to approach the state legislature to create this special district. When they came before the Board of County Commissioners, the Board had some requests of them, one of which was to come back within 90 days of the approval of the special district by the legislature to come back with an interlocal service delivery agreement -- and I'm trying to find exactly what the language says. An interlocal service delivery agreement providing for a fair -share capital construction funding contribution for the long-range traffic capacity improvements of county arterial and collector roads within and proximate to the district, and that was supposed to occur within 90 days of the act taking effect. I believe, based on the minutes, what occurred -- I was not here at the time -- that there were three provisions that came out of this interlocal service delivery agreement discussion, the first of which was right-of-way for Oil Well Road to have a 200 -foot -wide corridor along the frontage of the stewardship area, along with stormwater management for the Oil Well Road widening. The second item was similar: Immokalee Road, along the frontage of the stewardship district, to provide the additional right-of-way to come up with a 200 -foot -wide corridor for future widening of Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And while you're there, so I don't forget, where is -- does this district stretch all the way -- it stretches all the way up to Immokalee Road? MS. SCOTT: It does. It goes north. CHA OMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted. I saw that in one of the writings. MS. SCOTT: I was going to pull up --there's actually --I have an actual district map. It's this red boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it goes across hnmokalee Road? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: So with the second provision, 200 feet of right-of-way. And it wasn't "give us 200 feet." It was additional right-of-way to come up with a 200 -foot swath plus additional stormwater if necessary. Based on what I was able to read in the meeting minutes, it sounds as if the Collier Enterprises at the time agreed to those two items. Those were discussed in the 2003 board meeting, and that was with the initial resolution for the Board to approve -- or to support the creation of the district. When it came back after the legislature had approved the special act, based on these meeting minutes, I Page 104 of 111 October 17, 2019 believe it was probably a few days before the 90 days was set to expire, and I think that staff, as well as representatives of Collier Enterprises, had been having conversations back and forth where a conversation came about a reservation of right-of-way for an interconnecting road between Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road. And I'm going to go back to a prior slide and see if I can -- I think it's a later one. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MS. SCOTT: --where I believe -- what I believe that was. I believe that that was the extension of Randall Boulevard -- and I'm not going to say that this is the exact location, because there were not exhibits attached to that prior agreement that went before the Board of County Commissioners. But I believe it was some sort of swooping road, if you will, to connect Randall Boulevard up to Oil Well Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That kind of matches up with the earlier town plans that we used to see prior to. MS. SCOTT: I believe so. During -- there were -- there was a lot of back and forth in the 2004 BCC meeting minutes that Collier Enterprises -- I believe it was Mr. Conrecode who was speaking -- felt that -- and let me go back. The county had not studied this roadway. It did not have an adopted alignment for Randall Boulevard extension at the time. It was something that staff was requesting of Collier Enterprises at the time. And so Collier Enterprises, based on what I have read in here, was saying, whoa, we feel like if we work together we can come up with a better solution. We're not agreeing to that reservation of right-of-way. I should also go back and clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be the one for Randall, right? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through their property? MS. SCOTT: It was along -- within their property boundary. And like I said, I can't find anything that gives me an exact map of that, but that's what I believe it was. And I should also go back and state that the Oil Well Road right-of-way as well as the Immokalee right-of-way and this stormwater were provided with no compensation. They were donated to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: So within the meeting minutes, Mr. Feder, Mr. Norman Feder, the prior administrator -- Transportation Division administrator, indicated that the Randall Boulevard -- he wasn't looking for them to donate that; that it would be to provide impact fee credits. The Board took action to approve the agreement with the Randall Boulevard language in there -- the interconnecting road language in there. To my knowledge, the agreement was never executed by both parties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did one party execute it? Either party? Or just neither --both? Neither? MS. SCOTT: I honestly don't know that. I know the Board took action, and that s what I've been able to find from our public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the stewardship district did include right-of-ways, did include mitigation for some of the impacts to those road donation both on Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road. Are those commitments still valid? MS. SCOTT: I believe they are, which is one of the reasons why we're asking for some of the things that we're asking for. I will tell you that in 2009 the landowner did provide the right-of-way for Oil Well Road. There was an agreement that went to the Board in -- I believe it was October of 2009, so that is completed. And if you'll recall, during our prior conversations at the last meeting, we indicated that the right-of-way for Immokalee Road was included within our landowner contribution agreement, and the applicant had agreed to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's good information. At the same time, the MPO had been a series of studies, the one I think you outlined here, and there might have been another one. What were the costs on those, and were those participated both by us or by the MPO and the applicant, or was that just all by the MPO? Do you know those numbers? MS. SCOTT: I do. There's two different studies that occurred. I had them in my notes from previously. The Metropolitan Planning Organization -- so let me go back. In the 2004, Mr. Conrecode, you Page 105 of 111 October 17, 2019 know, advised the county needs to -- someone needs to study the roadway network, and that way when we come back in, we'll work with the county on any roads that are identified in the long-range plan. So during the -- when we were in conversations with regard to the Town of Rural Lands West, one of the items that we were working on was trying to reserve the right-of-way or obtain the right-of-way for Big Cypress Parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, that's where I'm heading with all these questions. I'm trying to figure out what our latitude is with that right-of-way. MS. SCOTT: So with regard to Big Cypress Parkway, the prior Long Range -- the original 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan did not contemplate the level of development within the Big Cypress Stewardship Area that we were anticipating with the town. So that roadway, the Big Cypress Parkway roadway, was not identified as a need. In order for us to be able to discuss impact -fee credits, I need the roadway to be identified within the Long Range Transportation Plan. So Collier Enterprises entered into an agreement to have the Metropolitan Planning Organization update the Long Range Transportation Plan to -- what I want to say is they looked at putting the growth where we -- where it was anticipated within those traffic analysis zones and rerunning the model. So the MPO was a third -party entity. You know, they were non -biased and went through the process. And they reran the model, updated the socioeconomic information, and they developed a new needs plan which included Big Cypress Parkway. Based on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was a study that the Collier Enterprises folks initiated? MS. SCOTT: Yes. And actually they paid for through a -- they provided the funding to the Metropolitan Planning Organization -- I believe it was just under $80,000 -- to update the Long Range Transportation Plan, and it was a very expedited schedule because they were up against some changing federal requirements. That was based on the town. So looking at the --it was 80 percent of the development of the town was what we had anticipated within that update. So that update added Big Cypress Parkway as a need from Immokalee Road down to Golden Gate Boulevard. The other study that occurred -- CHAII2MAN STRAIN: That's what --there's an interchange justification report that talked about --and I think it was Collier Enterprises that showed they had land available to acquire down to the Ford test track, I think, and then up to Immokalee Road. Are you -- that was the one I tried -- do you have a copy of that? MS. SCOTT: I did. I went back and I pulled -- because you had mentioned at the last meeting, and I went back and I -- I have extra slides in here of stuff that I had been asked at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you passed it. MS. SCOTT: Yeah. I took a few screen shots there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There it is. MS. SCOTT: So this was an attachment within a methodology letter of understanding that was -- it was an agreement, if you will, back and forth between the Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County about our methodology back in, I believe it was -- it was the mid 2000s. The county was working with the Florida Department of Transportation about a potential interchange, I'm going to say, in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard. I think that's what we have since adopted it as. But at the time it was termed the Everglades Boulevard interchange, but it's not at just that one location. We have to look at multiple areas. But the county was pursuing an interchange justification report to see if an interchange was -- and this was one of the exhibits from that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It says here, Collier Enterprises seems to be involved in this. Do you have anything to acknowledge -- does Collier -- were they involved in this at all, this plan, do you know? MS. SCOTT: They did not fund the interchange justification report. I worked for the Florida Department of Transportation at the time and, boy, there was a lot of support for the interchange, but this was not Page 106 of 111 October 17, 2019 a study that they were funding or initiating to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This shows villages and towns, both. And is there different traffic considerations if you break the -- because this one has a town in the center, which that was Rural Lands West, I think. Now it's three different villages. Does that have a different consideration when you look at your traffic routing? And if it does, how does it work with or without the Big Cypress Parkway link that is the --one of the things that I thought was one of the most important things we were getting out of Big Cypress Stewardship District when we were looking at all the previous concepts. MS. SCOTT: Certainly changing from a town concept to a village concept changes how the traffic patterns will go. Certainly with a town, there was a large amount of commercial employment opportunities that would have, perhaps, brought -- reversed that commute. Those areas are much smaller with the village concept so you don't get the same benefit, but -- you get some benefit, but you don't get the same level of benefit as far as reversing that compute and pulling folks the other direction. Big Cypress Parkway is important, and as we've expressed to the applicant, we are -- with our Randall Boulevard study, we tried our best to look at context -sensitive solutions particularly in the Golden Gate Estates area, and we talked about this at the last meeting as well, where you have those major roadways, collector roadways that have individual homes off of them. I'm going to say Everglades Boulevard, DeSoto Boulevard, Randall Boulevard. We tried our best to try to minimize the widening of those within our Alternate 2 Plus to beyond four lanes, to try to be more context sensitive to the neighborhoods. So what we have done with your Alternative 2 Plus is we have put Cypress Parkway all the way down to Golden Gate Boulevard, which provides parallel routes to those and allows for that major north/south traffic to occur on Big Cypress Parkway for the development that's anticipated in this area as well as that brings them down -- I'm sorry -- to the Golden -- I'm sorry -- to Vanderbilt Beach Road, which would then move people east and west and allows us to provide some relief to the other roadways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to be a little sensitive to the time, so I'm going to move a little bit faster in some of the questions. I'm going to focus on one thing. Where are we with securing the Big Cypress Parkway considerations in that area? Since it is part of the big -- the stewardship district. MS. SCOTT: The applicant has agreed for what we called Segment 2 in the prior -- in the prior discussion, which Segment 2 was the area that was directly adjacent to Rivergrass. They have agreed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Within Rivergrass SRA. MS. SCOTT: Yes. They have agreed to allow the county to purchase that right-of-way from them. The value would be based upon two -- the average of two appraisals that we would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about -- MS. SCOTT: -- agree on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- going south? I mean, that's --the SRA stuff I think we were explained last time. We asked about going south, and we had suggested there needs to be some kind of way to take a look at that. I don't know if there was a subsequent discussion with the applicant. And then going north up to Immokalee Road. Can you tell me the status or can somebody -- Richard, are you speaking on behalf of the applicant for those issues? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'm just waiting if you want to ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead. You both should have the same answer, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: It should be. I think the answer was, which we said the last time, was, we are willing to give the county, or let the county acquire, south of Rivergrass when we bring in the two villages south of Rivergrass, and if not, the county always has the ability through its eminent domain powers to acquire the right-of-way should they need it sooner. Page 107 of 111 October 17, 2019 We are not willing to give the right-of-way beyond the boundaries of Rivergrass because there's no transportation connection between the need for that right-of-way south of Big Cypress -- I'm sorry -- south of Rivergrass at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, doesn't the study that was done that I think you participated in -- would these roads and the roads going through the Estates that are going to be more compatible at a four -lane than a six -lane standard, would they -- would they then have to make up, if we never ended up -- if we can't plan for that connection to the south? I mean, we're going to be designing these roads. We need to know if the really outfall of these roads is going to have the capacity to get us where we need to go. And I think that for proper planning, we need to know that we can get there; not a hope and a whim that maybe we might do the right thing for the applicant in the future to make sure we got it. We need to know now where we have the opportunity to acquire it. But the same thing goes for the north. We need that connection up to Immokalee Road; otherwise, the entire RLSA is going to go to 951 and through streets in Golden Gate Estates to get out of the area. And we've been talking about this for years. So is the -- so you're -- is the -- have you guys talked about going north to Immokalce Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, my recollection of the minutes that Trinity shared about discussions with Mr. Conrecode were that there would be multiple projects coming through in the future, and as parts of those multiple projects, the county could acquire the right-of-way they needed. There was no commitment that when the first project came through that the county would get the entirety of its road transportation system and that the property owner who gives and provides that right-of-way would just have to run the risk that they never got another future project approved. That was the concern about making sure that the impact of the development was properly analyzed through the transportation review process. And if you'll recall, this project, Rivergrass, does not need any portion of Big Cypress Parkway as part of its review for transportation. Nonetheless, we've agreed to provide that right-of-way along the north -- north of Oil Well Road, to the extent that Rivergrass goes north, and south, which would get you, I believe, to where Randall would extend, which was what was the central issue between the county and Collier Enterprises through Mr. Conrecode at the time, was where was Randall going to extend. And it got reconfigured to this Big Cypress Parkway extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm content with what you -all have worked out for the SRA boundary right now. I'm worried about going north from the SRA boundaries to Immokalee Road. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I believe --I believe the corridor width and all of that, what its going to ultimately look like, Collier County has designed what corridor needs to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What corridor now? MR. YOVANOVICH: The road, Big Cypress -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From where to where? From north of SRA up to Immokalee Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: They have a planned corridor; do they not? MS. SCOTT: We have identified right-of-way widths that we would like to have set aside north of the Rivergrass boundary, within the Rivergrass boundary, and south of the Rivergrass boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm trying to get to is where those pieces stand. And I'm not asking you to donate them at this point but to have some kind of acknowledged agreement where Collier County has the right to purchase those in the future at whatever appraisals and whatever happens as far as how we do those things. I don't even know how they get their appraisals done. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, some of that property we don't own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What property don't you own? MR. YOVANOVICH: North of Rivergrass. There's a portion that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you own the property north of Rivergrass. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we do not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They sold it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, would you put this on the overhead? I looked at the Appraiser's Page 108 of 111 October 17, 2019 Office at quarter to 6:00 this morning. You have a 200 -foot -wide strip going from north of Rivergrass all the way up to Immokalee Road left after you sold the rest to Gargulio's. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just telling you whatever you pulled up on the Property Appraiser's records is incorrect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow, I better get ahold of Abe Skinner, because he -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. I mean, it's -- you know, he's not perfect. We all know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I read the -- you have a deed on the site. See all those areas in pink, that's the $63 million properties that you sold and the acreages to Gargulio. They total about 3,600 acres less -- about 18,000 an acre. See the dark bluish -green area on the right? That whole corridor is excepted out of the -- on the tax appraiser's site from those pink areas. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would they do that if they didn't have a legal description taking it out? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, apparently they don't -- there's more than one deed, and maybe the property owner -- Property Appraiser only saw one of the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he usually -- I mean, he actually got the curvature of part of the road in place as well. So someone had a pretty exact --didn't just do it by straight lines. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I'm telling you that we do not own the entire corridor, and we're -- and we have agreed for property -- as each project comes in, we will work with the county to convey to the county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't do long-range planning on a pretense that you might someday come in with another project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if we don't, Collier County has and has exercised on many of its road projects, eminent domain, or they could come to us and talk to us then. But right now -- Mr. Strain, I'm sitting here. I'm amazed at some of the exhibits that are being thrown up. We get to talk about a village that's not before you, so we're talking about all the things that could have happened with a village that's not before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What village is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: A town. I'm sorry; a town that's not before you. Ironically, the town center concept that was up on that visualizer earlier is the very, very objection that staff had to what we wanted to do with the town in the first place where we had our town center. So these documents are not bearing any relationship to the village that's in front of you today. We are not going to agree -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same stewardship district. MR. YOVANOVICH: We are not willing to agree to give to you the right-of-way beyond the perimeter boundary of Rivergrass today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not asking you to give it to the county. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not willing to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm saying we need some kind of an agreement so that it can be acquired in the future. And that's subject -- that's consistent with the fact you've got a stewardship district that encompasses the whole area. It's not like you don't control it. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not true. Mr. Strain, the agreement that was discussed -- and Mr. Klatzkow pointed this out at the last meeting -- talked about Immokalee Road, Oil Well Road and, at the time, Randall Boulevard. We have agreed -- on Oil Well Road we've already done it. Immokalee Road we've agreed to give that for free. Randall Boulevard used to cut through the property. It doesn't anymore. It goes along the boundary. We're willing to do that right now. We're living up with exactly what was discussed and agreed to at the time. Big Cypress Parkway was in nobody's imagination back when this stewardship district was being considered. Page 109 of 111 October 17, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's odd. After stewardship district, we got the plan that was just on here, so it had to be -- someone had to thought (sic) that plan ahead in advance. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That was a county -generated study when they were considering justifying getting an I-75 interchange. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your people had no part of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It wasn't our study. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was part of the staff, and that -- I don't know if you were in transportation at that time. I vividly recall the interchange at I-75 being discussed, and I know Florida Department -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --of Transportation even was pursuing and looking at the preliminary studies for a permit for the construction of a -- the federal permit for impact of wetlands for the potential sites that they were looking at for an interchange along 75. It was the original Everglades at one time or, as you put, in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard. MS. SCOTT: I happened to work for the Florida Department of Transportation on the other side at the time and had the opportunity to draft the letter to the county not allowing the interchange, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. But you had staff at that time also look at -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. SCOTT: We were doing cumulative effects analysis, which we got pulled into a larger environmental analysis with regard to that. But county initiative with regard to that. With regard to the Randall Boulevard extension, we -- so the second study that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, we've got to leave here at 6:00. MS. SCOTT: Oh, I'm sorry. Well, we can pick back up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We're done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There was a lot on the record, if you go to Commissioner Coletta, when this all was being discussed, and there was extensive, on the record -- I can't tell you verbatim what was agreed to, but there was a lot on the record in regards to when the original township was being complimented -- or contemplated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we are going to need a motion to continue this item, P1,20190000044, to the first item up on November 7th. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMNIISSIONERFRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. With that, we'll move on. We have no old -- new business. There's no old business. Is there any other public comment? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the record, I did state I would not beat that meeting on the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And that takes us to --is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. Page 110 of 111 October 17, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved --second. CHAT MAN STRAIN: Two Frys. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - - � - --im �! w These minutes approved by the Board on it'7 as presented 1/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 111 of 111