BCC Minutes 01/28/2020 RJanuary 28, 2020
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 28, 2020
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Burt L. Saunders
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Donna Fiala
Andy Solis
Penny Taylor
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
January 28, 2020
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
January 28, 2020
9:00 AM
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 – Chair
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 – Vice-Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; CRAB Co-Chair
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
REQUESTS TO PETITION THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.”
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
Page 2
January 28, 2020
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Sheila Zellers of Motivated by Love Ministries
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex
parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.)
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. EMPLOYEE
1) 20 YEAR ATTENDEES
a) Al Arcia - Parks & Recreation
Page 3
January 28, 2020
b) Juan Camps - EMS
c) Michael Costanzo - Water
d) Michaelle Crowley - Code Enforcement
e) Alan Drescher - EMS
f) Jennifer Guida Mitchell - Museum
2) 25 YEAR ATTENDEES
3) 30 YEAR ATTENDEES
a) Karen Kocses - Library
4) 35 YEAR ATTENDEES
a) Jeanine McPherson - Parks & Recreation
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
1) Recommendation to recognize Steve Athey, Growth Management
Department, Property Maintenance Inspector, as the January 2020
Employee of the Month. (All Districts)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Page 4
January 28, 2020
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. This item has been continued from
the December 10, 2019 BCC meeting. This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve with conditions a Resolution designating 997.53 acres within the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship
Receiving Area, to be known as the Rivergrass Village Stewardship
Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,500
residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 250 will be multi -family
units; a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial in the
village center and a minimum of 62,500 square feet of neighborhood
commercial in the village center; a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic,
governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living
facilities and continuing care retirement communities subject to a floo r area
ratio of 0.45 in place of a maximum square footage; and an 18 hole golf
course; all subject to a maximum PM peak hour trip cap; and approving the
Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Rivergrass Village
Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6198.08 stewardship
credits are being utilized by the designation of the Rivergrass Village
Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located south of 45th
Avenue NE and north of 26th Avenue NE, all east of Desoto Boulevard in
Sections 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 27, Township 48 South, Range 28 East,
Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to Agenda Items #9B, #11B
and #11C) [PL20190000044] (District 5)
B. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. This item was continued from the
December 10, 2019, BCC Meeting and further continued to the January
28, 2020 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to adopt a resolution amending
Stewardship Sending Area 15 (“CLH & CDC SSA 15”) in the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA), by reducing the acreage by 5.6
acres, by re-designating 5,253.4 acres therein as “CLH & CDC SSA 15”, by
removing additional land use layers and providing for restoration to increase
the Stewardship Credits, by approving an amended and restated credit
agreement, easement agreement, and escrow agreement for CLH & CDC
SSA 15 and establishing the number of credits generated by the designation
of said Stewardship Sending Area. (This is a companion to Agenda Items
#9A, #11B and #11C) (District 5)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 5
January 28, 2020
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution calling for a Referendum Election
on November 3, 2020, to determine whether the voters approve
reestablishment of a levy of an ad valorem tax not exceeding .25 for ten (10)
years to continue to fund Conservation Collier Program’s acquisition and
management of environmentally sensitive lands. (Summer Araque,
Conservation Collier Program Coordinator) (All Districts)
B. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. This item was continued from the
December 10, 2019 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to approve an
agreement to allow the Collier County Water-Sewer District to provide
potable water, wastewater and irrigation water utility services to the Big
Cypress Stewardship District. (George Yilmaz, Public Utilities Department
Head) (This is a companion to Agenda Items #9A, #9B and #11C) (District
5)
C. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. This item has been continued from
the December 10, 2019 BCC meeting. Recommendation to approve the
Landowner Agreement with Collier Land Holdings, LTD and CDC Land
Investments, LLC, (Landowner) that will provide mitigation in the form of
right-of-way donations and stormwater management for portions of
Immokalee Road and Big Cypress Parkway and the construction of a
possible future traffic signal in order to comply with Policy 5.1, the
Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan as well as
providing for an option to purchase rights-of-way both north and south of
the Rivergrass SRA. (This is a companion to Agenda Items #9A, #9B, and
#11B). (Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager, Capital Project
Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division) (District 5)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to appoint the initial membership of the Golden Gate City
Economic Development Zone Advisory Board. (District 3)
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Page 6
January 28, 2020
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. BCC Future Workshop Schedule (All Districts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”)
between Collier County and The Enclave of Distinction Property
Owners Association, Inc., for landscape and irrigation improvements
within the Livingston Road public right-of-way. (District 2)
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer facilities for Logan Landings, PL20180002504, accept the
conveyance of a portion of the potable water and sewer facilities, and
to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the
Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in
the total amount of $40,553.97 to the Project Engineer or the
Developer’s designated agent. (District 3)
3) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $243,904 which was posted as a
guaranty for Excavation Permit Number PL20180002459 for work
associated with Seychelles. (District 3)
4) Recommendation to approve the short-list of professional engineering
consultants and to enter into negotiations with HighSpans
Engineering, Inc., pursuant to Request for Professional Services
(“RPS”), “CCNA Solicitation #19-7632 CEI & Related Services
Page 7
January 28, 2020
Eleven Bridge Replacements East of SR 29" (Project No. 66066).
(District 5)
5) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release an
Escrow Agreement in the amount of $18,444.75 which was posted as
a guaranty for subdivision improvements, PL20170002331 , for work
associated with City Gate Commerce Center Phase Three Plat.
(District 5)
6) Recommendation to approve two License Agreements requested by
the State of Florida Department of Transportation relating to County
owned property required for the upgrading of traffic signal and related
facilities on US 41 at its intersection with Airport-Pulling Road and
with Espinal Boulevard. (District 1, District 2, District 3, District 4,
District 5)
7) Recommendation to seek approval for the after the fact submission of
a Safe Routes to School application with the Florida Department of
Transportation to fund the design and construction of a sidewalk along
31st Pl. SW, 31st Ave. SW, 45th St. SW and 44th Ter. SW to Golden
Terrace Elementary School – South in the amount of $837,453.75.
(District 3)
8) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release the bond
in the amount of $61,568 which was posted as a guaranty for
Excavation Permit Number PL20180000161 for work associated with
City Gate Commerce Park Phase 3. (District 5)
9) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager or designee to
execute and submit a US Department of Interior Grant application and
associated documents as part of a Cooperative Agreement between the
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Collier County
to facilitate marine debris removal on Land Units of Ten Thousand
Island National Wildlife Refuge, Collier County and State of Florida.
The total grant is $290,003.41 and no match is required. (District 1,
District 5)
10) Recommendation to accept a Florida Beautification grant from the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for a median
Page 8
January 28, 2020
improvement project involving a portion of State Road 41 (U.S. 41
North), from Gulf Park Drive to Vanderbilt Beach Road, an existing
beautified roadway segment, in the amount of $103,522 for
construction installation and approve an after-the-fact submittal.
(District 2)
11) Recommendation to accept a Florida Beautification grant from the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for a median
improvement project involving a portion of State Road 41 (U.S. 41
North), from Pine Ridge Road to Gulf Park Drive, an existing
beautified roadway segment, in the amount of $78,631 for
construction installation. (District 2)
12) Recommendation to approve Agreement No. 19-062-NS with Apollo
Metro Solutions Inc., as a single source provider, for the purchase of
Light Emitting Diode (“LED”) Luminaries, not to exceed $500,000
annually. (All Districts)
13) Recommendation to approve a proposal from Humiston & Moore
Engineers for State required Annual Monitoring of Collier County
Beaches and Inlets for 2020 under Contract No. 15-6382, authorize
the Chairman to execute the work order for a not to exceed amount of
$226,920.50 and make a finding that this expenditure promotes
tourism. (All Districts)
14) Recommendation to award Agreement #19-7563 “East Naples
Community Development Plan,” to Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.
d/b/a Tindale Oliver in the amount of $173,563 and authorize the
Chairman to sign the attached agreement. (District 1)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution and to approve a Bare License
Agreement with Capri Community, Inc., for the installation of an
Armed Services/Veterans Memorial. (District 1)
2) Recommendation to approve Agreement No. 19-7523, “Development
of Energy Master Plan for Collier County Facilities”, in the amount of
Page 9
January 28, 2020
$515,470 to Heapy Engineering, Inc., and to authorize the necessary
budget amendment. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s rankings for
Request for Professional Services No. 19-7605, “Design-Build of
Immokalee Road, Logan Boulevard, and Vanderbilt Beach Road New
24-inch Force Main Project,” and authorize staff to begin negotiations
with the top-ranked team of Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, Inc., so that staff can bring a negotiated contract
back for the Board’s consideration at a future meeting. (District 3)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve: (1) substantial amendment to Collier
County's U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development Annual
Action plan for FY2017-2018 and FY2019-2020 that reallocates
$75,000 from Collier County Housing Authority Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance program to Oak Marsh Rental Rehabilitation activity and
changes the location of a Habitat for Humanity development; (2)
authorizing the Chair to approve amendment #2 between Collier
County and Oak Marsh, LLC. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Third Amendment between Collier County and the David Lawrence
Mental Health Center, Inc., Collier County Sheriff’s Office and
NAMI of Collier County. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve the Rivers Road Preserve Final
Management Plan 5-year update under the Conservation Collier
Program. (District 5)
4) Recommendation to approve the Dr. Robert H. Gore III Interim
Management Plan under the Conservation Collier Program. (District
5)
5) Recommendation to approve an “after-the-fact” grant application in
the amount of $15,000 to the Collier County Community Foundation
for a Shade Structure at Tigertail Beach Playground. (District 1)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Page 10
January 28, 2020
1) Recommendation to renew the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue
District’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for
Advanced Life Support non-transport services for one year and
authorize the Chairman to execute the Permit and Certificate. (All
Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve modifications to the 2020 Fiscal Year
Pay & Classification Plan consisting of the removal of two obsolete
classifications, four additions, and six reclassifications made between
October 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to ratify the County Manager’s execution of an
Interlocal Agreement between Collier County and Collier County
Sheriff’s Office for Dispatch Communication services. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to approve the Administrative Reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the
Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and
notification of revenue disbursement. (All Districts)
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to Real Estate
Sales Agreement with Richard D. Yovanovich, Successor Trustee
(and not individually) for the extension of the due diligence period for
the sale of the 47 +/- acre parcel known as the Randall Curve Property
from January 31, 2020 to March 31, 2020. (District 5)
2) Recommendation to terminate Agreement #18-7294, “Collier County
Naming Rights and Sponsorship,” with The Superlative Group, for
convenience, and send notice to the Contractor. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to approve a report covering budget amendments
Page 11
January 28, 2020
impacting reserves and moving funds in an amount up to and
including $25,000 and $50,000, respectively. (All Districts)
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve to the Fifth Amendment to Agreement
No. 16-6561, “Design Services for Marco Executive Airport
Terminal,” with Atkins North America, Inc., to extend the schedule
an additional one hundred eighty (180) days to coincide with
construction and increase the fee associated with the extended
schedule by $147,162 for engineering services during construction.
(District 1)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence (All Districts)
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Report to the Board regarding the investment of County funds as of
the quarter ended December 31, 2019. (All Districts)
2) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between January 2, 2020 and January 15, 2020 pursuant to
Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts)
3) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of January
22, 2020. (All Districts)
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to reappoint two members and appoint an alternate
member to the Code Enforcement Board. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to reappoint two members to Conservation Collier
Page 12
January 28, 2020
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise, and bring
back for public hearing, an amendment to Ordinance No. 2013-25, as
amended, the Collier County Hearing Examiner Ordinance, that
would revise the Hearing Examiner’s powers and duties and establish
directives regarding the Hearing Examiner’s conduct. (All Districts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by the
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 91-53, as amended, the Audubon
Country Club Planned Unit Development by allowing an additional 4,400
square feet of commercial development for the expansion of the furniture
store up to 65,000 square feet located in Tract Y of the Audubon
Commercial Center Subdivision; by amending Sections 2.06 and 6.13 to
reflect the change in square feet, and providing an effective date. The subject
PUD, consisting of 754.75± acres, is located on the west side of US 41
extending westward across Vanderbilt Beach Drive to little Hickory Bay, in
Sections 5, 7, 8 And 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. [PL20190000502] (District 2)
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2019-20 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
18. ADJOURN
Page 13
January 28, 2020
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
January 28, 2020
Page 2
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
The county commission meeting will please come to order.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good morning, everybody.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: A little bit of an interesting
schedule this morning. First on our agenda is the invocation by
Reverend Sheila Zellers of the Motivated by Love Ministries.
Ms. Zellers.
REVEREND ZELLERS: Good morning. May you all stand.
Dear gracious heavenly father of heaven and earth. We thank you
this day to live in the United States of America, the home of the
brave and the land of the free and we never forget the price that has
been paid for the freedom for those Americans who have served and
are serving today.
We thank you, Father God, for your love and your bounding
safety for them in Jesus' name. We cannot ever forget that we come
from one blood, many nations, and we have been given a
geographical place to prosper. And we thank you today, dear God,
for Collier County.
I ask that you bless each commissioner, staff, and citizens of the
Collier County today; that we form an unbreakable union and
unconditional love and respect for each other; that we ask you, God,
no matter our creed, economical status, spiritual awareness for each
to come together with one purpose: To make a greater Collier
County, a greater place to live, and that every decision will be made
January 28, 2020
Page 3
that we will see a brighter future for our community, our county, our
state, and our nation.
In the name of the father, son, and the holy spirit, I ask. Amen.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala, would you
lead us in the Pledge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, thank you very much. Yes.
Please put your hand over your heart and say with me...
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) –
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs, we're on the agenda.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the
Board of County Commissioners' meeting of January 28th, 2020.
The first proposed change is to move Item 16K3 from the
County Attorney consent agenda to become Item 12B on the County
Attorney's regular agenda. This is a recommended amendment to
your Hearing Examiner ordinance, and it's being moved for further
discussion at Commissioner McDaniel's request.
I have one agenda note, Mr. Chairman, related to Item 9B.
There were some updates to the credit agreement exhibits that the
Board received by email on this past Friday, and we're just noting
those changes for the record. Those have also been forwarded to the
Clerk's minutes and records office and all -- and the County Attorney.
And then, finally, Mr. Chairman, we have four items that will be
January 28, 2020
Page 4
heard concurrently at 10:00 a.m. all having to do with the Rivergrass
SRA. Those are Items 9A, 9B, 11B, and 11C. Again, those are
scheduled for hearing at 10:00 a.m.
And those are all the changes I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let me make a comment
to the Board in reference to those four items. Obviously, we will be
taking a separate vote on each one.
There's some folks that have registered to speak on more than
one of those items, which everyone's entitled to do. But I thought
what I would suggest is that instead of trying to have people register
for two or three items for three minutes each, let's just give
everybody four minutes in their presentation on these four items,
period.
Does the Board have any objection to doing that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We'll give them a little extra time
since there's four items.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're the boss.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: When we get to that item, we'll
give a little extra time.
We'll start with Commissioner McDaniel. Do you have any
additional changes to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, and no ex parte on the
consent or summary.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I repeat -- or I echo my
colleague to the left, no changes, and no ex parte to the consent or the
regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, ditto with me.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Solis.
January 28, 2020
Page 5
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes and no disclosures on
the consent or summary judgment.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I have no changes and no
disclosures as well.
We need a motion to approve the regular, consent, and summary
agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Passes unanimously.
Mr. Manager, we're on the awards and recognitions, and I
believe we step down there for that; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: That's correct. Thank you, sir.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 28, 2020
Move Item 16K3 to Item 12B: Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise, and
bring back for public hearing, an amendment to Ordinance No. 2013-25, as amended, the Collier
County Hearing Examiner Ordinance, that would revise the Hearing Examiner’s powers and duties
and establish directives regarding the Hearing Examiner’s conduct. (Commissioner McDaniel’s
request)
Note:
Item 9B: Update Credit Agreement Exhibits: Request to replace the credit agreement exhibits to
the resolution. The credit agreement exhibits in the agenda backup were inadvertently merged with
incorrect exhibits. (Staff’s request)
Time Certain Items:
Items 9A, 9B, 11B and 11C to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
2/18/2020 9:28 AM
January 28, 2020
Page 6
Item #3A1
AWARDS AND RECOGNITION – EMPLOYEE – 20 YEAR
ATTENDEES
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're pleased this morning to
honor several of our team members celebrating many years of
dedicated service to county government. We'll begin this morning
recognizing several of our colleagues for 20 years of service with the
organization.
Our first awardee with 20 years of service in your Parks and
Recreation Division is Al Arcia. Al?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Thanks, Al.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Celebrating 20 years of service with our
Emergency Medical Services Division, Juan Camps. Juan?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He's not old enough to have
20.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He started when he was six.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Twenty years of service with our Water Division,
Michael Costanzo. Mike?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Celebrating 20 years, again, with our Emergency
Medical Services Division, Alan Drescher. Alan?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Our final 20-year service award recipient this
morning, from our Museum Division, Jennifer Guida Mitchell.
Jennifer?
January 28, 2020
Page 7
(Applause.)
Item #3A3
AWARDS AND RECOGNITION – EMPLOYEE – 30 YEAR
ATTENDEES
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have the pleasure of
recognizing one of our colleagues for 30 years of service with county
government this morning. From our library system, Karen Kocses.
Karen?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can we get one more picture
with William up here.
MR. KOCSES: Me? I don't have 30 years in here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, we want the spousal unit.
There we go.
(Applause.)
Item #3A4
AWARDS AND RECOGNITION – EMPLOYEE – 35 YEAR
ATTENDEES
MR. OCHS: And, finally, Commissioners, this morning we
have the honor of recognizing one of our colleagues celebrating 35
years of dedicated service to the organization. From your Parks and
Recreation Division, Jeanine McPherson. Jeanine?
MS. McPHERSON: I'm on time today.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: She made an incredible entrance.
(Applause.)
January 28, 2020
Page 8
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you could move out
quietly. Thank you very much.
Item #3D1
RECOGNIZING STEVE ATHEY, GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INSPECTOR, AS
THE JANUARY 2020 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH –
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us to Item 3D1 on
this morning's agenda. This is a recommendation to recognize Steve
Athey, your Property Maintenance Inspector in the Growth
Management Department, as your January 2020 Employee of the
Month.
Steve, if you'd please step forward.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Steve, stand right there for a minute. I want the
audience to learn a little bit more about the character of people that
work here in this organization.
Commissioners, Steve's been with the county since 2005 in our
Code Enforcement Division.
In late November of last year, the Code Enforcement received a
complaint regarding a bug and rodent infested occupied dwelling
with no water or electric in the Moon Lake community.
The case was assigned to Steve as the property maintenance
investigator. He contacted the homeowner, an elderly gentleman,
who explained that his wife had passed away and that he had a water
leak in his garage. The water leak ran up the water bill, and
eventually the water was shut off.
January 28, 2020
Page 9
Steve observed severe violations of the property maintenance
code, including no water, no cooking equipment, no working
bathrooms, et cetera. He could have taken the easy way out and
issued a citation or a notice of violation, but true to his character and
commitment to the community, he chose a different path.
He contacted his supervisor and explained the conditions of the
home. Then Code Enforcement coordinated with the Collier County
Sheriff's Community Policing Unit and Collier County Sheriff's
Senior Advocacy Unit. In November of last year, a large-scale
community service effort was coordinated.
But Steve didn't stop there. He took it upon himself to collect
donated cleaning supplies and contacted small businesses and local
organizations and received donations of new mattresses and bedding,
a new hot water heater, new toilets, stove, refrigerator, and other
household necessities.
He also coordinated to have the electric and the water service
restored. The home was cleared, and cleaned, and at the end of the
day, the elderly man, with teared eyes, made a comment that no one
involved will ever forget. He said, you-all saved my live by giving
me a new start, and I am forever grateful.
So it's with this sense of commitment to the community that we
honor Steve Athey, and it's my honor to announce him as your
January 2020 Employee of the Month. Congratulations, Steve.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Congratulations, County
Manager. That speaks volumes of what we're about in Collier
County.
MR. OCHS: Well, thank you, ma'am. It's people like Steve that
make it happen.
Item #11A
January 28, 2020
Page 10
RESOLUTION 2020-22: A REFERENDUM ELECTION ON
NOVEMBER 3, 2020, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
VOTERS APPROVE REESTABLISHMENT OF A LEVY OF AN
AD VALOREM TAX NOT EXCEEDING .25 FOR TEN (10)
YEARS TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER PROGRAM’S ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS - MOTION TO
APPROVE OPTION #1 – ADOPTED; MOTION TO APPROVE
BALLOT LANGUAGE WITH VERBIAGE CHANGE –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: All right. Mr. Chairman, that will move us to
Item 11A on this morning's agenda. This is a recommendation to
adopt a resolution calling for a referendum election on
November 3rd, 2020, to determine whether the voters approve
reestablishment of a levy of an ad valorem tax not exceeding .25
mills for 10 years to continue to fund the Conservation Collier
program's acquisition and management of environmentally sensitive
lands.
Ms. Summer Araque will make the presentation.
Good morning, Summer.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Good morning.
MS. ARAQUE: Good morning. Summer Araque, Conservation
Collier Program Coordinator.
Just waiting for it to come up on the screen. There we go.
On February 26th, 2019, the Board requested the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee to develop ballot
language for the 2020 election. The advisory committee chair, Bill
Poteet, should be here somewhere today if you have any questions for
him. The ballot language proposed will ask voters to approve an ad
January 28, 2020
Page 11
valorem tax to re-establish further funding for the Conservation
Collier program's acquisition and management of environmentally
sensitive lands.
As you know, a referendum was approved by the voters in 2002
and reaffirmed in 2006 which established the Conservation Collier
Program.
Today I will be presenting the ballot language options that you
have in your packet and the related millage rate information. If you
need further information to inform your decision, I also have the
following information available for you: The acquisition costs by
cycle; the Cycle 9 list and its $14 million worth of remaining
properties; and the Future Acquisition Strategic Plan, which you all
reviewed in November. I have that information as well.
Regarding the current status of the program, since inception in
2003, 4,300 acres have been acquired, totaling 20 preserves.
To the ballot language. The advisory committee, also known as the
CCLAC, worked on two ballot language options. Option 1, which
you can see on your screen, is similar in terms to that of the original
ballot language in 2002.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Could you go ahead and read that
for purposes of the audience and just to make sure.
MS. ARAQUE: Sure. Okay. So Option No. 1, which is the one
that's favored by -- recommended by staff and the CCLAC, is: Shall
Collier County re-establish the levy of a .25 mill ad valorem tax for
10 years for the purpose of continuing to acquire, preserve, and
manage environmentally sensitive lands and provide compatible
public access wherever applicable to such lands for the protection of
water quality, water resources, wildlife habitat, and public open space
in perpetuity. And that is 55 words out of 75 words that are allowed
on the ballot.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Is there an Option 2?
January 28, 2020
Page 12
MS. ARAQUE: Option 2, is the option that was provided in the
last week by bond counsel, which is very different from Option 1.
Shall general obligation bonds be issued in one or more series in an
aggregate principal amount not exceeding -- insert amount by the
Board -- with a maturity not longer than 10 years from each issuance
date and an interest rate less than the maximum legal rate to finance
the acquisition, management, and preservation of environmentally
sensitive land payable from ad valorem property taxes levied at a rate
not exceeding .25 mills on all taxable property within the county.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: With the permission of the Board,
I'm going to suggest that we go to our public speakers -- we've
discussed this item so many times; I think we're all very familiar with
it -- then come back to discussion of whether we're going to place this
on the ballot and then also what the proposed millage rate would be.
So without objection, then we'll go to the public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Just as a reminder, everyone that
speaks, you're limited to three minutes.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have two registered speakers
for this item. Your first speaker is Gladys Delgadillo. She will be
followed by Meredith Budd.
MS. DELGADILLO: Hi, everyone. Gladys Delgadillo on
behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
We are proud to support both CCLAC and staff's
recommendation to approve the pay-as-you-go ballot language
provided. We want to thank the members of CCLAC and staff for
working together over several months on this ballot language and
allowing for meaningful public participation. We are confident that
this language will provide a clear understanding to voters on the issue
at question in November: Whether or not to reauthorize the
Conservation Collier ad valorem tax.
January 28, 2020
Page 13
We are lucky to live in a county where bonding isn't necessary
to raise the funds necessary to continue meaningfully investing in our
water quality, drinking water sources, wildlife habitat, and quality of
life via acquisition of new conservation lands. We ask you to support
the recommended action, Option 1 today.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker is Meredith Budd.
MS. BUDD: Good morning, Commissioners. Meredith Budd
on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation.
I would echo my colleague Gladys' comments. We are
supportive of the Option 1, which is the pay-as-you-go language. We
do not feel that bonding is necessary, and the language reviewed by
CCLAC will certainly be favorable with the voters.
The second option here today, it was not reviewed by CCLAC to
my knowledge, and so they did have different bonding language. If
that was the route you would go, which would not be the federation's
perspective or the CCLAC's recommendation -- but if a further
discussion on that bonding language does move forward, I do think
that the CCLAC should be involved since that language just came
back from bond counsel and not -- excuse me, not from the advisory
committee. But, again, we do support Option 1 moving forward as
pay as you go. So thank you so much to staff and to you-all for
supporting this important program.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, Brad Cornell just slipped this in
under the wire.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I think he's a little too late.
MR. MILLER: Your discretion, sir. Brad?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We'll give you a minute and a half
since you were late.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. Brad Cornell
on behalf of Audubon.
January 28, 2020
Page 14
I just wanted to second my colleagues' support for Option 1. If
you are so tempted by bonding that you have to do it, then send it
back to CCLAC so they have a chance to review it, because they
didn't get a chance; otherwise, we appreciate the hard work and the
diligence that CCLAC and your staff and you-all have had in
bringing this back to the -- to a vote by the people. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. Let me suggest that
we really have two issues -- or three issues here. One is are we going
to put an item on the ballot, and number two is which of the two
items, and then number three, millage rate. And let's -- why don't we
not deal with the millage rate first and just the ballot language, focus
on that, see which option is preferable.
And, Commissioner Fiala, you're lit up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'd like to make a
motion to approve Option 1, the wording on it as well, to put on the
ballot.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and
second. Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We'll call for the vote.
All in favor, signify --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm lit up, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. You sure are.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's all right. That's all
right.
I can't support the motion. And it's not that we don't have a need
to find an alternative funding source for Conservation Collier. We
know that there are limited funds. Commissioner Saunders and I
worked through our first year in office on what I felt was a very nice
compromise to get us to a point where we could further discuss it.
January 28, 2020
Page 15
I proposed back in December, I think, maybe November, one of
those two, a different thought process which was a voluntary
contribution by 100 percent of our taxpayers and do that for a
two-year period, which we could do immediately this year as
opposed to waiting until November and then putting it on next year's
TRIM notice and so on, and that would give us an opportunity survey
100 percent of our taxpayers and then make necessary adjustments to
a good program.
There's nothing wrong with Conservation Collier. I just have a
concern about a small portion of the population who actually show up
to vote telling 100 percent of the people what they have to do. And
so my thoughts were, in lieu of this, let's put -- and we have found
out -- our County Attorney's Office checked with the Tax Collector,
and they can do an insert for a voluntary contribution in the amount
that we're talking about here to everybody that gets a tax bill, and do
that for two years. Again, reviewing the program, trying to find out
what the people who can and want to support Conservation Collier
want to see and then what those who can't necessarily or won't
voluntarily support it, and make adjustments to the program to even
further enhance it.
So I'm concerned about our taxpayers. I know there are other
increases that are coming forward. Eventually we're going to see a
downturn in the overall economy, and I just don't want to -- I don't
want to -- I don't think we need to burden our community right now
in this manner.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and a
second. Any further comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And the motion deals just with the
ballot language, not the millage rate that would be inserted in that.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
January 28, 2020
Page 16
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It passes 4-1, Commissioner
McDaniel opposed.
In reference to the actual millage rate, we can set a millage rate
today. Obviously, it's not anything that would be set in stone. We
can change that anytime we want to up until the time the ballot's
printed, which I believe would probably be in August. So we have
plenty of time to evaluate that.
Any discussion on the -- on a proposed millage rate to be
inserted at this point?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's already in the language
that we approved.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We approved the language, but I
had suggested that we not deal with the millage rate at that -- initially.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sorry. I missed -- I thought
you were talking about the --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So we're dealing with the millage
rate now. And, like I said, we don't need to have any millage rate set.
We can have a further debate on that at some point, or we can try to
set something today that would be tentative.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. Chairman, could you just go
back to the chart that showed what the collections will be based upon
a quarter mill?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
January 28, 2020
Page 17
MR. OCHS: Sir, if I might, just for some clarity here on this
discussion.
As the County Attorney wrote in the executive summary, given
the fact that the Board is not adopting the ballot language that
includes a bonding option, this becomes a straw ballot, basically, and
the Board can set a millage up to that 2.5 [sic] max each fiscal year
depending upon the majority consensus of the Board.
So you have quite a bit of flexibility. And I'll ask the County
Attorney to confirm what I'm saying here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The ballot's more of a political issue
than a legal issue. You could, anytime, set the millage rate for
Conservation Collier or any other purpose at any rate you wanted to.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I would assume that we do have to
put an initial millage rate in the straw ballot language?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to go by this by straw ballot,
then that would be appropriate.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So if we have to do that, which,
quite frankly, if I saw a ballot question said that, would you approve
blank millage rate, I would vote against that. So we have to have an
initial millage rate, and I think that's really the discussion now or at
some point in the future.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I want to make sure I understood.
Mr. County Attorney, you said that if we chose to do a straw ballot. I
mean --
MR. KLATZKOW: You could --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You mean put it on the --
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have to. You can just, as a
legislative body, say we're going to dedicate a quarter mill towards
Conservation Collier this year and just do it. The Board has
January 28, 2020
Page 18
historically gone by ballot, because you give the people a chance to
self tax themselves, and, basically -- basically, vote on whether or not
we want this program, which is why the Board originally did it. But
it's a straw ballot.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I
thought there was some other thing that we could do with the ballot.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And I think it's highly unlikely that
the Commission's going to approve a millage rate without having a
straw ballot on that. So do you want to have the discussion on the
initial recommended millage rate today, or do you want to put that
off?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think we need to do it today.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Well, let's -- any
thoughts?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm very comfortable with it.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The .25? Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to say the same
thing; ditto.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't suppose zero would
work?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Are you going to make that in the
form of a motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would like to make a motion
that we accept the .25 millage rate as outlined in the ballot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and a
second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Just for the purposes of
January 28, 2020
Page 19
clarification, again, this is nothing that's cast in stone. So we can
have further discussions, but it will get the dialogue started.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It passes 4-1, Commissioner
McDaniel opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, can I just add one little
thing?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the things people don't
sometimes realize, that this has been helping us to protect our future
water sources. That is so important. It also protects some of the
animals in that area. These places are put in preservation forever
because they're most important to our future in Collier County. So
that's why I and I'm sure some of the others were quick to respond to
it, because this is an important thing for our future. We don't want to
see that land gone.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, we do have to put one
slight modification on the record, if you don't mind, on this that the
County Attorney's Office -- actually, the Supervisor of Elections
Office had sent us through the County Attorney's Office.
Summer, if you could just note that for the record, and we can
move on.
MS. ARAQUE: Thank you.
January 28, 2020
Page 20
You-all moved so quickly, I couldn't get to the next slide. This
is just a technicality. It's in the body of the resolution, not the ballot
language, and it just changes the language on -- it's not absentee
voting anymore. It's vote by mail.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mail.
MS. ARAQUE: That's just a technicality that we needed to
make you-all aware of.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I assume there's no objection from
the Board in reference to that.
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And the first time we've been
accused of moving along too quickly. Thank you very much. I'd like
a copy of that transcript.
Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Summer.
Item #12A
RESOLUTION 2020-23: APPOINTING FRANK ESPOSITO,
CHRISTINE SIMONE AND CECELIA “CECE” ZENTI TO 1
YEAR TERMS AND APPOINTING KAYDEE TUFF, RON
JEFFERSON AND FELIPE ARCILA TO 2-YEAR TERMS TO
THE GOLDEN GATE CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE
ADVISORY BOARD – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 12A. This is
a recommendation to appoint the initial membership of the Golden
Gate City Economic Development Zone Advisory Board.
Mr. Klatzkow?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'll jump in on that. We have the
January 28, 2020
Page 21
economic zone that requires a seven-member advisory board. We've
advertised for months and months. I've spoken to the Golden Gate
Civic Association numerous times about the need to get folks for that.
We have six people that have volunteered, and so I would make a
motion to appoint those six as we still continue to get the seventh
member.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we -- I'm sorry. We do need to
assign terms to those members. So the ordinance requires -- or we're
asking for appointments of three members for a one-year term and
three members for a two-year term.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wow.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And I have no particular
recommendation in reference to that. So why don't we just arbitrarily
pick three names --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Eeny, meeny, miny, moe?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- for a three-year term. The first
three on the list for three years --
MR. OCHS: Two years.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- for one year.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. There's three for one year and three for two
years.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Read off three names for
one year, and then --
MR. OCHS: Frank Esposito, Christine Simone, and Cecelia
Zenti.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Three for the two years?
MR. OCHS: Kaydee Tuff, Ron Jefferson, Felipe Arcila.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Anyone registered to
speak on this?
MR. MILLER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Any comments from the
January 28, 2020
Page 22
Commission?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just a quick question --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and this is more semantics
than anything. I know we had talked about a seven-member
committee, and we're -- there aren't people lining up to join. I'm
trying to -- I want you to hear this, so...
There aren't people lining up to join. What about adjusting the
process to a five-member committee with alternate since you have six
that are already here?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, let's let them meet. I think
we'll get to seven.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Especially once they have their
first organizational meeting. They'll find somebody.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm fine with that. I just --
when I was reading the process and how hard it was to get people, I
thought maybe we'd just do five, so...
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and a
second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
January 28, 2020
Page 23
Item #12B
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE, AND
BRING BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING, AN AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-25, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER ORDINANCE, THAT WOULD
REVISE THE HEARING EXAMINER’S POWERS AND DUTIES
AND ESTABLISH DIRECTIVES REGARDING THE HEARING
EXAMINER’S CONDUCT – MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
NEXT BCC MEETING – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 12B, which was previously
16K3. This was moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner
McDaniel's request. It is a recommendation to direct the County
Attorney to advertise for a future public hearing and amendment to
the Collier County Hearing Examiner ordinance that would revise the
Hearing Examiner's powers and duties and establish directives
regarding the Hearing Examiner's conduct.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I had a meeting
with Mark Strain, breakfast, I think, 10 days ago, and one of the
suggestions that came out of that breakfast was that we give
consideration to not replacing the Hearing Examiner. Just because
we have an ordinance doesn't mean we have to plug somebody into
the spot.
And he felt that with the input from our very learned Planning
Commission and the parameters set up by us as the Board, we could
have senior staff sign off on ministerial and administrative
decision-making with regard to our code, an established set of
parameters coming to us from the Planning Commission and get
January 28, 2020
Page 24
through the process and not just reappoint -- or put somebody in there
because we have this particular ordinance.
And I want to -- I want to make one point very clear, because
folks have -- and you're looking at me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I am.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The intent here is to not plow
everything that was going to the Hearing Examiner and logjam in the
Planning Commission. That is not the intent by any stretch. The
intent here is just simply, we don't necessarily have to fill the
position. And his suggestion was utilizing the Planning Commission
to establish the parameters for our staff to be able to make these
decisions administratively and not plow everything back into the
Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis, you were
looking at Commissioner McDaniel. I assume that means you have a
comment.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, two things: I mean, one is
that I think that the whole intent of the original Hearing Examiner's
ordinance was to provide some mechanism where these smaller -- I
call them smaller matters -- more administrative matters can be dealt
with quickly without bogging down the agendas for the Planning
Commission and yet provide some review and some public input into
that process.
You know, we've had a Hearing Officer for I don't know how
many years now, and the former hearing officer is now saying that
we shouldn't have one. So I just think that this is a position that I
think is needed. For example, if someone's coming for a boat dock
extension and there's a large Planning Commission hearing that's
going to take three or four days, you know, I just think it behooves us
to have this on a more as-needed basis but have this as an option for
landowners that need a parking exemption or some minor site plan
January 28, 2020
Page 25
deviation that doesn't really require a full-blown hearing before the
Planning Commission. That's all.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. I'm a little surprised at the
Draconian change to this ordinance. The additional duties that -- the
Hearing Examiner -- I understand that the concept, though, is that
they would be subcontracted. So when we get on the phone and talk
to the Hearing Examiner about anything, the clock runs; is that
correct?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah, that's my understanding.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The hourly rate is what we proposed
bringing to you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So is that why we're not
permitting the Board of County Commissioners to -- or the County
Manager or the County Attorney to talk to this individual?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I think the revisions to the
ordinance were to make the Hearing Examiner sit as a judge, which is
what Hearing Examiners do in every other county that I've ever heard
of. I mean, I think if we all have questions regarding land-use issues,
I mean, we have, I think, one of the most professional staffs in the
state, and that would be more appropriate to be directed to our staff
than the Hearing Examiner who is charged with sitting as a judge and
being impartial. That's the only intent behind that is I always thought
that there were issues with the judge also being the advisor and that,
in my opinion, just wasn't -- it wasn't the right way to do it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I would agree, but five,
which has been crossed through, basically said you can talk to the
Hearing Examiner unless there's an issue coming before the Board
and, therefore, I don't see why we deleted 5.
MR. KLATZKOW: The idea is to separate the Hearing
Examiner, as Commissioner Solis said.
January 28, 2020
Page 26
Mark's role was very unique. Chairman of the Planning
Commission. He also had an office over at Horseshoe. People would
come and talk to him. Commissioner Solis's idea was, no, we need
more of a judge in this role than anything else. And the idea, you
would not be talking to the Hearing Examiner. If you had a land-use
question, you'd be talking to your -- Mr. Ochs's staff on these things
or my staff.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's just the concept.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm sorry?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's just the concept. We're moving
away towards a judicial type of appointment.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have to say, in all sincerity, I
thought my idea was really wonderful, and wasn't -- I didn't spend a
lot of time in the actual Draconian adjustments to the ordinance, as
you referred.
I would like to ask our Deputy County Manager, from a
historical standpoint, one of the propositions that came -- because we
talked about this yesterday, about an alternative to -- before Mark
actually became -- before we actually did -- I don't want to use Mark
personally, but as our Hearing Examiner.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioner. One of
the proposals originally discussed was to have three signatures sign
off. It would be the county --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Say that again.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To have three signatures sign off,
which would be the County Attorney, the zoning director, and the
county engineer. And I think feedback from the Board at the time
was not to make that administrative. They wanted it to be more of a
hearing that people could attend to. So that was the debate that took
place or the discussion that took place at the time.
January 28, 2020
Page 27
If it was just three signatures, could you still schedule a hearing,
or would it be more appropriate to have one individual actually
advertise the hearing so the public could attend. And at the time the
Board felt that the Hearing Examiner could at least advertise that
hearing versus the three-signature administrative review.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I do concur,
Commissioner Solis, with the public input process, because
sometimes when somebody wants to extend a boat dock, maybe the
neighbor doesn't want it, and that would -- that would be a little bit of
an interesting issue for our staff to have to deal with, even with the
set of parameters. So may I ask that we continue this item until our
next meeting and I can review the Draconian adjustments, and then
maybe we can have a little further input as to how to manage it.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, we'll see if there's a
consensus. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I concur. So I've had many
questions about this, and it seems to be circling right around what
you're saying as well, and Penny. So I would love to have it brought
back to us so we could discuss it further.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And while we -- if that's -- the
majority of the Board agrees to that, I would also like a copy of other
Hearing Examiners' contracts in other communities so that we can
take a look at how they're doing it, please.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We'll entertain in just a moment a
motion to continue this. I would say that if you look as close as Lee
County, there's a tremendous amount of separation between Lee
County commissioners and their Hearing Examiner. They even have
ordinances that prohibit developers from talking to commissioners,
so --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You can't even go see --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: There's a lot of separation. And I
January 28, 2020
Page 28
agree with Commissioner Solis that this is the way to go. We would
have a contract. We would use the Hearing Examiner on an
as-needed basis. So we have a motion to continue. Do we have a
speaker?
MR. MILLER: No, sir. Not on this item.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion to continue. All
in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Then we'll have this on the next
agenda.
MR. KLATZKOW: And we have a timing issue. Do you still
want the County Manager to search for a Hearing Examiner?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This was my -- and is this going to
hold up any -- I mean, are there applications out there that, if we put
this off, will be held up because we're going to continue it?
MR. OCHS: No. We're still pursuing the recruitment as we
speak. I mean, if you modify the ordinance, we'll make sure that
those are built into the selection process and the recruitment process.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'm just concerned that if
there's pending applications for one of the matters that the Hearing
Officer hears, that it's in limbo while we're --
MR. OCHS: Oh, those -- yeah. Those will just go to the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So we'll hear that item
January 28, 2020
Page 29
net -- at our next meeting. Commissioner -- I mean, Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We'll try to get as many examples to you
between now and the next meeting of other counties as we can.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have some of those, and I'd be
willing to share those. I'll send them, what I've collected, to the
County Manager, and he can distribute them.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 7 this
morning, public comments on general topics not on the current or
future agenda.
MR. MILLER: We have no net registered speakers on this item.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Where's my Rae Ann?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Board has become so
efficient that they're ahead of their time-certain schedule. We don't
have any other items.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We will stand in recess
until 10 o'clock to give the court reporter a break, because it's going
to be a long morning after that. So we will be back at 10:00.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had from 9:46 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. If
we could get everybody to please come to order. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're going to proceed as quickly
January 28, 2020
Page 30
as possible through this. This is a very important decision we're
going to be making, so I want to make sure everybody has an
opportunity to say their piece.
We're going to work straight through until noon, and then at
noon we're going to take a lunch break.
Mr. Ochs, if you could give us a little guidance on the
procedures.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
ITEMS #9A, #9B, #11B AND #11C WERE ALL HEARD
TOGETHER WITH SEPARATE MOTIONS
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2020-24: DESIGNATING 997.53 ACRES WITHIN
THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING
OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING
AREA, TO BE KNOWN AS THE RIVERGRASS VILLAGE
STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, WHICH WILL ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 2,500 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 250 WILL BE
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS; A MAXIMUM OF 80,000 SQUARE
FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN THE VILLAGE
CENTER AND A MINIMUM OF 62,500 SQUARE FEET OF
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN THE VILLAGE CENTER;
A MINIMUM OF 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC,
GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES; SENIOR
HOUSING INCLUDING ADULT LIVING FACILITIES AND
CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES SUBJECT
TO A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.45 IN PLACE OF A
MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE; AND AN 18 HOLE GOLF
January 28, 2020
Page 31
COURSE; ALL SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PM PEAK HOUR
TRIP CAP; AND APPROVING THE STEWARDSHIP
RECEIVING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR RIVERGRASS
VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA AND
ESTABLISHING THAT 6198.08 STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ARE
BEING UTILIZED BY THE DESIGNATION OF THE
RIVERGRASS VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 45TH
AVENUE NE AND NORTH OF 26TH AVENUE NE, ALL EAST
OF DESOTO BOULEVARD IN SECTIONS 10, 14, 15, 22, 23,
AND 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA – ADOPTED
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2020-25: AMENDING STEWARDSHIP SENDING
AREA 15 (“CLH & CDC SSA 15”) IN THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT (RLSA), BY
REDUCING THE ACREAGE BY 5.6 ACRES, BY RE-
DESIGNATING 5,253.4 ACRES THEREIN AS “CLH & CDC SSA
15”, BY REMOVING ADDITIONAL LAND USE LAYERS AND
PROVIDING FOR RESTORATION TO INCREASE THE
STEWARDSHIP CREDITS, BY APPROVING AN AMENDED
AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT, EASEMENT
AGREEMENT, AND ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR CLH & CDC
SSA 15 AND ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF CREDITS
GENERATED BY THE DESIGNATION OF SAID
STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA – ADOPTED
Item #11B
January 28, 2020
Page 32
AN AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT TO PROVIDE POTABLE WATER,
WASTEWATER AND IRRIGATION WATER UTILITY
SERVICES TO THE BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT –
APPROVED
Item #11C
LANDOWNER AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER LAND
HOLDINGS, LTD AND CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC,
(LANDOWNER) THAT WILL PROVIDE MITIGATION IN THE
FORM OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DONATIONS AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT FOR PORTIONS OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND
BIG CYPRESS PARKWAY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
POSSIBLE FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IN ORDER TO COMPLY
WITH POLICY 5.1, THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AS WELL AS
PROVIDING FOR AN OPTION TO PURCHASE RIGHTS-OF-
WAY BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE RIVERGRASS SRA
– APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this takes us to our 10:00 a.m.
time-certain items this morning. We'll hear all four of these related
items together, and then the Commission will vote separately on
them. I'll just summarize them. Excuse me.
Item 9A is a recommendation to approve with conditions a
resolution designating 997.53 acres within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area zoning overlay district as a Stewardship Receiving
Area to be known as Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area.
On that item, Commissioners, ex parte disclosure is required, and all
participants must be sworn in.
January 28, 2020
Page 33
Item 9B, one of the companion items, is a recommendation to
adopt a resolution amending the Stewardship Sending Area 15 in the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District.
Item 10B is a recommendation -- excuse me. 11B is a
recommendation to approve an agreement to authorize the Collier
County Water/Sewer District to provide potable water, wastewater,
and irrigation water utility services to the Big Cypress Stewardship
District.
And the Item 11C is a recommendation to approve the
landowner agreement with Collier Land Holdings, LTD, and CDC
Land Investment, LLC, that will provide mitigation in the form of
right-of-way donations and stormwater management for portions of
Immokalee Road and Big Cypress Parkway as well as the
construction of a future traffic signal in order to comply with the
transportation element of your Growth Management Plan.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate to begin with
commission ex parte disclosure at this point.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel, we'll
start with you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have had meetings and
emails regarding these.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Meetings, emails, and phone
conservations with the developer's attorney and the developer,
attended the Planning Commission meetings, read staff report,
received numerous phone calls and emails from constituents, phone
conversations, emails, and meetings with staff.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Meetings with landowners,
Ms. Olson from the Conservancy, Mr. Yovanovich, Mr. Huffner,
Mr. Spilker, Pat Utter, a number of pieces of correspondence from
January 28, 2020
Page 34
the Chamber of Commerce, CBIA, many, many emails and phone
calls from concerned constituents.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, I must say all of Penny
Taylor's and all of Andy Solis's, meetings and so forth with
everybody. I've done the same thing. So rather than read it all over
again, I've got it written out just in case.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And I've had the same
communications as outlined by my fellow commissioners.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mr. Chair, and I did -- I was
remiss. I've had multiple phone calls as well. I didn't announce that
in my original disclosure, but I had multiple phone calls.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Mr. Ochs, I think we're
at --
MR. OCHS: Would you like to swear participants in at this
time? Anyone who's going to give testimony, if you'd please stand.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And this means members of the
public as well.
MR. MILLER: If you've registered to speak, yes, please stand;
raise your right hand.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Yovanovich, I assume you
have no problem in hearing all four of these items at the same time.
We'll take separate votes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir, Mr. Chairman. We're
comfortable with that. And that's, in fact, how we're going to present
it, if that's okay.
Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of
the team.
We have our rather lengthy presentation to go through, and I
thought I'd just tell you how we're going to do the presentation and
January 28, 2020
Page 35
then who's going to be part of the presentation, and then we'll get into
it.
I'll do a brief introduction of the team and the project. I'll give a
little history of the Rural Lands Stewardship program, I'll talk about
how the program works. Bob Mulhere will get into the specifics
about how our petition meets both the Growth Management Plan
requirements and the Land Development Code requirements. You'll
have a brief presentation from our environmental consultant, Ken
Passarella, and then we'll do a conclusion and open it up to any
questions.
We're going to try not to be duplicative because we understand
your staff also has a presentation on how -- environmental and other
aspects of the program. So we can get back up if we need to, but
we're going to wait to see what staff has to say.
With me today from Collier Enterprises mManagement is Don
Huffner, who's the President; Pat Utter, who's the Senior Vice
President for Real Estate; Christian Spilker, who's the Senior Vice
President for Land Management; and Valerie Pike, who's the Director
of Real Estate.
Our consultant team is me; Bob Mulhere, with Hole Montes is
our Professional Planner; Dom Amico is our Professional Engineer;
Lucy Gallo did the fiscal neutrality analysis that, as you will hear,
was not only prepared by her but reviewed by an independent
consultant hired by the county as well as your county staff; Kirk
Martin is here to address any water comments you may have; Ken
and Heather are here to address any environmental questions you
have regarding our -- either the SSA petition or the SRA petition; and
Norm Trebilcock is our Transportation Consultant.
As Mr. Ochs mentioned, we have four petitions in front of you
this morning and I'm sure into the early afternoon. The four petitions
are, first, the SRA village, SRA document and attachments to that.
January 28, 2020
Page 36
We will spend a significant amount of time going through that
petition with you today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me for interrupting just a
second. For the audience's knowledge, would you tell them what an
SRA is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, I will. It's a Stewardship Receiving
Area, and I'll get into a little bit more detail about the different types
that are out there and what's before you today. But today you have a
village form of an SRA, or Stewardship Receiving Area.
The other item on your agenda is an amendment to Stewardship
Sending Area No. 15. It's an already-approved SSA which is being
held in escrow. The first -- what's being held in escrow today is -- it
has been stripped down to Ag 1. And I know there was discussion
about what is the SSA program and how does it -- how does it set
aside land to make sure it addresses environmental concerns out east?
And what was originally removed as far as development layers
was the residential land-use layer, the general conditional-use layer,
earth mining and processing uses, and recreational uses. So from
SSA 15, 5,253 acres, those land-use layers have already been
removed and put into preservation as that term is defined in your
Land Development Code set aside to address environmental
concerns.
Today you have an application to take two more layers from the
development on roughly 3,741 acres, and that is to remove
Agricultural 1, crops, and agricultural support uses. So those two
layers are also being removed from that. So there are eight layers.
We're removing the first six layers. Leaving Ag 2, which is basically
ranching and conservation, on roughly 3,741 acres.
We're also adding restoration to the program. So there is a
significant change to SSA 15 that is being proposed that is part of this
program to further preserve environmental lands to address water
January 28, 2020
Page 37
management and listed species and wetlands.
So for anybody to say that we're not --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We do have a -- I'm going to urge
commissioners to hold questions till the presenters are finished, but
we'll make an exception.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That was my point of order. Just
to see how you'd like to conduct this. Do we hold our questions or do
we --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I would prefer holding the
questions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We have historically allowed us to make
our presentation. Hopefully we will address all of your questions. I
know we won't address every question.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just so we know.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But we will.
So for anybody to say that an SSA is not preserving
environmentally sensitive lands is not accurately reflecting how the
program actually works.
I was remiss in saying that on the SRA, as County Manager
mentioned, staff's recommending approval of the village. Staff is
recommending a village of the -- recommending amendment to SSA
15.
Your next item on the agenda, which is the interlocal agreement
between the county, the stewardship district, and the developer
pertaining to -- or the landowner pertaining to water and sewer is on
your agenda as well. What that provides for is the county to provide
water and sewer service, which is part of the program; you're
supposed to have centralized water and sewer. The county's going to
be our provider of water and sewer service. The golf course will be
irrigated through our wells.
The landowner is going to prepay water and sewer impact fees
January 28, 2020
Page 38
for 250 units as part of this agreement within 30 days of receipt of a
non-appealable SRA and the required permits for the project to go
forward.
We've also agreed to convey a five-acre utility site, which Bob
will show you where that is on the plan, if the county needs it in the
future. And we will build all the internal water and sewer and convey
it to the county as is typically done in the county. Staff is
recommending approval of that. I don't plan on making a long
presentation on that issue or the SSA 15, but we're available to
answer any questions.
And the last item on your agenda is the landowner agreement,
and that landowner agreement provides for us to convey to the county
Immokalee Road right-of-way including water retention associated
with that at no cost to the county. We've already provided Oil Well
Road right-of-way to the county at no cost to the county, as well as
water management for that.
The next item in that agenda item is we're going to convey Big
Cypress Parkway in phases. This was actually the subject of why we
were continued the last time. And we were asked to go meet with
your staff to see if we can reach an agreement. We did reach an
agreement. But like all good agreements, I think we all left that room
feeling like we gave too much and didn't get enough, but we have an
agreement. I think we're equally unhappy, which is the sign that it's
probably a pretty fair agreement.
So we're going to convey the right-of-way in phases. We're
going to give or convey, at what we believe is a reduced value, the
right-of-way for Rivergrass when this SRA becomes effective. We're
going to provide a five-year reservation for the remainder of the
right-of-way for Big Cypress Parkway for the county. We will
convey in two more phases -- you know, we have two other villages
that are in the process.
January 28, 2020
Page 39
If those two villages are approved, we will convey those -- the
right-of-way when the county wants it, again, at what we believe is a
reduced value based upon two appraisals. If we withdraw them, the
reservation stays in effect. And if the petitions are denied, the county
will have the ability to acquire that right-of-way through its normal
process. We don't plan on getting in the way of the county acquiring
that right-of-way.
The other issue that we agreed to through this agreement, and
Bob will show you the details of that when he talks about the master
plan, is we agreed to an interconnection of not only the north portion
of the village and the south portion of the village, meaning that north
of Oil Well Road, that south of Oil Well Road, we're going to
interconnect those two portions of the village by our providing a
traffic signal at the project entrance.
Our concern was by interconnecting the north with the south
without a controlled access, somebody could get hurt trying to cross
the road. So we're going to build a signal within 12 months of
obtaining the first certificate of occupancy so that the north portion of
the village will be interconnected with the south portion of the
village, and then also Bob will show you how we've agreed to
interconnect Rivergrass Village with Longwater Village when it
comes through the process. We've identity-ed where that
interconnection will, in fact, occur.
Those are the highlights of the landowner agreement. And if
you have questions regarding that, we'll be happy to answer any of
those questions.
What we're here for as the main presentation is our SRA
petition. And as Mr. Ochs mentioned, staff is recommending
approval of our SRA petition with five conditions that are in your
staff report. The first is the landowner agreement, which I just went
over. Staff is recommending approval of that. Second is the
January 28, 2020
Page 40
interconnections. I went over with that. Staff is in agreement with
those connections.
Prior to the issuance of the first Site Development Plan or plat,
we'll have a listed management plan. We have no objections to that.
The interlocal agreement for utilities, there's no objections to that.
And then there were five minor revisions to the SRA document that
we have no objections to.
So we're sitting here in front of you today with a staff
recommendation of approval of all four petitions. I would like to
briefly go over the village itself and then the SRA process.
I don't know if you can see the cursor. It's not moving too well. Here
it is. Here is -- in the red box is Rivergrass Village.
Thanks, Bob.
The property is located on the western edge of the Rural Lands
Stewardship District. It's adjacent to what is going to be also the
Hyde Park SRA that you'll hear in the future.
The total project size is 997.53 acres. With it is the SRA or SSA
15 for 5,253 acres. I went over that in detail just a few minutes ago.
We're talking about up to 2,500 homes; 2.5 units per gross acre.
We're going to have 105 acres of commercial and civic uses in the
village center, which is right there. Bob will go into greater detail on
that.
We agreed that there would be five different retail uses within
the village center to assure staff that there would be a mixture of
needed uses for those people in the village center. We agreed to eight
different uses, so we would be a shopping center, and that relates to
one of the deviations we asked for in our application.
The RLSA program has a long history. It started back in 1998
when my friend Nancy Payton and my friend Brad Cornell
challenged the county's Comprehensive Plan and how it addresses
wetlands and listed species. So back in 1998 both the Florida
January 28, 2020
Page 41
Wildlife Federation and Audubon of Collier challenged the county's
Comprehensive Plan stating that it didn't go far enough in protecting
wetlands, listed species, and other issues. The county was prepared
to do a dramatic downzoning of the properties out east, and we were
basically on the brink of this long, extensive litigation.
Fortunately, there was a final order issued by the governor in
2000 that basically said, put a hold, come up with a program to deal
with the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that you're familiar with
and the eastern lands, which is the rural land stewardship area.
And I've highlighted for you the guiding principles of that
RLSA program. Those guiding principles were to, one, identify and
propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. That was the
first guiding principle. The second guiding principle was to direct
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to
protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water
regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their
habitats, Guiding Principle No. 2.
And, finally, Guiding Principle No. 3 was to assess the growth
potential of the area by assessing the potential conversion of rural
lands to other uses in appropriate locations while discouraging urban
sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from crucial habitat,
and encouraging development that utilizes creative land-use planning
techniques.
And the final real guiding principle was public participation will
be the hallmark to this planning effort. This was not to be a
landowner-driven program. It was not to be an environmental-group
driven program. It was to be a program driven by everybody to come
up with a program that would work and meet those three guiding
principles.
We went through two years of a process to come up with
appropriate Growth Management Plan policies and objectives to
January 28, 2020
Page 42
make that happen. The Rural Lands Stewardship Area addresses
195,000 acres, roughly 300 square miles, of Collier County.
Bob was on county staff and a county consultant at that time.
There were many, many, many meetings that involved all of the
stakeholders to come up with this program. It took over two years to
come up with that program.
One of the benefits of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is it
had a limited number of property owners. So you had roughly 11
major property owners. The state was one of them. They got
together with the other stakeholders to come up with a program.
Some of those landowners had property that, when I show you the
map, would be SSA, Stewardship Sending Area property. Others had
what was open areas where development can occur.
They reached an agreement on a program that would protect the
more sensitive lands and transfer those development rights to the
areas that basically are farm fields and active agricultural right now.
It was a program that the landowners said we want to have the
voluntary program that we want to participate in, and we're going to
help meet those goals and objectives, those guiding principles that
were set forth in the final order.
The citizen committee made its recommendation for the Rural
Land Stewardship overlay that is in both your Growth Management
Plan first and into your Land Development Code, and I'll go through
some of those principles and requirements.
But what's important is the program was supported by all of the
stakeholders. And I want to read to you what those stakeholders said
at the adoption hearing that occurred on October 22nd, 2002, almost
18 years ago. What did they say? And I know Nancy's here, and I
think she's registered to speak.
But what Nancy said was, we appreciate the willingness and the
responsiveness of county representatives and the Eastern Collier
January 28, 2020
Page 43
Property Owners to address our concerns. The three-year rural
planning effort has ended as a final order directed as a collaborative
community planning effort. It started out pretty bitter, but it sure has
ended rather sweetly with all of us agreeing to the same plan.
And I think this, in a large part -- and I think this is, in a large
part, due to the commission and your encouragement that people
communicate and they sit around the table. And I want to -- I want to
express again my appreciation personally and on behalf of my
organization of each one of you, and I urge you to adopt this plan;
move it on so we can get busy writing the Land Development Code
and implementing this landmark plan. Thank you.
It is, in fact, a landmark plan. It found its way into the Florida
Statutes to be a -- to be an example for what other communities can
implement when having rural lands in their program.
Brad Cornell stated, we are very supportive of the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area overlay amendments that you have before you.
We are all going to have to watch how these new policies, which are
very innovative and very creative, how they are implemented and
how they actually work on the ground, not just in theory, but that's
going to be hopefully a very productive process, and we look forward
to that, the writing of the LDC amendments that go with this.
We've been surprised at the positive results of this kind of
cooperative conservation and community planning, and we look
forward to more of this. This is indeed, as Commissioner Carter
pointed out, a model for how we would like to do things when we
have big issues.
You know, everybody has their say, everybody has their chips
on the table, and we come to terms that are agreeable to everyone.
No one wins everything they want and, unfortunately, we have to
recognize that. But we're very supportive of this, these results, and
we recommend adoption. Thank you. Those are the two who started
January 28, 2020
Page 44
the whole -- the whole process and came to agreement.
And then, finally, the Conservancy. They didn't want to be
bested by their other partners. And Gary Davis says, I can't let my
colleagues be the only ones to support this. And he goes on and says,
no, I'll be brief, because I did meet with a couple of you last week
and shared some concerns that we still had.
And I wanted to make it clear that those concerns have been
worked out, and we now feel that we can fully support the plan as it's
come to you today. It's a dramatic improvement from what we saw
back at transmittal time. Through the efforts of the DCA and through
the efforts of the various parties who have been negotiating this over
the last week, we did some hard work to get where we are today.
And as Brad said, not everybody got what they wanted, but I think
we're in good support of this plan as it's coming forward, and we urge
you to adopt it today.
That's what the plan -- that's what the Conservancy said back in
2002. They were fully aware of what the program was, they were
fully aware of whatever changes were made between transmittal and
adoption, and they were fully aware that what they spent some time
in that workshop talking about is caps on development land were not
part of program. They were also fully aware of the restoration
program and how it was adopted.
The Conservancy, in 2002, was at the table and agreed to the
program that is in front of you today that was a result of landowners
and other stakeholders sitting at the table and working out a deal.
We're here honoring the deal, and we'll take you through how we
continue to honor that deal today.
How does the RLSA program work? As I mentioned, the old
program would have been one home every five acres. You would
have had ranchettes. You had septic systems. You would have had
all the things that nobody wants as a program. That's your baseline
January 28, 2020
Page 45
program. It still exists today. You can develop under the baseline, or
you can participate in a program where you consolidate development
into a smaller area, a more compact area, and put area into
preservation through the SSA process.
On your screen you can see where Rivergrass Village is located.
It's in the black. It is 997 acres in the pink area. The pink area is the
open area. It is where -- and we'll show you it's basically farm fields
and crop production. That's where development's supposed to go.
And then in exchange for that, we're supposed to establish
Stewardship Sending Areas, which I briefly mentioned about
SSA 15, which is also being amended to strip more layers and
provide for restoration.
The credits are the currency. You exchange eight credits for
each acre of development, and that's the program that we're going
through. It results in higher density and more compact area. It
results in roughly five acres of preservation for every one acre of
development that happens on the property.
The program has very specific design criteria. In your
Comprehensive Plan is Attachment C; it discusses the four
stewardship receiving options that you can have under this program.
The first is a town; Town of Ave Maria. The second option is a
village between 100 and 1,000 acres. The very specific criteria are
up here on the visualizer -- I'm sorry, up here on your screen. Bob
will take you through how we meet each and every one of these
criteria.
Then you have a hamlet, which is between 40 and 100 acres,
then, finally, you have a compact rural development. Bob is going to
take you, I said, through the details of how we satisfy all of these
growth management provisions.
Your Land Development Code also has very detailed design
criteria for villages. They're on the screen. There are requirements
January 28, 2020
Page 46
that we provide for retail and office and civic. We meet all of those
requirements. Bob will show you how we do that. There's a
requirement for recreation and open space. We'll show you how we
exceed all of those requirements.
We meet or exceed everything in your Growth Management
Plan and in your Land Development Code, and your staff agrees we
meet your Growth Management Plan and your Land Development
Code requirements.
Now, through this hearing process, my term, there were some
what we believe are myths that have been talked about through this
review process. There's a myth, in our opinion, that walkability
equals one-quarter of a mile. The reality is, you have to look at what
does your Growth Management Plan actually say about villages and
how pedestrians and bicyclists are to be addressed. Your code, both
your Land Development Code and your Growth Management Plan,
contain exactly the same provisions.
Villages provide for walkability through an interconnected
sideway and pathway system connecting all of the residential
neighborhoods. I'm going to read to you part of the policy. It says,
villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of
housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character
to that particular village. It's not one size fits all. You look at a
village-by-village analysis.
They're not less than a 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. They
comprise of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use
village center to serve as the focal point for the community support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage
pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnect
sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods.
We provide that. We provide sidewalks on both sides of the street
connecting all of the residential neighborhoods, and they connect all
January 28, 2020
Page 47
the way to the village center. We address both your Growth
Management Plan requirements for pedestrians and bicyclists and
your Land Development Code provisions for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
The next myth that we believe was discussed at the Planning
Commission and at your workshop was that villages must provide
affordable housing. We went through a rather lengthy discussion
about the DRI process that used to be around that basically went
away in 2011, and the rural lands stewardship program is not a DRI
review criteria.
But what wasn't -- what was represented was that there was no
need to provide affordable housing provisions in your Growth
Management Plan because you had a DRI review process. But you
actually do have affordable housing provisions in your Growth
Management Plan and your Land Development Code related to
Stewardship Receiving Areas. And for both -- for all of the different
SRA types, you get your -- you get your base density, which is up to
four units per acre, which I showed you on Attachment C. If you
want to go above that, you voluntarily participate in the county's
affordable housing density bonus program that is in your Future Land
Use Element. So you always contemplated that affordable housing
was going to be a voluntary program to get increased density, and
that's how the program was always intended to work and how it was
included in both your Future Land Use Element under Policy 4.7 and
your Land Development Code.
And the very first introductory paragraph of the provisions
applying to Stewardship Receiving Areas, which is 4.08.07, that
introductory paragraph again refers to using the density bonus
program to get increased density. And then right above the table that
I showed you about the design criteria in reference to one to four
units as base density, it again says, to go above four units an acre,
January 28, 2020
Page 48
you have to participate in the affordable housing density program.
There was no mandate or requirement that affordable housing be part
of an SRA approval process.
There was also comments that somehow if this project was
approved, it would be the only project in the last two decades, I think
were the words, that didn't address affordable housing. I knew that
not to be true, because I had done a few projects in the last couple of
decades. In fact, I think I did the last DRI in Collier County in 2011
which was the Hacienda Lakes DRI, and the Hacienda Lakes DRI is
on Collier Boulevard by Rattlesnake Hammock. It was approved for
1,760 units and 587,000 and change square feet of retail and office
development. Pretty large project. It was a DRI. No affordable
housing commitment required for that project to be approved.
Sabal Bay PUD in 2012, 1,999 dwelling units, 182,000 square
feet of retail and office. Not a DRI. But most people would say
that's a large project, probably comparable to what is before you
today. No affordable housing.
2014, Town of Ave Maria, 11,000 dwelling units, 1.2 million
square feet of commercial and industrial. On the very day we added
600,000 square feet of industrial to that project, the DRI was
rescinded, and the affordable -- affordable housing requirements were
removed from that project.
So those are three fairly recent projects where affordable
housing was not a requirement. So it's a myth that it is required to be
provided as part of this project.
So where are we today about a program that was approved in
2002? And we're at basically 2020 if I got that right. It's almost 18
years. You have one approved SRA, one, and that's roughly 5,000
acres for the Town of Ave Maria which includes the university as
well as the residential and commercial development for 11,000 units.
I would say the program has worked. There hasn't been the
January 28, 2020
Page 49
premature conversion of all these farm fields to become residential
development.
You have four projects that are winding their way through right
now, four villages, for another 3,600 acres. It's not been a run to the
"let's develop and convert all this agricultural land." And what do
you have in exchange for that roughly 8,650 acres? You have
55,000 acres in SSAs. That's over five to one. That's a pretty good
program. Has the program worked? It has worked. You have what
is important -- and Bob will show you the slide on how these SSAs
all work together to preserve those important corridors for water
flow, wetlands, and for listed species.
The program as it was envisioned is working. We are consistent
with that program. We meet all the requirements of that program.
Bob will take you through the details of how our specific project
meets those requirements, and then we'll have Ken Passarella take
you through some of the environmental comments, and then we'll
open it up to questions. But you always have the ability to ask
questions at any time. So if you have questions you want to ask
now --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's hold on.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I'd be happy to answer them, or we
move on to Bob.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have three hours of public
comment, and a lot of those folks in this room are standing or may be
out in the hallway. Can we not create an overflow room so at least
they have the ability to sit? It's a long, long meeting.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Well, if staff could look
into that. Mr. Mulhere.
MR. OCHS: Sir, I'm sorry. We do have an overflow room
January 28, 2020
Page 50
that's already set up and available on the fifth floor of this building.
There's also chairs in the hallway that are set up and available. You
can hear the -- you can hear the meeting out there and monitor it on
the TVs.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere
here on behalf of Collier Enterprises, the applicant.
Before I start with my presentation, which is fairly brief, I did
want to just remind you of my role in the development of this RLSA
program. Back in 1997 when the GMP amendments were originally
adopted that then got challenged, I was the director of planning. I
was in that position through 2001. That's back when I had a full head
of hair.
I left the county in 2001 but was engaged by county to continue
in my role as the lead planning consultant for the RLSA for both the
rural fringe and the RLSA programs, and I did that all the way
through the LDC amendment process; somewhere in the range of
seven years of direct involvement and oversight in the process.
So I share that with you so that you understand that when I go
through this process and provide professional commentary with
respect to consistency with the Comp Plan or the LDC, I speak with
direct involvement in that process and in the creation of that process.
You know, the Board back, I think, 1999, it may have been
2000, they created an oversight committee, a significant-sized
oversight committee. There were 14 members on that oversight
committee, and some left and some were exchanged. That committee
had 30 public meetings all advertised with direct participation by all
of the stakeholder groups who were engaged in this process. Florida
Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon, now Audubon of the
Western Everglades, and the Conservancy. In fact, the Conservancy
actually had then David Guggenheim on the committee as well as
January 28, 2020
Page 51
others.
There were another 20 or 30 stakeholder meetings outside of the
specific committee meetings. So when the final order said public
participation is the hallmark of this program, the county took it
seriously. There were literally 60 or 70 public meetings.
So what you have before you is a summary, as Rich indicated
that I would go over, regarding the Rivergrass Village. It's
997.53 acres.
As you can see on the aerial -- I'm going to try to change the
color here. This village you can see clearly has an active agricultural
production for many, many years; farm fields.
The RLSA program has a -- your Comprehensive Plan has a
policy that says if any of that property scores higher than 1.2 on the
Natural Resource Index, which Ken Passarella will go over in a few
minutes, then those acres have to be preserved in open space, in its
natural condition. This project does not have -- it has zero acres of --
that score higher than 1.2 on the Natural Resource Index.
None of this property is located within the area of critical state
concern, which is further east and south. There are no Flowway
Stewardship Areas, FSAs, or Habitat Stewardship Areas, HSAs,
within this property.
There are no water resource areas directly within the boundary
of the RLSA. They are on the borders.
As you probably note to the north and to the east and to the
south, all of those lands are zoned agriculture with a mobile home
overlay, and they all fall under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
overlay. To the west is estates-zoned land, but now there will be a
public roadway, Big Cypress Parkway, abutting the project to the
west.
This is a fairly busy slide, but I'll go over it, you know, slowly.
The RLSA program requires two context zones: Neighborhood
January 28, 2020
Page 52
general and a mixed-use village center, and the Rivergrass SRA
provides those two context zones. Villages, as Rich said, are
primarily a residential community, which is true of Rivergrass
Village. We are asking for a maximum of 2,500 units, which is 2.5
units per acre. That density's comparable to the City of Naples from
a -- for a perspective.
We have committed to a minimum of 250 units of multifamily
which is the statutorily, and by your code, defined as three or more
units connected. A minimum of 125 of those units will be north of
Oil Well Road, and a minimum will be south of Oil Well Road,
which goes on the requirement that the village center be the intense
area and that as you move outward from the village center, you
reduce intensity a continuum until you reach the edges of the project,
which would be the lowest intensity, which is how this project is
designed.
We do provide a variety of -- by the way, all of those
multifamily units have to be within a half mile of the village center to
further promote that policy.
We do include a variety of housing options, including
single-family detached, single-family attached and, as I said,
multifamily.
Our village center is centrally located and is the focal point of
the community's goods and services. It's also located to provide
those goods and services to the surrounding community, which was
part of the intent of the RLSA program.
We are -- there's a formula in your Comprehensive Plan and in
your LDC which requires you to calculate based on the number of
dwelling units within your village, the square footage that's required
of neighborhood goods and services. We are required to provide a
minimum of 62,500. And we asked for -- we will provide the
minimum, and we may provide up to 80,000 square feet.
January 28, 2020
Page 53
You are also required to provide a minimum, using the formula
in the code, of civic, government, and institutional uses. And for us,
that is 25,000 square feet, which we've committed to.
Our -- as Rich said, our utilities, as part of the developer
agreement, will be served by Collier County Water and Sewer
District, and we have committed to a five-acre utility site which is
right there in the event that the county needs it.
The village includes an 18-hole bundled golf course which will
be open to the public. The RLSA requires a minimum of 35 percent
open space for villages. For us that translates to just under 350 acres.
And we are providing five hundred and seven -- almost 572 acres or
57 percent open space.
Along our eastern boundary, there are WRAs located there,
which is Water Retention Areas, historic farm Water Retention
Areas, that were mapped and addressed as part of the development of
this process. And we've created an innovative perimeter lake system
which is designed for stormwater management purposes and for
wildlife habitat and as a buffer. And this is allowed in both your
LDC and GMP. As you can see, that runs sort of along the eastern
boundary here.
We have a trip cap, as all projects of this type now are required
to have, coming before you, which is the overriding limit on
intensity, and our trip cap is 1,978 p.m. peak-hour net external
two-way trips. As Rich mentioned previously, we've been deemed
fiscally neutral by the county staff review and by an independent
third-party reviewer.
So there was discussions about innovation, and I would say at
the outset that the RLSA program is highly innovative. It's
innovative just in the development of it, the process of creating and
mapping flowways, Habitat Stewardship Areas, Flowway
Stewardship Areas, Water Retention Areas, protecting those areas,
January 28, 2020
Page 54
providing for a voluntary program that allows the county to realize,
and the residents of Collier County to realize significantly increased
protection on critical habitat and water retention areas and water --
stormwater areas and water-quality areas through a voluntary
program that sets those aside and reduces the allowable land uses to a
method of protection.
So it's a very innovative program and, as Rich said, it was later
on mirrored and adopted in state statutes for other communities to use
who have significant rural areas.
But our Rivergrass Village SRA adds to that innovation, not
only by complying or exceeding these requirements -- and we do
meet all of the minimums and, in many cases, exceed them by
providing goods and services to Eastern Collier County in the
surrounding areas as well, not just the village, which will change
travel patterns; by limiting the highest intensity of multifamily as
well as -- to be located within a half mile of the village center
boundary and reducing the density along the neighborhood edge; as I
indicated, by using that perimeter water buffer to discourage wildlife
from entering residential areas.
We are providing the latest in technology as part of the package
for development of the homes and commercial entities within the
village, including smart thermostats, door locks, wireless access
points, video doorbells, and so on and so forth.
We are also providing a system of neighborhood parks,
including over 57 percent open space, which significantly exceeds the
35 percent requirement, and miles of pedestrian-friendly sidewalks.
We will provide education for the residents regarding living
with wildlife and the potential use of prescribed burns for
conservation of lands that may be near us.
Significant reduction in water use when compared to the
agricultural use that historically has existed on this property, which
January 28, 2020
Page 55
benefit everybody, and providing central sewer and water in rural
Eastern Collier County not only for this project, but as that system is
put in place, it can provide those services for other and future
projects.
Rich mentioned the interconnection. This was a significant
issue of discussion at the Planning Commission. And it's a little bit
hard for you to see. I'm going to highlight it. Right here is an
interconnection between Rivergrass and Long Water Village. So
residents of Long Water can access Rivergrass Village and vice versa
both using vehicles or cycling pedestrians. So that interconnection is
now in place.
There is another interconnection I want to mention that folks
who live on the north side of Oil Well can access the south side of
Oil Well and the village center; they can do that two ways. They can
do that by using Big Cypress Parkway, but they can also do that, and
particularly for pedestrians in a very safe way, as Rich indicated,
within 12 months of -- I'm not sure what the trigger mechanism is,
but there will be a signalized intersection here at our main entrance so
it's safe for pedestrians and cyclists to cross from the north into the
south.
This slide, I think, is very, very important. It shows the wildlife
and flowway corridor. There are two significant corridors in the
RLSA. Camp Keais Strand is Okaloacoochee Slough, if I
pronounced that right. So Camp Keais Strand is shown right here,
and there's a significant volume of historic water flowing through that
system, which over time has been reduced in its width in certain
locations, and part of this process of creating these Stewardship
Sending Areas is to ensure that this flowway will be protected and in
some cases restored to allow for the continuation of the Camp Keais
Strand to function for wildlife and water.
This process of creating these thousands of acres of Stewardship
January 28, 2020
Page 56
Sending Areas where various levels of land uses are removed is --
and I think Brad Cornell has spoke to this issue at the workshop you
had. It's far more effective than small little preserve areas that are not
connected that do not provide benefit -- significant benefit or as much
benefit to habitat.
And just -- not to be misconstrued, this historic -- these areas of
historic agricultural sitting adjacent to natural areas provides
significant habitat value, and that's recognized.
Approximately $850,000 of funding will be generated to protect
panthers and enhance wildlife habitat through the Florida Protection
Program. That is known as the Marinelli fund for Paul Marinelli.
I just want to make sure I got everything. So, you know, the
example here of preserving 5,253 acres, which is over five times the
size of the SRA and no accost to taxpayers, when juxtaposed against
Conservation Collier spending 104 million on 4,400 acres. Now, I'm
not suggesting that that wasn't appropriate. I'm sure that it was. And
it's significant for the -- for this county and this community to do that.
I'm just saying this particular voluntary program provides you with
benefit at no cost to the taxpayers.
So this slide -- and Rich mentioned I'd go over those
requirements. I'm going to not -- I'm not going to be repetitive. We
talked about the size. We fall within the size. We fall within the
allowable density. We provided diversity of single-family and
multiple family housing types, styles, lot sizes. We are limited to a
floor area ratio within the village center for retail and office of 3.5, a
floor area ratio of .6 applies to civic governmental institutional uses.
This is a limitation above and beyond the square footage limitations
that we agreed to. It has to do with design when you think about a
floor area ratio.
I talked about the civic -- 25 square feet per gross -- of gross
building area for each dwelling unit, and the commercial. So, again,
January 28, 2020
Page 57
25,000 for the civic and 62,5- to 80,000 for the neighborhood goods
and services. I talked about a centralized wastewater system, which
is significant. We provide significant parks, public green spaces.
The requirement is 1 percent. We will meet that. We will exceed
that. We've got over 200 acres of lakes.
And an interconnected system of collector and local roads,
required connection to Collier arterial and interconnected sidewalk
and pathway systems, and this master plan has been designed to be
consistent with those provisions. I'll show you the master plan one
more time.
And we haven't requested any deviation from these overriding
commitments. Let me just go back to the master plan. So all of these
roadways have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and they are all
connected so that folks can walk or cycle or drive, it is their choice
throughout the villages, and now, again, we are interconnected to the
proposed Long Water Village.
At this point, I'd like to ask Ken Passarella to briefly come up
and briefly discuss the NRI.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me urge the petitioner, we've
been very liberal in terms of time, but we do need to move things
along. So if you could help us out on that.
MR. MULHERE: Sorry. I would have put this on if I realized it
wasn't on there. Just give me one second to load this. It's in. Good.
I got technical assistance.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, with your recent -- I have
a feeling that your staff is going to cover some of what Mr. Passarella
was going to speak about. So I know Ken's disappointed, but we're
going to skip Ken. If we feel we need to supplement it during a latter
portion, we'll go ahead and do that. If you'll indulge, I'll just go right
to the conclusion slide, and then we'll open it up for questions.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
January 28, 2020
Page 58
MR. YOVANOVICH: That would require me -- okay. Briefly,
just to repeat myself a little bit is, your staff has found us consistent
with both the Growth Management Plan and Land Development
Code. The landowner has agreed to all of the staff conditions of
approval. We're requesting that you approve the four petitions,
which is the SRA, the placement to the SSA 15, the interlocal
agreement with the water/sewer district. The landowner agreement --
and there's some really important provisions that I want to highlight
again about that.
At the workshop there was a question of, you know, why Big
Cypress Parkway, is this a developer road, and it was clear it's not.
It's a road that eliminates the county need to widen Everglades
Boulevard to six lanes. It's a road that eliminates the county's need to
widen DeSoto Boulevard to six lanes. In reality the county will be
saving money by building Big Cypress Parkway. It will also save the
county a lot of time and, frankly, the residents a lot of headaches of
having their driveways torn up while you're building roads that are
serving residences.
So Big Cypress Parkway is a big benefit through this landowner
agreeing to work with the county to see that happen.
And that plays into another myth that seems to come about is that
growth doesn't pay for growth. Well, that's not true. Look at the
specific project.
Collier Enterprises, through the establishment of the Big
Cypress Stewardship District, has already conveyed to the county
right-of-way for Oil Well Road and water management for that
right-of-way at no cost to Collier County. Collier Enterprises is
going to convey county road right-of-way for Immokalee Road and
associated water management at no cost to Collier County. That's
growth doing above and beyond. It's paying for above and beyond its
impact.
January 28, 2020
Page 59
Rivergrass is estimated to generate almost $59 million in impact
fees under today's calculation; 17 million of that is
transportation-related impact fees. Growth is paying for growth.
Rivergrass is estimated to generate annual tax revenue of $10
million. As I mentioned before, Big Cypress Parkway is valued at a
reduced -- reduced cost. We're going to evaluate it as if development
wasn't allowed on the property.
And the project was analyzed by not only our consultant but
your staff and a third-party reviewer to show that we are fiscally
neutral. Growth is paying for growth.
I neglected to mention earlier in our presentation, it's hard to put
our village center in scale because, you know, it looks kind of small
on the master plan, but the reality -- a couple of projects that probably
put it in perspective. Courthouse Shadows is about 100,000, 105,000
square feet of shopping center. Venetian Village is about 100,000
square feet of retail, office, and restaurants. Kings Lake, I don't
know the exact -- Kings Lake is 89,000 square feet of shopping
center. And all of those shopping centers not only will serve our
residents but will serve residents in Golden Gate Estates with much
needed services which, again, will reduce the amount of traffic back
to the west because they'll be able to go east to obtain -- to go eat
dinner, to go shopping for groceries, and all that.
This project is more than paying for itself, meets all of the -- all
of the requirements of your Land Development Code, exceeds
requirements of your Land Development Code, and is a benefit to the
community out east and is, in fact, the vision that your Growth
Management Plan has when it recognized that villages were a
legitimate form of development in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
And with that, we're requesting that the Board of County
Commissioners approve -- oh, sorry. One recordkeeping. We
noticed that after the initial packet that went to you guys in
January 28, 2020
Page 60
December, somehow there was a glitch and some of -- the older
version of the SRA didn't get carried forward. There were a couple
of changes that we just want to show you on the record real quickly.
They were in the packet for December 10th. For some reason they
didn't make it into today's package. So it's in the record, but we just
want to go through those real briefly.
Thank you, Bob, for reminding me.
It won't take us long, but we want to get that on the record.
MR. MULHERE: And -- is that on? Yes.
Most of these I already discussed.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I was going to say, if you've
already discussed them --
MR. MULHERE: There's a couple that I didn't. I don't know. I
defer to the --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The first one here you've
discussed, I believe.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And I'll go through them very quickly.
This is the limitation of the 125 and so on so forth. These on this
page -- excuse me. These changes were -- and all of these changes
were directed by the Planning Commission or staff. I believe this
eliminated clubhouses and amenity centers as an accessory use
because it's a permitted use, so we took out these neighborhood
recreation as permitted use because it's an accessory use. So nothing
significant there.
Just a reference to a footnote. And staff had requested a
minimum front yard 12 feet so we would avoid any conflict with
utilities. We provided that.
We discussed this. It's the minimum of eight retail or office
uses. Same thing there.
This is also the same footnote reference as well as the 12-foot
front yard setback. This -- your LDC requires a fairly substantial
January 28, 2020
Page 61
land-use analysis to determine whether parking calculations are
appropriate for the land-use mix. The problem is, we don't know
what the land-use mix is, so it's hard to do that analysis. It requires it
at the time that you submit the SRA, which I think was probably not
well thought out.
So at this point, staff agrees that it's more appropriate for us to
do that analysis when we know a land-use mix when we come in for
the village center. And so I had put it in the SRA document, and staff
suggested it needed to be a deviation. So we moved it to a deviation.
And so there were some minor additional changes to several of
the deviations as directed by -- or at least one of them. That's it.
That's all the changes. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now we're available for questions.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Let me ask the Commission
if you would have any desire to hear our staff position and then get
into the questions.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would prefer to do that.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any objection to doing
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is it?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're going to hear our staff
presentation, and then we'll get into questions. Okay. We're ready
for our staff presentation.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll get out of your way.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, and I'm a Principal Planner with the
Zoning Department.
And with me this morning we have a team of our subject-matter
experts, and they include Comprehensive Planning is led by David
Weeks; Transportation Planning by Trinity Scott; Environmental
Review by Jamie Cook; and Community Human Services by Cormac
January 28, 2020
Page 62
Giblin; Public Utilities will be led by Eric Fey; and then I'll close
with the staff conditions of approval.
And with that, if -- also, if you have any questions about --
related to the fiscal analysis, Amy Patterson is with us here as well.
And with that, we have David Weeks to talk about Comprehensive
Planning.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks,
Growth Management Manager in your Comprehensive Planning
Section. I just have one slide but quite a few words to say.
First of all, and foremost, staff does find the Rivergrass SRA to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management
Plan, the Future Land Use Element requirements.
As we discussed at the workshop last week, there are very
specific requirements for any SRA to comply with. These are
numerical standards, a certain number of square feet of commercial
development per dwelling unit, as an example, a minimum and
maximum size range for an SRA, density range, et cetera. All of
those absolute requirements including certain land uses that are
required to be in an SRA. All of those are provided for.
However, in staff's opinion, this SRA does not fully meet the
intent of the RLSA program. There are numerous policies within
Group 4 of the RLSA overlay and the Future Land Use Element.
These address certain what I call design elements, though they're not
all a matter of design of the SRA, but I'll call them that, pertains to
compactness, housing diversity, walkability, mixture of uses, density
and intensity gradient within the project and so forth.
These tend to work together, these design elements. If a project
is more compact, if it has a grid street system, then by default it's
going to tend to be meeting that intent to have the density and
intensity gradient.
Walkability, I want to talk about a few minutes, is synonymous,
January 28, 2020
Page 63
I would say, with walk appeal. It is more than just providing
sidewalks. And I want to give a couple of extreme examples. These
are not applicable to this SRA. I just want to get the picture in your
head.
I want you to picture Davis Boulevard near U.S. 41. Six-lane
divided highway, speed limit of 45 miles per hour, no shade trees,
sidewalk is adjacent to the curb. You are inches from the travel
lanes. And the view that you see walking along there is primarily
commercial parking lots, many of which are old, don't have trees
within them, no shade trees along the road. That's what -- in doing
some research, what one planning person would refer to as
un-walkable. No one would walk there unless their car broke down.
Point being, unless you had to. You had no choice.
Contrast that in the other -- towards the extreme would be
Pelican Bay Boulevard and Vineyards Boulevard sidewalks,
four-lane divided roadway, but you have a speed limit of 30 or
35 miles per hour. You have street trees. You have a changing view
as you're walking along. Different architect, different vegetation,
sometimes seeing a lake. Again, that all ties into walk appeal. And
the sidewalk, of course, is far removed from the roadway itself. So
walk appeal, which would be appealing to a person to walk on is
more than just whether or not there's a sidewalk in existence.
Walkability, there is a quarter-mile rule of thumb, and it's just
that, a rule of thumb. First off, there are some people that if they live
right next door to the destination, they would still drive, and there are
other people that live a mile away, and they'll still walk. There are
extremes.
And going back to the walk appeal, some people would walk
maybe a half mile because it's more appealing; not, again, a rigid
quarter-mile dimension.
And in context, the walkability in that quarter-mile rule of
January 28, 2020
Page 64
thumb is to a destination. We're not talking about somebody out for
exercise, for example, where they may walk or run for miles. We're
talking about a destination such as going to a park or other amenity
center, going to a bus stop, going to a grocery store, going to some
other specific destination to have a purpose to go there and then --
and presumably return back to their residence.
Walkability means a safe, comfortable, and convenient
environment in which to walk. And, again, walkability fits in with
some of these other design elements. Compactness. There are no
constraints that staff is aware of for this SRA to prevent them from
having a grid street system. This is greenfield development.
No reason that the lakes that are located throughout the
residential area close to Oil Well Road could not be pushed further
out and then move the single-family residential closer to Oil Well
Road, closer to the village center on the south side of the road, and
also provide more multifamily dwelling units and also within and
closer to the village center itself.
The location of the village center itself, staff recognizes certain
constraints about this project. Oil Well Road is there. They either
had the choice of creating two separate villages or creating one. So
we have to acknowledge Oil Well Road is there and it probably
wouldn't make sense to do two separate villages cutting the acreage
more or less in half. Part of the reason would be the amount of
commercial that you would be required to provide would be so small
that staff at least suspects that it wouldn't be economically viable.
And, secondly, we have to recognize the shape of this property
and that -- that is relevant to the design. But back to the walkability
quarter-mile rule of thumb. Staff is not suggesting that every
residence has to be within a quarter mile. This is like a gradient.
You'll put the most people you can within that rule of thumb of a
quarter mile. We're not saying everyone has to be.
January 28, 2020
Page 65
The provision of affordable housing, clearly it is not a
requirement. There is no absolute, but that diversity of housing as
you think back to the workshop that Cormac spoke about -- and will
speak about some today -- we think it would be appropriate if they
did provide some. It is something that is encouraged. It is something
that will be desirable from the county staff's perspective.
And, Commissioners, I think with that I'm done with my
portion.
Yes. Thank you.
MS. COOK: Good morning. Jamie Cook, Principal
Environmental Specialist with Development Review.
So as we discussed last week at the workshop, the purpose and
intent of the RLSA is kind of threefold: To protect agricultural lands
and prevent the premature conversion of those lands to
nonagricultural uses; to direct incompatible uses away from wetland
and upland habitats; and to enable the conversion of rural lands to
other uses in appropriate locations. In order to accomplish these
goals, the RLSA lands were categorized as lands that should be
protected in areas where development could occur.
Stewardship sending area lands are lands in which owners
voluntarily give up development rights in order to obtain credits.
These lands are typically considered environmentally sensitive and
should be protected.
Stewardship Receiving Areas are lands considered appropriate
for development and use credits to entitle that development.
An applicant -- when an applicant comes in for either an SSA or
an SRA, they must submit a Natural Resource Index assessment. The
NRI Assessment consists of six factors which attempts to reflect the
environmental value of the land. It's not solely intended for listed
species protection.
Each factor is scored based on current LDC regulations, and
January 28, 2020
Page 66
then an overall score is obtained on an acre-by-acre basis. Any lands
that score over a 1.2 should be retained as open space.
With respect to Rivergrass, each of these six NRI factors were
reviewed. With stewardship designation, no lands within the
Rivergrass boundary are designated as Flow-way Stewardship Areas,
Habitat Stewardship Areas, Water Retention Areas, or are within the
area of critical state concern. So every acre of land received a score
of zero for this particular factor.
For the proximity index, no lands are enclosed by an FSA or
HSA, and none are within feet of an FSA, HSA, or any public or
private conservation lands. So, again, it -- the entire boundary scored
a zero for this factor.
For listed species habitat, this factor is scored based on habitats
listed as preferred or tolerated for that particular listed species and the
documented observation of occurrence of that species within that
habitat.
Within the Rivergrass boundary, only Sandhill Cranes were
observed in their preferred habitat in the northern portion of the
Rivergrass boundary, which equates to the bluish/purple color on the
map that you're looking at.
Soils are classified based on the USDA natural resources
conservation soils maps and Water Management District
classifications. Scores ranged from a zero to a 0.3 with most of the
land within the boundary being non-hydric soil and scoring a value of
zero.
Restoration potential, again, as I mentioned last week, is only
used for lands that are being designated SSAs. So all of the land
within this boundary received a score of zero for restoration potential
as well.
And, finally, land-use land cover looks at the vegetation on the
site. Most of this site consists of active ag lands in terms of
January 28, 2020
Page 67
vegetation and receives a score of 0.2 for, again, most of the
boundary.
Upon staff analysis of the GIS data in -- provided by the
applicant in one-acre grids as well as field verification of the site by
staff, we agree with the applicant's assessment that each acre scores
below a 1.2 on the NRI Assessment and is appropriate for
development.
With that, I will turn it over to Cormac.
MR. GIBLIN: Thank you. Good morning. For the record,
Cormac Giblin, your Housing Operations and Grant Development
Manager.
I wanted to put up for the Commission the standard of review
that we use when reviewing a SRA application. And I'll bring your
attention to the very last line on the page from your Land
Development Code, it says that an SRA must offer a range of housing
types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.
How does this proposal stack up? Well, the only information we
have to go on is taken from the applicant's economic analysis, and in
that they state that they'll do -- or they plan on doing about 186 units
with a sales value of $272,000 a unit and another 1,414 units with a
sales value of $394,000 per unit.
In their assessment, they state that this sales value is 41 percent
higher than the county's median value.
The submission offers no other details on how the affordability
standards would be maintained. Those are market-rate prices. It
offers no guarantee that those prices will even remain in effect.
It is up to you as the Board to decide if that level of detail and
commitment meets the test of offering a range of housing types and
price levels to accommodate diverse ages and income. Again, it was
spoken about at the workshop last week. That is a policy decision
made by the Board to determine if what the applicant is proposing to
January 28, 2020
Page 68
do meets your individual test of providing that range of housing types
and price levels.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Eric.
MR. FEY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Principal Project Manager, Eric Fey, Public Utilities, Engineering,
and Project Management Division.
I'm going to be very brief. We have one slide to present to you.
Just an update with our northeast service area expansion project. The
map you see on screen shows the routes that we've designated to get
potable water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water services to the
various villages in the northeast service area. Construction is
underway. And we anticipate completion by the end of the fiscal
year, which will provide services to Rivergrass in accordance with
the interlocal agreement. That is a companion item to this agenda
item that you'll be hearing concurrently.
With that, I'll turn it over to the next speaker.
MS. GUNDLACH: Staff has a list of conditions of approval,
and they're the same list that was provided in your executive
summary in the staff report. They're related to the landowner
contribution agreement, listed species management plan, interlocal
agreement, and SRA document. If you'd like for me to read the list to
you, it would be my pleasure. And here it is.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I don't think you need to read that
to us.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have that in our packet.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Okay. That concludes our
presentation.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. That concludes the staff
presentation?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it does.
January 28, 2020
Page 69
MR. OCHS: Hold on. We have one more, sir.
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation
Planning Manager. I will go quickly through the landowner
contribution agreement. We have some visuals as far as the
right-of-way goes.
Just a brief review about the Big Cypress Stewardship district.
It was developed 2003 and ultimately approved by the legislature in
2004. Collier Enterprises has previously donated the right-of-way for
Oil Well Road, which they had committed to during that time, and
the landowner contribution agreement addresses Immokalee Road as
well as other roadways, Big Cypress Parkway, that have since been
identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan.
So this is just the entire Big Cypress Stewardship District, and
these business points in this development agreement is a little
different than what was in your packet in December. On January 8th,
the County Manager's Office, County Attorney's Office, and myself,
met with the applicant, and I will go quickly through the agreement
business points.
The first is, is that the landowner will donate the right-of-way
and water management necessary for Immokalee Road, which was
consistent with what was previously committed.
The landowner will construct a traffic signal within one year of
the first certificate of occupancy along Oil Well Road. They shall not
seek a traffic signal along Big Cypress Parkway within one-half mile
of the intersections of Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road, Vanderbilt
Beach Road extension, or Golden Gate Boulevard. This allows us to
maintain Big Cypress Parkway as an arterial roadway with limited
access to it.
In addition, they'll also pay $170,000 towards operational
improvements as identified in their Transportation Impact Statement.
With regard to interconnectivity, the applicant has already
January 28, 2020
Page 70
discussed -- Mr. Mulhere indicated where they will be providing an
interconnection. In addition to that, as the applicant stated, they will
also provide perpetual access for the folks from the north to be able
to get through the gate system on the south side to be able to get into
that -- the activity center. We wanted to make sure that we had that
noted so that there weren't neighborhood disputes in the future like
we've recently heard. That access will coincide with that traffic
signal installation as well.
With regard to Big Cypress Parkway, the Transportation
Element requires that we acquire the right-of-way for projects that are
identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan, so that's why staff
has consistently been requesting that right-of-way.
In addition, you've heard it probably seven times from either
myself or Ms. Lantz about we completed our study for Oil Well Road
and Randall Boulevard, and we believe that the network connections
in this area are beneficial to support the future growth of the RLSA.
That includes the future Big Cypress Parkway, and what it allows us
to do is to maintain those roadways within Golden Gate Estates that
have multiple driveways on them to a four-lane configuration.
So with that, the applicant has agreed to reserve right-of-way
that we could purchase based on the pre-SRA value. It would be a
network -- I'm looking at my notes. It will be determined based on
two -- the average of two appraisals based on the pre-SRA value.
The right-of-way for Segment 1 would be immediately adjacent
to the Rivergrass SRA. Segment 2 would be Randall Boulevard to
Vanderbilt Beach Road extension; you see that noted in yellow.
Segment 3A would be Vanderbilt Beach Road to Sixth Avenue
Southeast, which is just south of Golden Gate Boulevard. All of
these segments are consistent with our Long Range Transportation
Plan.
And the final segment is Segment 3B, which takes us from
January 28, 2020
Page 71
Immokalee Road down to the Rivergrass SRA. So we would have
that right-of-way reserved from Immokalee Road all the way down to
Golden Gate Boulevard.
With all of those reservations, the landowner would design,
permit, and construct the water management system or provide the
necessary pond sites to accept the stormwater runoff for those. The
landowner would receive impact fee credits for the value of the
property based on the average of the two appraisals. And if the
stormwater management is incorporated into the development's water
management system, they would be required to provide us easements
as well as be responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the shared
stormwater system, as well as to inspect it and provide those
inspections to us every five years.
And the final point that we have is, is the landowner will
provide a separate written notice to tenants and buyers, residential
and commercial, of the planned roadway improvements: Big Cypress
Parkway as well as Oil Well Road with a statement county will not
construct any sound wall or any other barrier of any kind to reduce
the impact or noise. And that is my final slide, and I've added
cleanup for growth management.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. That concludes the staff
presentation; is that correct?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Klatzkow, are we required to
provide an opportunity for the petitioner to ask questions of our staff?
MR. KLATZKOW: If the petitioner requests it. Typically they
don't.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That's why I raised the question.
Mr. Yovanovich, are you going to waive any questions you have
at this point?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We will just respond in our rebuttal. I
January 28, 2020
Page 72
don't have any direct questions for your staff right now.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Then I believe we're ready for
county commissioner questions, if any. We have two lights lit up at
this point. Commissioner Taylor, you were first.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. I'd like to speak to
Mr. Weeks, please.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We can hear you; they can't.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. At the Planning
Commission meeting, I believe you gave this development a D
minus; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS: That sounds accurate.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. That's what I needed to
understand. And the golf course in this development is considered
open space; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So you need to play golf in order
to enjoy the open space. The park area is nine acres; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS: That also sound correct; somewhere around 9 or
10.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can you give me an example --
and I'm putting you on the spot. Give me nine acres. What's
nine acres around here?
MR. WEEKS: Kings Lake shopping center site is
approximately 10 acres.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. That helps a lot.
And then I think I have one more question. Oh, for the
environmental. You mentioned staff observed the wildlife/birdlife on
the property. For what period and for how many years did they do
that?
MS. COOK: We did -- staff did not actually observe them on
site. It was observed during Passarella's listed species studies, which
January 28, 2020
Page 73
I believe were conducted over about a 10-year period from 2007 to
2018 or 2019.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Was that our consultant?
MS. COOK: No. That is the applicant's consultant.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The applicant -- so we haven't
verified --
MS. COOK: We have been on site, yes, but especially birds
tend to not stay in one place.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
MS. COOK: We didn't necessarily see them on site. But the
applicant did and acknowledged that in their listed species survey.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Most of the animals would be
migratory in a sense. You know, they're here today, gone tomorrow.
But we have not verified anything? We've just taken the word or the
consultant's information in terms of it. We haven't done our own?
MS. COOK: We have -- well, we don't actually do listed
species surveys. Environmental consultants are hired to do those.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So -- well, that will be a
question going into the future whether we need to hire our own
consultant to verify this. Thank you very much.
MS. COOK: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala. Now,
Commissioner Taylor, do you have questions for the petitioner as
well, or do you want to reserve those for the time being?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Later, I think. Oh, yes, I do.
One question.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Yovanovich?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So you started right off with a
non-appealable SRA. What does that mean?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It means you have -- someone could
challenge the appeal. It's approved today, there's a 30-day appeal
January 28, 2020
Page 74
period. We'll wind our way through the court system if someone
were to file a challenge, and we would hopefully prevail, and in
that -- then -- that's what it means.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So it is appealable, but there's a
30-day window?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. There's a 30-day period to
challenge the approval.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I meant.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala, I believe you
were next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
One of the things I've heard and read from all of the people that
have bothered to type a letter to me, write an email to me, or even ask
in person was, we're going to lose all of our preserved land. We're
going to -- it's just going to go away. For those that don't know,
Collier County has 79 percent of their land in preservation forever.
That can't go away; forever. And no matter what you say, it's going
to be -- saying it's going to be gone, it isn't even owned by us. It's not
going to be gone in many cases.
So I just want to tell you, I've checked and checked. That
79 percent preserved land -- all of our land in Collier County,
79 percent is in preservation forever, and that includes our water and
wildlife and panthers and all of the things that everybody's concerned
with. That stays. So --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're on the questions portion. Do
you have some questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, there's no question there.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to tell them that.
January 28, 2020
Page 75
And my second thing is, I was wondering if the property owner
would be able to work with us to maybe provide some kind of
essential service housing or whatever that you can offer to help some
of our concerns.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want to slow down the process,
but I need to talk to Don Huffner privately to talk about that, so I
don't want to --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Maybe after the lunch break you
can come back on that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Happy to bring a proposal back after
lunch or discuss a response to that comment.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala, any other
questions at this point?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just a couple. And while
you're there, I'll go with you first. There was an amendment to the
credit application for the designation of preservation or restoration.
How many additional credits were generated with that designation?
Plus or minus?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know the number if you'll let me go
back to my slides. But I'm sure Ken knows it off the top of his head.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, yeah. We didn't allow
him to speak before. He practiced for hours for that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got to get him to earn his keep, so...
I have the backup in my rather small binder, if you'll bear with me. It
goes from the existing 7,200 credits to 31,000 with restoration.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With those restoration --
MR. YOVANOVICH: With the restoration.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With the designation.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. With the designation and actual
January 28, 2020
Page 76
completion of the work.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And -- that was what I was
trying to get to.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The actual complete, yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The designation is one set of
credits, and then the actual completion of the work is another.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But the second portion of
those approved credits don't come until the physical restoration work
is done for that area.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was -- that was one of
my questions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And there's also additional credits
generated by stripping additional land-use layers to go with that as
well. I just wanted to make sure --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Am I allowed to ask more
than one question before I beep?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. What happens in the
option-to-purchase agreement with regard to the Big Cypress
Parkway in the event that the applicant doesn't go forward with the
other two villages? What -- I heard you talk about that. If you would
just repeat that clarification.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. If we elect to not pursue those two
villages, the reservation stays in place for five years. County staff
comes to us and says, we want it. We get the two appraisals. We
take the average, and the right-of-way's there for staff.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's under the same terms and
conditions as is currently prevalent?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
January 28, 2020
Page 77
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's been mentioned,
regularly, and maybe I need to bring Trinity back just, if I can, from a
staff perspective. It's been regularly mentioned that there's a discount
associated with this. Do you have an estimate for comparison
purposes for me as to that proposed discounted amount? I understand
that the appraisals are done as ag land without any development
criteria applied to them.
MS. SCOTT: I don't have specifics. I can tell you that the Long
Range Transportation Plan, based on their costing tool, has the
right-of-way for the segment of Big Cypress Parkway at $40 million.
I do not anticipate spending anywhere near that. I think that we'll be
probably 10 to 15 million.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Plus or minus. And, again,
I'm not looking to nail -- I just would like a little clarification,
because it's been regularly mentioned that there was a fairly
substantive discount. And in comparison to normal processes, if we
just decided we wanted the road, we would eminent domain, take it.
MS. SCOTT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the cost comparison with
that methodology compared to what's being proposed here is --
MS. SCOTT: Significantly higher.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On the eminent domain as
opposed to here?
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Questions for staff, and maybe this
is --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had one more.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forgive me. I've got notes
January 28, 2020
Page 78
here. And this has to do with Eric. There you are.
With the construction of the internal wastewater/water facilities, it
says that the applicant's going to construct those and then contribute
them over to the county at some stage; did I understand that?
MR. FEY: That's correct, as per our utility standards
conveyance policy.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was just going to ask that.
The construction specs -- even though the applicant's actually
putting in the subsurface, it's going to be to our specs?
MR. FEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I am now finished, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. Questions for staff. I think it
would probably be most appropriate for Mr. Weeks. I just want to
make sure that we're looking at this with the right lens, okay. So one
unit per five acres is the base zoning in the RLSA now.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And that one-per-five -- one
unit per five acres, we all agree, then, that that is a threat to our water
resources and the listed species habitat?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is that safe to say?
MR. WEEKS: That is.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We agree on that. Okay.
MR. WEEKS: If I can expound just very briefly. They're
asking for 2,500 dwelling units. If those were developed under the
baseline conditions, that would be 12,500 acres of checkerboard
development with single-family homes, which is --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: On septic tanks.
MR. WEEKS: Correct. And that's an area larger than the City
of Naples.
January 28, 2020
Page 79
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that would be a bad thing.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And that the intent of the
RLSA was to discourage and avoid that.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We couldn't just say that won't
happen because that was the base zoning, and it would probably be a
taking.
MR. WEEKS: I think we would -- the staff opinion would be
that not the entirety of the RLSA would actually be developed at one
unit per five acres even if landowners desired. I mean, there are state
and federal permitting requirements.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
MR. WEEKS: But, certainly, if we simply look at the RLSA
overlay map and see all of that pink, that open area, all of that,
certainly, we would think could be developed at the baseline.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A large amount of it would be?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And not this past weekend, the
weekend before, I actually spent some time in the Estates in the
Picayune Strand hiking around, and the development at one per five
is happening every single day, right?
MR. WEEKS: It is in places, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, I had not been there -- I'll
confess, I had not been in some of the areas in a long time, and there
are a lot of single-family homes being built on five-acre lots.
I was hoping that -- I haven't been able to get it yet. I'd asked
the -- Mr. Casalanguida if there's any way to get the number of
building permits for single-family homes in the Estates that we've
had in the last 10 years, because I think -- I mean, this was the
underlying concern and intent of the RLSA, and I think we have to
January 28, 2020
Page 80
keep that in mind as we consider. Whatever we're considering, the
backdrop is one per five, 195,000 acres, single-family ranchettes on
septic tanks, which I think is to be avoided at almost all costs. So I
just want to say that. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And perhaps you can get the
answer to that question during the break as well.
I have a couple questions for Mr. Weeks. Prior to the Planning
Commission, you -- I believe it was your report that said you were
constrained not to recommend approval of this petition to the
Planning Commission. I believe that was your report. It may have
been somebody else's.
But I'm wondering what changed from Planning Commission to
today where the staff recommendation which was, I believe, for
denial at the Planning Commission is now for approval.
MR. WEEKS: I believe that was Nancy, and I'm going to defer
to her.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioners, the staff report statement is
that staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No, I understand that that's the
recommendation today, but before the Planning Commission it was
not a recommendation of approval.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm trying to understand what
changed staff's position.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, let me take a stab. I think this last
round of discussions on the road network where now we're able to
come to an agreement to a landowner contribution for the road and
the stormwater conveyance and also the interconnections that have
been negotiated were all elements now that were concerns for us and
constrained us earlier. Now that those have, you know, been brought
forward and there's some concurrence on those, we've recommended
January 28, 2020
Page 81
approval with those conditions.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Now, the interconnection you're
talking about is where the traffic light will go?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, the interconnection between the two
villages. That was something that was negotiated after the Board
directed us the last time to sit back down with the owners and see if
we couldn't work on an improved agreement for Big Cypress
Parkway and the interconnectivity.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Mr. Casalanguida, in terms
of the developer agreement, the agreements dealing with Big Cypress
and the future dedication, I know you had some concerns about how
this was all going to work, and you were concerned about the
obligations or the position the county would be in under these --
under this type of an agreement. What is your opinion at this point?
And I do mean to put you on the spot, so I'm not going to apologize
for that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: What is your opinion concerning
the agreement that we have going forward with the right-of-way for
the Big Cypress Parkway? And then I'm going to turn to the County
Attorney concerning whether or not we would be obligated to
approve any future developments, the other villages pursuant to this
agreement.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I think all along -- and as
Mr. Yovanovich stated at the beginning, we're both a little unhappy
walking out of that room.
It's not staff's opinion that we'd like to have a reservation expire
with terms. So that's always been one of our consternations in the
communications that we've had with the developer.
That said, he modified his, I guess, agreement terms to state if
he withdrew, that reservation would stay in place, and in the
January 28, 2020
Page 82
executive summary it was modified, and I called out the fact that if he
gets denied, usually the upcharge is about 30 to 40 percent in the
condemnation case. The risk to the county is that if we have to
acquire the right-of-way, there'll be an increased cost if you have to
condemn the property.
But, you know, we are where we are in terms of what they've
agreed to and what I've requested or the County Attorney and myself
and Trinity requested. I'm satisfied that I think you've got enough
going forward that you're covering the bulk of that main section of
the road, and they also added that piece that's under Gargulio. At
first they said no. That piece that was sold to the Gargulio piece has
been added to the agreement.
So, again, if I could change one thing, sir, it would be that that
reservation does not expire regardless of what happens.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. All right. I think this will
be a question for Mr. Weeks. We have -- we have a -- if you could
describe the size of this commercial parcel. I believe it's 80,000
square feet of retail, if I understood that correctly?
MR. WEEKS: That's the maximum. The minimum is 60-.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Sixty thousand, and then there
could be 25,000 square feet of other commercial types or government
types?
MR. WEEKS: Well, there's a requirement to provide
government, civic, institutional-type uses. That's 20 -- I think
somewhere around 25,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So that's not --
MR. WEEKS: Addition.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- not part of 80,000.
MR. WEEKS: Correct. That's in addition.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: In terms of one -- you know, one of
the selling points of this sounded like -- in some conversations I had
January 28, 2020
Page 83
with the petitioner, is that there could be a grocery store there, other
types of services. What is the typical size of a Publix grocery store in
square footage?
MR. WEEKS: I'm hearing 40,000, and that sounds reasonable.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. In terms of 80,000
square feet -- and I'm wondering if this needs to be a little bit larger
commercial area, and that's why I'm asking the questions -- to
provide real services to the 2,500 homeowners, is 80,000 square feet
sufficient?
MR. WEEKS: It might be. This would fall into, I believe, a
category of a community shopping center. It's -- the square footage
would fit within neighborhood or community shopping center; it's
going to depend on the anchors. And those, for community centers,
range from less than 100,000 up to probably a couple hundred
thousand square feet. So it's within an acceptable range.
Neighborhood centers generally run as high, I think, as 120-,
125,000 square feet down to perhaps 50,000. So it's in the range of
both of those, both of which, I believe, could serve an area of this
size and possibly serve beyond the borders of their development.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I do have a question for
Mr. Yovanovich and for the County Attorney. A couple of questions
for you, Mr. Yovanovich. Is there any potential for enlarging that
commercial area to provide more services and retail facilities for the
2,500 people -- or families that would be living out there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: A couple of issues that come to mind
right now. One is I think I have to start the process all over again
because we've advertised this for a cap of 80,000. So I think -- I don't
think I can legally increase that number right now. So I have not
analyzed nor have we contemplated increasing that number above
80,000 retail and office. Because remember the center itself is
105,000, up to 105,000, which would include the civic uses -- like a
January 28, 2020
Page 84
post office and things like that that you would find typically in a
shopping center. So I think we'll be meeting the needs of our
residents as well as some of our neighbors.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Would you agree that if we
approve this, that this does not provide any kind of a precedent or
requirement that we're going to have to approve any other villages
that come before us; that this is not a -- going to put us in a position
where we have to continue a -- continue approving these?
MR. YOVANOVICH: One of the things I've been consistent
with since when I was in the County Attorney's Office to when I'm in
private practice: Each petition is considered on its own merits.
Approving this does not guarantee the approval of any other village
in the eastern lands.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Klatzkow, do you agree with
that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And a question for Mr. Klatzkow.
I've asked the question concerning commercial square footage,
whether we could ask the petitioner to expand on that a little bit.
Could we make that change?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I think you can. I don't think it's
material to the overall development.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. So, Mr. Yovanovich, during
the lunch break I'm going to ask you to discuss with your client the
potential for making that a little bit larger just to get what your
response would be.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What was -- I'm sorry. I was distracted.
What did Mr. Klatzkow say I can do?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: He indicated that we could make
some changes to the size of that commercial area. You would not
have to start the petition process all over again. So my question to
January 28, 2020
Page 85
you is, will you talk to your petitioner?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely, absolutely. That will be that
and the question about essential service personnel housing, I believe,
that Commissioner Fiala asked us to look at; we could do during
lunch.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. McDaniel; Commissioner
McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And this may help with that.
On the site plan, is there interconnection between the north portion of
Rivergrass and Hyde Park?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question is yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And so when River -- and this
is just for consideration, Commissioner Saunders. With that
interconnection for the residents that live on the north side of Oil
Well Road, they can get -- because Hyde Park will be required to,
under its Rural Village application, to have a certain amount of
commercial and amenities for those residents, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct. There is that threshold
as well. But we will, during the break, look at the possibility of
expanding.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand. And it was
just -- that interconnection wasn't talked about. It does provide for
access without having to come out on or cross Oil Well Road to get
to those that are proposed here, so it's something for us to give
consideration to.
I'm not objecting to the increase in the square footage. I
certainly see that merit. But I just wanted to let folks know that there
is that connection up above on the north side of Oil Well Road.
MR. KLATZKOW: And just for the record, this is not a zone.
The zoning here is already set in stone. So the thought process that
you can't make changes here is different than if this were a rezone
January 28, 2020
Page 86
process.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Just one additional
question for staff. Mr. Casalanguida, how do we normally look at
building roads when -- for right-of-way acquisition? How have we
done this in the past?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I'm not sure I understand
your question. In what sense?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In terms of reserving the
right-of-way, in terms of the cost of it. I thought I heard at one
point -- at one point we were actually -- the county was actually
gifted right-of-way to build these roads.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Many times, ma'am. Since I've been
here since 2004, we've seen versions where the property was donated,
including water management constructed by the developer and then
turned over to the county for maintenance.
Things changed significantly in 2011 with the state laws in
terms of impact fee credits and what's allowed and what's not. The
way they modified it is anything that a developer provides to a county
is impact creditable.
Now, the argument we had early on in terms of Big Cypress
was, in the original design, was that's going to serve us as their
primary road; therefore, they should build a portion of it because it's
predominantly used by them.
In this version it's a little different. They're going to access that
road. It will be used by them but predominantly not. They will tie
into Oil Well Road, Golden Gate Boulevard, Randall, and those other
roads. So a little bit of a modification. But we've seen the gamut in
terms of donations all the way to what you see today, which is
everything they provide is impact fee creditable.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So this change from what the
January 28, 2020
Page 87
initial was to what the developer's intention is, is that in writing how
they're going to use it? How can we control that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's going to be a public facility,
so it's open to them to use, but the way they've structured the
different villages, it's different than the original town setup. The
town, the way it was designed, used Big Cypress as a core. The way
the villages are, they use Big Cypress as connection points like other
projects would do on, say, Immokalee Road or any other road that's
there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. And also,
within your knowledge being in transportation, are you aware of a
village that is bisected by a four-lane soon to be six-lane arterial road
designed for freight?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I can tell you that projects in
the past have been bifurcated. Pelican Marsh is one of them. I mean,
we've seen that before. How you control the access to them is key. I
think Trinity did a good job of trying to line up the signals and
connect them that way. But there are projects that bifurcate major
roads.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Designed for freight?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What do you mean "designed for
freight"?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I understand the reason we're
keeping the speed freight.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Well, no. Goodlette's an
arterial collector. So you have projects that bifurcate roads but not
typically designed for freight, no.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Any other questions from
the Commission?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Saunders?
January 28, 2020
Page 88
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Before we break for lunch, did you have
an idea of what you were looking for on the commercial so I can --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Not really. You know, what I'd
like to see is the ability of people that live to the west of this village
in Golden Gate Estates being able to go east --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- to do some shopping. I
understand Hyde Park is going to have some commercial --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- and you're going to have some
commercial. But, you know, 80,000 square feet, put a Publix there
and a pharmacy, and you've used up most of that 80,000. And you're
only obligated to do 60-. So I don't see that as being sufficient
commercial to, number one, serve your development but, number
two, to help encourage people to drive east to do some of their
shopping or some of their --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- dining and that sort of thing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you had a threshold in mind, it would
be great. If not, we'll talk about it.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Just give that some thought, and
perhaps Mr. Weeks can even help with that conversation. He and I
have not talked about it, but I just -- I just thought that that might be
something that would enhance this.
Mr. Klatzkow, in terms of the staff presentation and the
petitioner presentation, our questions, we're finished with that
portion. Anything that we need to do before we break for lunch?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The only thing left you have to do is
public comment, and then following public comment, you will
discuss amongst yourselves.
January 28, 2020
Page 89
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Then we will come back
at 1:00 and begin the public hearing. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had from 11:56 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The meeting will please come to
order. We're going to begin the public hearing portion of the item.
As I mentioned before, we have four items up, and just to be fair to
the public, we decided to increase the amount of speaking time to
four minutes instead of three because we're covering four items. So
please limit yourself. You only get called once, so if you registered
for three or four items, you're going to get called once to speak one
time, and you'll have four minutes.
All right, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, did you want us to
address the two items you wanted us to look at before the public
speaks or after?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You know, that might be
worthwhile doing because that may impact some of the public
comment.
So, Mr. Yovanovich, there were two issues. I think,
Commissioner Fiala, you had one in reference to workforce-type
housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Actually, it was essential
service.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Essential service housing, okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. What we discussed at lunch was
doing something that I don't think anybody's done yet, which is to
create a down payment assistance program for essential service
personnel to be administered by the Community Foundation. We
would provide $500,000 in down payment assistance for essential
service personnel, which we've all known to be firefighters, deputies,
teachers, nurses, medical professionals. We would include active
January 28, 2020
Page 90
military, and we would include veterans in that list of essential
service personnel.
They would apply to the Community Foundation. The
requirement would be that they live in that house for at least five
years. If they didn't live in the house, then they would repay the
money.
So we would propose adding that as an essential service
personnel program to be part of SRA Rivergrass Village.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Any questions concerning
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that for each village that they
plan on building?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what I expect to happen is when I
come in here a few months -- yes. I'm expecting that that would
become part of the submittals for the other two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And the commercial. You asked us,
would we --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Right now you have a maximum of
80,000 square feet commercial and a minimum of 60,000.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Minimum of 62,5- and a maximum of
80-. We would propose -- and we also have the civic and
institutional. Those are 25,000. That's separate from those numbers.
I just wanted to make sure that's on the record.
We would increase the maximum to 100,000 square feet of retail
and office. And we would request that that additional 20,000 square
feet not be the subject of the trip cap. It would obviously be
reviewed when plats and SDPs come through but not -- because we
have not done the analysis yet as to what number needs to go up on
January 28, 2020
Page 91
the trip cap because, honestly, I wasn't prepared to do that analysis.
So we would like to add the 20,000 square feet to the maximum
number. Have that 20,000 square feet not be the subject of the trip
cap but it would still be subject to, obviously, your normal traffic
review when site plans come in.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Are there any other issues?
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's not an issue. It's just
in concert with your discussion with regard to the increase in the
square footage for commercial. I'd like to remind everybody that
traveling west over to Wilson Boulevard and no further than that,
there's approximately 800,000 square feet of zoned property for
commercial uses that's still vacant that's coming.
So as we go forward with this, I mean, I'm okay with that
increase in commercial here, and it certainly has the capacity of
drawing people out of Eastern Collier County and reversing that
bedroom traffic flow that we currently experience. But in between
this project and Wilson and Immokalee Road, there's over 800,000
square feet of zoned commercial land that's still yet to be developed.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Without any further objection, let's
go to the public comment.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I do have one --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry. I do have one other
thing to ask, and I had to have clarification on it over lunch, which I
got, because I was a little confused.
But I understand that the reservation of right-of-way at pre-SRA
prices is contingent upon approval of these different developments.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to see that waived,
please.
January 28, 2020
Page 92
MR. YOVANOVICH: We did what we were asked to do. We
sharpened our pencils. We sat down with your staff; reached an
agreement that I think I said we were mutually unhappy with. We
agreed to the interconnections and other issues related to that. We
addressed staff's concerns about the timing, and we're going -- we
think that the agreement was a reasonable agreement, and we're going
to stick with that agreement.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So there's no movement at all on
this issue?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We did not -- I guess the short answer's
no.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So that puts the burden of
the cost of these roads on the taxpayers' back?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not a factually correct statement
because if --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Unless we approve your
development.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no. Remember, you don't need
that road for our projects. You need that road to avoid six-laning two
other roads. There's an alternative corridor. This road is not related
to us. It's related to your transportation issues out east. And what
we're saying is, for Rivergrass, as each village comes through and we
have an impact on that road, we're willing to provide the right-of-way
at a discounted rate.
If we don't -- if the road's not going to be utilized by us, it is an
unreasonable request to ask us to provide you right-of-way at a
discounted rate.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why did you pay for the
amendment to the LRTP last year? Collier Enterprises paid for that
amendment.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you remember that that was related
January 28, 2020
Page 93
to a potential town?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That was not related to Rivergrass
Village. That was when you were analyzing the impact of traffic on
the town. And then you had a very eloquent explanation from Nick
about the characteristics of Big Cypress Parkway when it was a town
versus villages. It's a very different road corridor.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, for the record, Rich is
somewhat inaccurate. They're going to use the road. I mean, it's
not --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Of course they are.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- not at the extent they were as a
town. So don't -- when they say he's not --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, we could say that no one
in this development can use this road, but that would be unrealistic. I
mean, come on, please.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's go ahead and get to the public
comment. We've got a lot of speakers that have been waiting a long
time, and we can get back to that after we conclude that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have 53 registered public
speakers. I'll remind the speakers to please queue up at both
podiums. Have our first speakers, Dr. Karen and Joseph -- and John
Dwyer would like to combine their time, speak simultaneously, not at
the same time, from both podiums, and they've been ceded three
additional minutes from Fred Townsend. Is Mr. Townsend here? He
is. At four minutes apiece, that will be 12 minutes. The Dwyers will
be followed by Kent Shoemaker.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me. Only one person
can cede one person.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That's what they did.
January 28, 2020
Page 94
MR. MILLER: That's what we did.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So it's four, not --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I am going to ask the speakers not
to be repetitive. Obviously, the first speakers can't be repetitive, but
after that -- well, I guess you could be repetitive. But try to bear with
us. We've got 50 speakers, and we need to go through all of this.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a point of order, how's
our court reporter --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: She's fine. We've already chatted
about that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was concerned that they were
going to speak simultaneously, and I think that's hard for the court
reporter.
MR. MILLER: No, no, no. They'll alternate back and forth, but
they want to be at the podiums at the same time.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Doctors Dwyer.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Just to clarify, we're only going to be
taking about six minutes, but...
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's go.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Doctors Karen and John Dwyer of the
Stone Crab Alliance.
Listen to your experts. The Planning Commission
recommended denying Rivergrass in a 4-1 vote. They warned it
would be a serious injustice if we, with this very first project, allowed
it to go forward and added, now is the last clear chance for our
county to get it right. Whatever the Board does will set the norms
and expectations for future developments.
DR. JOHN DWYER: Follow their direction. Deny this
application.
They gave you three documents: A list, a letter, and a transcript
January 28, 2020
Page 95
that provided you with more than you'd ever need to deny this
project. Codes and policies violated and so on.
DR. KAREN DWYER: On Page 22, the Planning Commission
recommends denying Rivergrass because it fails to meet RLSA
design requirements of a village. It fails to provide connectivity,
accessibility, walkability, innovativeness, housing diversity, and
affordability, fiscal neutrality, and more. In short, it's not a village.
DR. JOHN DWYER: County staff agrees.
On Page 35, they conclude that Rivergrass does not fully meet RLSA
policies regarding innovative design, compactness, housing diversity,
walkability, mix of uses, interconnectedness, et cetera. In the staff's
view, Rivergrass is a suburban development plan, contrary to what is
intended in the RLSA. In short, it's not a village.
DR. KAREN DWYER: The Planning Commission at
Horseshoe voices similar concerns. Rivergrass is no different than all
the PUDs we have in the urban area.
DR. JOHN DWYER: It does not provide, given the 19
deviations requested, a viable village.
DR. KAREN DWYER: The standard of connectivity has not
been reached with Oil Well Road in there and 15 dead-ends.
DR. JOHN DWYER: I don't see this as bike and pedestrian
friendly.
On Page 249, a commissioner identifies the number one problem
as the total lack of connectivity within the proposed village caused by
the village center being split by Oil Well Road. We find it --
DR. KAREN DWYER: We find it beyond belief that this
applicant would intentionally split the village center with soon-to-be
six-lane freight road, thereby destroying everything that would make
this development a village. Walkability, bikeability, interconnected
pathways, a centrally located village center all destroyed. Instead,
the village center is not in the center but on the edge, south of Oil
January 28, 2020
Page 96
Well Road. Its customers are not just Rivergrass residents but
anyone stopping along the way of two major highways.
The Commission goes out of their way to fault the applicant for
designing the village center. Not with the village residents in mind,
as it should have been but, instead, to capture as much bypassing
traffic.
DR. JOHN DWYER: Worse yet, the design is flatout
dangerous. Rivergrass residents living in the north half would have
no choice but to cross the 55-mile per hour freight road to get to the
village center. Even if a traffic signal is later added, such a design is
a direct contradiction of the RLSA code. Villages must offer easy,
safe, and walkable access to the center without having to cross a
major thoroughfare.
DR. KAREN DWYER: The solution to this problem, writes the
Planning Commission, is an overpass, an underpass, two town
centers, or a complete relocation of the village to other lands among
the vast holdings of this applicant. The point being that this applicant
has the resources to get this right.
DR. JOHN DWYER: And county staff agrees. On Page 41,
they cannot recommend Rivergrass without the following condition:
That residents on the north side of Oil Well Road will have internal
access to the commercial area on the south side of Oil Well Road
without requiring trips on Oil Well Road or the future Big Cypress
Parkway. A traffic light is wholly insufficient and violates the policy
of minimizing signals on nearby roads. It sets a wildly dangerous
standard for future development.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Ave Maria doesn't have a traffic light.
Rivergrass must not. Ave Maria is likewise in the RLSA and
likewise on Oil Well Road. They get it right.
DR. JOHN DWYER: Regarding the remaining Commission
and staff objections, deny the petition because it would create rather
January 28, 2020
Page 97
than curb urban sprawl.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Deny it because it lacks housing
diversity with 90 percent single-family and only 10 percent
multifamily.
DR. JOHN DWYER: Deny it because it fails to move from
greater urban density to lower rural density.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Deny it because 19 deviations indicate
a failure to seriously want to meet village criteria.
DR. JOHN DWYER: Deny it because it refuses to address
affordability.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Deny it because it creates 15
cul-de-sacs, essentially dead-ends, across the which neither
automobile nor bicyclists nor pedestrian may travel.
DR. JOHN DWYER: Deny it because the applicant refused to
provide a document the Commission needed to verify fiscal
neutrality.
DR. KAREN DWYER: To conclude, listen to your experts.
Follow their direction. Get this right.
DR. JOHN DWYER: Like the Planning Commission, deny
Rivergrass because it fails to meet RLSA design requirements of a
village.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Like county staff, deny it because it
fails to provide internal connectivity for all residents. Deny it
because it gets everything wrong, from the village center to
cul-de-sacs, to diversity of housing, to Primary Panther Habitat, it
makes a mockery of smart growth and imperils future residents,
currently wildlife, and stewardship lands with irresponsible
development. It sets a dangerously wrong precedent for the many
developments to follow.
DR. JOHN DWYER: If we're going to have a city the size of
Washington, D.C., rising on the east of us, we better get it right. This
January 28, 2020
Page 98
is not right. This is not start growth. It's stupid growth. Deny
Rivergrass.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Deny Rivergrass and put Collier
County's future on the right path.
Before we conclude, we just wanted to add two additional points
from having listened to others during this presentation today.
Walkability; staff, David Weeks, nails it. He says walkability means
safe, easy, and appealing. I think we could all agree that Oil Well
Road, a freight road, lacks walkability, a primary criteria for this
future village.
The village center, relocation to its present position on the edge
was denied. When it was presented -- relocation to its present
position on the edge was denied when it was presented as a diversion
on Page 442. All the initial concerns remain. The applicant should
have to comply, not the county compromise on such an important
issue.
Deny Rivergrass.
DR. JOHN DWYER: Thank you.
DR. KAREN DWYER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kent Shoemaker. He will
be followed by Chief Eloy Ricardo.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Good afternoon. Thank you very much
for hearing my comments.
My name is Kent Shoemaker. I'm the Chief Executive Officer
of Littman Family Farms. We've been doing business in Collier
County for almost 80 years. We're an international agricultural
company.
I believe Collier County's a great place to live; been here for a
long time, and I think it takes the work of elected officials like
yourselves, concerned citizens like those of us that are here today,
and great companies like Collier Enterprises to keep our community
January 28, 2020
Page 99
thriving the way that it has in the past.
Collier Enterprises has proven the quality of their work for a
very long time. They've proven their commitment to the
environment. They are a true family-run, family-owned,
character-based company with great leadership that's looking, I
believe, for what's best for Collier County.
One of the things that we don't hear much about is the things
that Collier Enterprises does from a philanthropic standpoint, and
that's by design. They're a quiet company that has supported our
community and our way of life for a very, very long time without any
fanfare.
A project that we happen to be involved with them at this time is
Collier Enterprises has donated land in Immokalee. We are
actually -- they've not only donated the land, but they put in the --
they're putting in the infrastructure and a half a million dollars in
matching funds. We're going to build 18 homes for the same type of
folks that were mentioned before, teachers, first responders, and other
folks to help build up the middle class in Immokalee.
And, again, this is the type of projects that they do on a regular
basis that I think oftentimes go overlooked.
Business leaders throughout this county are going to watch
carefully what happens here today. We're very interested in making
sure that this project moves forward not just because of the 2,500
homes that are going to welcome our new friends and residents, but
also because Collier has gone above and beyond by donating
5,000 acres to preservation. I think it sends a -- it's beyond the
requirements that are required, especially within the RLSA, but this is
the type of things that a character-based company does, and I would
strongly encourage the commissioners to approve this project. We
need it for our county. It's the right thing to do.
Thank you very much.
January 28, 2020
Page 100
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Chief Eloy Ricardo. He
will be followed by April Olson.
CHIEF RICARDO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Eloy Ricardo. I'm the Fire Chief for the North Collier Fire
Department.
And I just wanted to tell you from the perspective of our
development review from the fire side, for the emergency service
side, I've been working hand in hand from the beginning on this
project with the Rivergrass. This development has dedicated itself to
make sure that there was safety from the beginning. We've met with
Chief Butcher from EMS. We've been on-the-ground work making
sure that we will respond and provide the service that's allowed if this
development is approved.
One that I will -- the scope of this project has never -- has
always been safety first for the professionals that I dealt with. I came
in from working -- I was appointed as fire chief in April; before that
I'm part of your team from the decisions that you made when we
merged inside of Growth Management with Fire and Plan Review
and Planning.
So I'm there. I know how this development works. I'm looking
from our scope, from Emergency Services. They've made sure that
the positive impact in that community will be to provide service for
emergency situations: Wildfires, water. In our fire department alone,
there's a station that was already permitted to build on 22nd. Their --
their move is allowing to bring us the possibility of bringing water,
which we'll be saving the taxpayers over $350,000 on a water tank
that I was supposed to install because I don't have connectivity to
water.
So we have been moving into that direction. I said it to the
County Manager when I came in earlier today. I am part of the
greatest team that works here for Collier County, and I'm proud of
January 28, 2020
Page 101
our partnership, because without that vision of looking forward, we
would not have been in these conversations. But I want to ensure the
residents here, there might be other issues, but I'm assuring you that
the safety of the public will not be a risk if this development's
approved.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is April Olson. She's been
ceded additional time from Van Williams, from Nicole Johnson, from
Ellen Murray, and from Gladys Delgadillo for a total of 20 minutes,
and she will be followed by Lorilee LeBoeuf. And, April, if that's
not the right PowerPoint, let me know.
MS. OLSON: Oh, it is.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to
speak. I'm here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida
and our over 7,000 member families.
And I just wanted to clear up a misleading statement that was
said by one of the applicant's consultants this morning. And what
year is it right now? 2020? Okay. Sometimes I lose my mind, but
I'm pretty sure it's 2020. And the statement by the applicant's
consultant has been said many times that the Conservancy was in
support of the RLSA back in 2002. Yes, that is correct. That was 18
years ago. And we do support some of the requirements of the
RLSA, but we do believe that the program is flawed as well, and
that's because the program has not been updated with best available
science.
And we've done a lot of research and hired a lot of consultants,
and we know that there are issues with the RLSA today, and we
brought those forward to you last week. So hopefully that statement
will, you know, be put to bed.
So the Conservancy owns several parcels in the RLSA, two of
which are located within the Camp Keais Strand not far from the
January 28, 2020
Page 102
proposed Rivergrass Village. And all of us folks who are wearing
green, including me, would like to see sustainable development for
the RLSA, development plans that actually meet the rules of the
program. So that's why we're here today asking you to vote for
denial of Rivergrass Village because the project does not play by the
RLSA rules.
In your packet you have over 1,000 pages associated with this
application which can be confusing. So I'm going to break it down
for you simply. Why should Rivergrass SRA be denied? The answer
is simple. Rivergrass Village project is inconsistent with the goal and
the policies of the RLSA program.
So why is it inconsistent with the very goal of the RLSA
program? Let's take a look. So the RLSA goal states that
incompatible uses shall be directed away from wetlands and upland
habitats. Instead, if the project is built, it would destroy over
700 acres of Primary Panther Habitat which scientists assert are
essential for their survival. Also, there would be additional
primary -- additional impacts to Primary Panther Habitat in the
adjacent WRAs, because that's where they plan on building their
stormwater ponds.
So why, then, is Rivergrass Village inconsistent with the
policies? I've already told you about the goal, but what about the
policies? So there are numerous design requirements for the RLSA
for many reasons. Villages that are designed with those qualities are
better for the county's tax base, better for traffic, and better for
Collier County as a whole because the village would accommodate
folks of different ages, incomes, and would even accommodate folks
who cannot drive.
And if you remember from my presentation last week, certain
benefits come from participating in the RLSA program. As example,
with the program, Collier Enterprises could build up to 20 times more
January 28, 2020
Page 103
homes than that base zoning allows; therefore, under the RLSA
program, development is more cost effective, but the deal is the
applicant has to play by the rules.
So let's see if Collier Enterprises is playing by the rules with
Rivergrass. I'll start with walkable, bikeable, and safe mobility
design requirements. Here are some of the many policies that state
villages shall be walkable and must provide safe mobility. And you
can see that the word "shall" is underlined in several places on a lot
of these. Villages shall be designed in a compact, pedestrian-friendly
form.
So how does Rivergrass measure up to those policies? And, by
the way, I'm going to give you a copy of those policies when I'm
done here. Let's see. It doesn't measure even close to walkable, safe
neighborhoods. So if built, Rivergrass Village, as you've heard,
would be bisected by that soon-to-be six lane freight road; 55-mile
per hours to roads -- mile per hour, freight-road.
And according to all of the roads in Collier County, only nine of
them are freight distribution routes, which Oil Well Road is. And
also, according to Collier County, according to their 2040 LRTP,
there's six high-crash corridors all over Collier County. Four of those
six high-crash corridors are also freight distribution routes. And they
all have traffic lights, which is what the applicant is proposing.
So what do you think is going to happen when half of the
community has to cross Oil Well Road to get to the village center as
is required by their plan? How is this safe? How is this walkable?
And here are some of the policies that state villages are to have
an interconnected street network. Do you see the word "shall"
underlined again? Now, here's an aerial photo of a truly connected
street system. This is right here in downtown Naples in our
backyard. And you can see there are many connections between the
streets.
January 28, 2020
Page 104
So how does Rivergrass measure up to those policies? Not even
close. The plan is full of dead-end cul-de-sacs, at least 15, and there's
only one direct connection from all of the surrounding neighborhoods
to the village center; one. One connection to the village center. This
plan is not interconnected.
And here are some of the policies that require innovation as
self-sufficiency. Again, the word "shall" and "require" are
underlined, so you can see the program requires innovation and
self-sufficiency.
How does Rivergrass measure up? Again, not even close. You
can see these are statements from the Planning Commission hearing.
Collier County planning staff says it's not an innovative design; this
is just taking what we do over here in the suburban Naples area and
plopping it down in the RLSA, and we don't think that was the intent.
Planning Commissioner Karl Fry says, I'm not able to see a lot of
creativity in this plan.
And Chairman Strain says, I don't see any detailed planning on
how this village center is really going to serve the community it's
supposed to serve. It's not self-sufficient.
So what do the professionals think? Don't just take our word for
it. Let's see what Collier County planning staff has to say about
whether Rivergrass meets the design requirements. In their most
recent staff report, Collier County planning staff flat out states the
following: The Rivergrass Village SRA does not fully meet the
minimum intent of the policies of the RLSA. Does not meet the
minimum intent of the policies of the RLSA pertaining to innovative
design, compactness, housing diversity, walkability, mix of use,
density/density, continuum or gradient interconnectedness, et cetera.
In staff's view, this SRA is, with some exceptions, a suburban
development plan typical to that in the coastal area placed in the
RLSA and is contrary -- contrary to what is intended in the RLSA.
January 28, 2020
Page 105
So here are the reasons why the Planning Commission
recommended denial. I think you'll see some familiarity in here.
They said, failure to remove -- move from greater density to less
density; lack of connectivity, poor accessibility, failure to be
walkable, failure to be innovative. But, most importantly, you want
to know if you can approve or deny it, and what are the legal
considerations. Well, let's see what your legal counsel says.
We have up here at the top, it says -- and I'll just talk about the
bottom part. That's the most important -- the applicant must prove
that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below.
Then there's 13 criteria. So all of those criteria.
Let's look at No. 10. It says that the SRA must conform with the
goals, objectives, and policies of the RLSA.
So, in a nutshell, let's put both of these statements on one page,
what legal counsel says and what staff says. Legal counsel says that
the application must be consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the GMP.
Now, staff says, Rivergrass Village SRA does not fully meet the
minimum intent of the policies in the RLSA. That's what your
professionals are saying.
Again, I highlighted the words. Legal says it must be consistent
with the policies. Staff says does not fully meet the minimum intent
of the policies.
So I'm going to talk about SSA 15 but, in summary, the reasons
to deny this application are crystal clear. Please vote to deny this
application and send a strong message to all who wish to participate
in the RLSA program that they must play by the rules. And I've got
another presentation about SSA 15, which is the sending land.
MR. MILLER: Hold on.
MS. OLSON: Okay. So it's important to talk about the area
where the landowners are getting the credits for this SRA, for the
January 28, 2020
Page 106
sending area. And last week I showed you why there is a major
imbalance between the benefits the landowners are getting and what
the public is getting under the RLSA program, and this is unfortunate
because the Conservancy would like to see that hundreds of
thousands of acres are actually placed in conservation in exchange for
compact, sustainable communities like the program is supposed to
do.
But the applicant for this amendment that is before you today is
a prime example of why there is a balance in the RLSA program. Let
me go back to that. But in this case, the applicant is taking this
imbalance to an extreme. This is basically a scheme to gain a
windfall of credits in exchange for very little restoration work. If this
amendment is approved, once again, the public will be getting the
short end of the stick.
Keep in mind that sending areas are where landowners earn
credits. Stewardship credits are the currency of the program, and
they are used to increase development rights up to twentyfold. Plus,
the landowner gets all of these other benefits that you see here from
the program. So the county must ensure that the process is also fair
to the public.
SSA Amendment 15 is nowhere near fair to the public. We ask
that you vote for denial of SSA 15 amendment for the following
reasons: The applicant's consultants have made misleading claims
about the true development potential of SSA 15; that's the number
one reason.
And, number two, the restoration credits the applicant proposes
to generate is nowhere near equal to the restoration work they
propose.
So the first misleading claim made by the applicant's consultants
have to do with the true development potential generated from SSA
15. And we saw this again today in their presentations.
January 28, 2020
Page 107
So these slides are from the Planning Commission hearing, and
the applicant's consultants mentioned numerous times during the
Planning Commission hearings that the conservation areas associated
with SSA 15 are five times the total size of Rivergrass. And you can
see in circle, conservation areas are five times the total acres of
Rivergrass, and then there's a picture of the SSA 15. It's real big.
They're only building Rivergrass. That's what -- you know, with
those credits. That's what they want you to believe.
The consultants showed slides during the Planning Commission
that SSA 15 only equates to about 7,000 credits, which is about the
same number of credits they need towards Rivergrass.
But what they failed to tell the Planning Commission is that they
had plans to amend SSA 15, which is one of these applications you're
voting on today, and that SSA 15 was already in process and, if
approved, would more than quadruple the number of credits to over
31,000 credits, as they just stated. One of you -- one of the
commissioners asked that question.
This slide is from the executive summary that you have today,
and you can see there are 31,367 credits that would be generated
from this amendment if you approve it.
So here's the reality. If you approve this amendment, then SSA
15 would generate enough credits to equate to five Rivergrass
Villages, not one. So that's one acre of conservation to one acre of
development.
Here are statements by the applicant's consultants that they said
during the Planning Commission in addition to those slides. And all
of these statements are misleading and lead folks to believe that the
development potential from SSA 15 is one-fifth of the reality.
Now, skip down to Planning Commissioner Karl Fry's
statement. He said, quote, the great win which is inherent to the
RLSA program is that we're preserving over 5,000 to develop
January 28, 2020
Page 108
1,000 acres. This is a wonderful win. So he obviously believed the
applicant's statements made during the hearings. But why wouldn't
he? He was only getting half the truth.
The second misleading claim is that the applicant will place
lands in conservation. You can see the applicant's consultants in their
presentation to the Planning Commission again use the word
"conservation." And this slide from another -- from the same
presentation states that conservation is provided at no cost to the
taxpayers, leading the public to believe they're providing the public
with conservation lands.
And you can see this is from their SSA 15 application today.
You can see that out of all the 5,253 acres, all of them are remaining
in Ag 1 or Ag 2. They're not going down to that conservation layer.
Zero acres.
The next reason this application should be denied is because the
restoration credits do not equate to the work proposed. Here is what
the applicant gets if you approve this amendment today. Again, they
get enough credits to build five Rivergrasses as long as it's the same
size and the same open space. They could also twentyfold the
number of homes. So at that base zoning they could build 784, but
with this approval of this application, they could build over 15,000
homes.
So with that many credits, the juice better be worth the squeeze,
right? In other words, the applicant's restoration plan better be worth
it, right?
As I mentioned to you at the RLSA workshop, the applicant
doesn't have to do any restoration to earn a lot of these credits. That's
because there's two types of credits, R1 and R2. R1 credits are
earned when the applicant simply dedicates their land for restoration,
and R2 are the credits that they earn when they actually do the
restoration.
January 28, 2020
Page 109
So if Collier Enterprises chooses not to do the restoration work,
they would get 10,714 credits, R1 credits, for simply stating their
lands are designated to restoration. That's without doing any
restoration work. And that equates to 1.7 Rivergrasses worth of
credit.
However, if the applicant chooses to do the restoration, they get
enough credits between the R1s and R2s to build 3.5 Rivergrasses.
Again, that's only for the restoration credits.
And I would be surprised if the applicant decided not to cash in
on the R2 credits and actually do the work in this case, because the
work that is proposed is extremely minor compared to the windfall of
credits they wish to earn.
On the left is a color-coded map showing the areas that the
applicant proposes would be destroyed -- would be restored, which is
2,678 acres. On the right is a color-coded map showing the areas
where they will actually complete the restoration work. That totals
about 116, 117 acres. So they would get credit for 2,678 acres of
restoration but only actually doing the work over 116 acres. How is
this fair?
Also, the restoration plan gives credits for restoring flows within
Camp Keais Strand north of Oil Well Road in the lands you see
circled on the left in red; however, the only work that they propose to
do north of Oil Well Road is to remove eight acres of exotics;
eight acres. And you can see the arrow pointing to that eight acres in
purple.
The water flows from north to south, right? So how is it
possible that the applicant -- to get credit for fixing the flows north of
Oil Well Road when all they're doing is removing eight acres of
exotics?
Well, the applicant claims they are justifying earning those
credits on the land north of Oil Well Road because at some point they
January 28, 2020
Page 110
will restore lands in SSA 14, which will then increase the flows to
SSA 15. So as you can see from this map, SSA 14 is north of SSA
15. But the problem is that SSA 14 amendment, which includes a
restoration plan, has not yet been approved.
So not only does the applicant propose to earn credits on over
2,600 acres of land in exchange for 116 acres of restoration work,
they are stating the restoration plan is contingent upon another
agreement that hasn't even been approved. Once again, the public is
getting the short end of the stick.
In conclusion, the Conservancy urges you to deny this
amendment application. Tell the applicant to stop providing the
public with misleading claims and half truths about the development
potential from this sending area and tell them to go back to the
drawing board to recalculate that number of credits based on a fair
and accurate account of the restoration work that is being done. If
you deny this application today, this will be one step toward bringing
the injustices of the RLSA program back to equilibrium.
And I have a copy of those policies and some of our statements
that we made that I'd like to give to you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Loralee LeBoeuf, and she
will be followed by Erica McCaughey.
MS. LeBOEUF: I've also been ceded some time by Tim
Thompson, I believe, and I will only need one ceding. I have several
cedings.
I'm Loralee LeBoeuf, and I am a resident of Collier County.
I'm going to address two areas. One has to do with the intent of
the RLSA program, and the other has to do with the white paper.
As you know and have heard multiple times -- and I'm sort of
jumping around here because I don't want to be repetitive from
previous presenters -- the Planning Commission voted to deny
Rivergrass 4-1. I will paraphrase this statement by Planning
January 28, 2020
Page 111
Commissioner Ned Fryer when discussing the village being bisected
by Oil Well Road and the 15 to 18 cul-de-sacs. These two things
together, in my judgment, after hours and hours of reading, what led
up to the RSLA [sic] are completely antithetical to what was intended
by the planners, by your colleagues, by the County Board of
Commissioners, and by your predecessors.
The county staff came to a similar conclusion back in
December 10 during that board meeting which was never presented.
And Ms. April Olson gave a lot of reasons why -- in-depth why they
came to that conclusion.
They are -- staff was directed to limit their review to a narrow
checklist of SRA requirements put forward by the applicant. So one
of the things that they were not happy with -- they said, one of the
things that must be noted, that in their parting words to the staff of
the plan -- the staff -- from the staff to the Planning Commission
were, we don't like the development, but our hands are tied.
The staff then stated that even though their review was limited
to the applicant's SRA checklist and even though it was not within
the job description of the consent considered -- even though it was
not within their job to consider intent, it was well within the purview
of the Planning Commission and the County Board of
Commissioners to consider intent when making a decision.
So that brings us to the word "intent." It is an important word.
It is used in our legal system by judges to interpret law, the corporate
world, and in governing bodies such as yourselves. What is the intent
of the RSLA [sic]? It is the stewardship of our rural lands. That
means a balance between sustainable lifestyle development and
ecosystems that ultimately provide financial gain to the community.
There are several examples of manipulation of intent that have
been manifested in this particular Rivergrass application. One has
been referred to bikeability. And if you look carefully at how it's
January 28, 2020
Page 112
structured, the only way you can safely ride a bike in Rivergrass is if
you put your 30-pound bike in your SUV and drive to the Greenway
in Naples. Wouldn't it be forward thinking if you could possibly ride
your bike safely in a stewardship-like area?
Another item that is a manipulation of intent, parks and open
spaces. Mark Strain, chair of the Planning Commission, expressed
disappointment there weren't parks and open spaces available to all
residents.
The developers and -- have been allowed under the system that
they may count golf courses and private lawns as open space. Let us
imagine a family enjoying a Sunday picnic on the fourth hole -- golf
hole, tossing a Frisbee to their dog and playing volleyball. Imagine
someone deciding they would like to set up a lawn chair and read a
book in your front yard because your tree provides excellent shade.
Open spaces are limited to a number of people and by invitation only.
This is a manipulation of intent.
And that brings us to the panther. Protecting our ecosystem, that
includes the panther and other related species, was important to the
writers of the final order in the RLSA.
Unfortunately, developer's proposal for -- there are not supposed
to -- they're in 700 acres of Primary Panther Habitat, and the
developer's solution to this problem is a moat and a panther fence,
presumably to protect your dog and small children from being eaten.
If the development was where it should be, it wouldn't need a fence
or a moat.
And that brings us to this one conclusion that -- to suggest to
limiting the approval of Rivergrass to a narrow objective checklist
created by the applicant and not include the intent of the program is
an egregious misrepresentation of the 1999 State of Florida final
order and the RSLA [sic] overlay.
I also wanted -- that -- in my conclusion to this section,
January 28, 2020
Page 113
Rivergrass is not an innovative stewardship project, it doesn't
demonstrate stewardship rural lands, it doesn't demonstrate
stewardship of environmental sensitive lands and wildlife habitat, it
doesn't demonstrate stewardship of its residents, and it doesn't
demonstrate stewardship of its taxpayers of Collier County.
That brings me to another subject, and it has to do with one of
the cornerstones of the RLSA program, and that is the ability to
update that program and adjust it as needed relevant to today's
science and economic needs.
Mr. Yovanovich referred to this in one of his opening
statements. He said that this was updated on a regular basis and over
the last two years and the county spending tens of thousands of
dollars and hundreds of -- hundreds of thousands of hours.
I have to find my paper here. Okay -- with the public over two
years in workshops -- involve the workshops, staff, landowners to
develop a white paper to be presented to the commissioners.
Two of the members of staff that worked in the weeds and were
very involved in this program are no longer with the county, and so
we don't have their input on this. The only thing we have is this
white paper. That white paper was completed and was to be
presented to the commissioners in May of 2019.
But that's very different from what you actually received on
October 22nd, 2019. Some of the significant changes that were
recommended by the people in the field over two years were that --
deleted -- several changes were made, including deleting several
important recommendation [sic], revising others, removing the word
"require" at least six times, and only 18 of the 51 original
recommendations were presented in the version you received.
Interestingly and coincidentally, those 18 coincided with the
five-year review committee recommendations. In other words, the
program was never updated. What you actually saw was an update
January 28, 2020
Page 114
of -- the white paper you received is very different than what was
done in the public field.
Some of the changes that were put forward by the staff that are
no longer here to advocate for these are capping of credits in each
category. And the other thing -- the other thing is requiring
tightening up restoration credits. This came out of that two-year
review. Requiring flow-way plans as part of the R -- SRA approval
process to require it.
And importantly -- another important item is engage an
independent third party to study needed restoration activity on private
lands so restoration credits can be reasonably established and
structured. This has been the song of everybody that has come up
here.
The county does not own this program because it was developed
by an -- independent landowners, and they own the program. So in
order for you to own this program, you must look at that unedited
version of the white paper and study it.
My conclusion is to consider intent, because that is what your
job is to do, and you can do that. That is very important so -- when
you look at the RLSA. And the other thing is to really familiarize
yourself with what -- some of the changes that were recommended to
the white paper.
I agree with the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Erica McCaughey, and she
will be followed by Kelly Andrew.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. I'm going to ask the
audience not to engage in applause. It doesn't do you any good, and
it takes time. So please don't do that.
Ms. McCAUGHEY: Good afternoon, County Commissioners.
January 28, 2020
Page 115
My name is Erica McCaughey. I'm a resident and employee of
Naples. I have come to speak to my opposition of the proposed
Rivergrass Village.
I want to ask you to think of the lower income employees such
as myself. This includes teachers, entry-level associates, and students
working part time who require roommates.
I would like to highlight that these people are finding it
increasingly difficult to find work and housing in the same ZIP code.
I personally know people who have turned down jobs just because
they cannot afford the cost of living here.
Do you know what would help? Diversity of housing. The
people in this room are aware that there is no strict definition on the
subjectiveness of diversity, so let's use this to our advantage and
make a standard to allow a mix of people to be able to afford
whatever diversity we come up with.
Let us re-think how we fill in this space. Why can't we change
currently sprawling Rivergrass to a density gradient with multifamily
homes and grid-like interconnections to nearby communities to make
it a much friendly and environmentally-conscious place to live?
Do Eastern Collier County a favor and bring in something
exciting to make my generation want to invest in. Instead of seeing
conservation as something we have to do, see it as something we
want to do. I want actual conserved land to protect my future air and
water. I do not consider my front yard or my golf course open space
or green space. Maybe the alligators do, but I don't, especially when
fertilizers are going to be sprayed all over my front lawn and make
sure it looks nice enough like all these other HOAs that we have in
Western Collier County.
In addition, I would like to point out one of the major flaws of
Rivergrass. Protecting natural resources and habitat is one of the
RLSA primary objectives, but here we are impeding on Primary
January 28, 2020
Page 116
Panther Habitat on 70 percent of the village.
We have been combating panther mortalities on I-75 for
decades, and you're bound to see more with the probable increase in
traffic on Oil Well Road, which is the possible six-lane highway that
slices into habitat. How are we protecting natural habitat this way?
As we start to fight the effects of sea level rise, there is a chance
for this development to be the start of something new, something
different from Collier County currently. Carbon neutrality, green
spaces, walkable community, this opportunity should not be
overlooked.
And let's finish with the buildout with Ave Maria and continue
to make it the best it can be and put future developments on hold.
My generation will thank you for not making a big, glorified gated
community span across this huge highway.
The Planning Commission recommends denial, and so do I. Thank
you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kelly Andrews. She'll be
followed by Jean Paskalides. Paskalides. Sorry about that, Jean.
MS. ANDREW: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Kelly Andrew, and I am a resident of Collier County here to express
my opposition to the development at hand, Rivergrass Village.
I speak to you today as a representative of the small but growing
population of 20-somethings in Collier County. As a proposed
buildout date of this development is still a decade down the road,
these plans are for our generation. We are not the happily retired
northerners flocking south for winter that so often settle in Southwest
Florida. We're the teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters
finding our way in new careers that offer crucial services to a
growing city. You need us, and we need affordable starter homes in
multiuse developments to put down roots and localize our taxpayer
dollars in Collier County. We will be the ones who reap the benefits
January 28, 2020
Page 117
or face the consequences of your decision here today, which will set
the standard for all 45,000 acres of potential future development in
the RLSA.
So enough with urban sprawl. We need compact
pedestrian-friendly communities where we can obtain living
necessities without hopping into our cars. Rivergrass Village does
not accomplish these tasks. The numerous dead-ends scattered
throughout the development and literal freight road that would bisect
the community are not what come to mind what the RLSAs call for
interconnectedness and effective mobility.
I am 22 years old, and like the more seasoned Collier residents
in the room today, I, too, am uneasy at the thought of crossing a
six-lane highway. I want to be able to walk home after happy-hour
drinks and reduce my carbon footprint by walking or biking on basic
errands without the risk of being hit by the traffic that will only grow
as our county's population continues to rise.
We need to see growth that promotes safe transportation by
means other than fossil fuels to keep traffic and traffic accidents to a
minimum and amenity accessibility on the rise.
We also need to grow in a way that honors our wildlife. This is
why people come to Florida. Tourism is the backbone of our
economy, and it is driven by our flora and our fauna. To date, habitat
degradation and fragmentation are among the greatest threats to their
livelihood. Seventy percent of Rivergrass's footprint falls into
Primary Panther Habitat, which best available science tells us is
essential to save the population from extinction.
I don't want to live in a place that jeopardizes the survival of the
Florida panther and other listed species to maximum corporate profit.
Their longevity ought to be a top priority when we consider how to
accommodate new residents while maintaining our paradise for future
generations to enjoy. If not here and not now, then who will speak up
January 28, 2020
Page 118
for these helpless animals who can't stand here and advocate for
themselves?
The RLSA should be about growth to support a sustainable
future for the people and wildlife of Collier County, not about
replicating existing PUDs. As it has been presented to you today,
Rivergrass Village jeopardizes our delicate ecosystems and presents
more of the same mazes of urban sprawl that our environment simply
cannot afford. For these reasons, I urge you to deny this proposal.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jean Paskalides.
Paskalides.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. I'll keep this aside. Jen Cardenas.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Don Norris? Don will be followed
by Dona Knapp.
MR. NORRIS: Commissioners, thank you.
As you can see by my shirt and my cap, I am a proud member of
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, but I'm speaking today on
behalf of myself, not on behalf of the Conservancy, though I hope
they will agree with what I have to say.
I'm a resident of East Naples living in Kings Lake having moved
here after retiring from my position as a university professor of
public policy. I've been closely following the land development
issues in Collier County and have done so from the lens of a scholar
who has studied and taught urban and suburban issues for most of my
nearly 50-year career in academia.
Indeed, my latest book titled Metropolitan Government in
America -- yes, that's a -- I'm asking for you to go buy it. Yes, I'm
punching my own book here. It came about because of my concerns
over many years with suburban sprawl and its many, many harmful
January 28, 2020
Page 119
consequences.
As a result, I've been saddened by the proposed Rivergrass
development and the several others that are likely to follow it in the
approval process. Let me be clear about what I'm saying today and
where my comments are directed. It's not just toward Rivergrass, but
it's toward Rivergrass and the developments that are likely to follow
it. These developments have nearly all of the worst consequences --
worst characteristics and negative consequences of leap frogging,
patchwork quilt, low density suburban sprawl that produces serious
environmental damage and causes increasing costs to local residents
that are utterly unnecessary.
Now to the environmental impacts that I want to address.
There's only one of many environmental impacts that I will address in
my short conversation with you, and that is the probable extinction of
the Florida panther.
The Conservancy has estimated that the additional road miles
that are planned because of all of the proposed developments, not just
Rivergrass, but all of them, could result in an additional 37 panther
deaths by automobile per year.
This is in addition to the roughly average -- annual average of 30
panther deaths per year, most by automobile. This would bring the
total to 67 panther deaths per year, among the total estimated
population of between 120 and 130 panthers. This would result in
killing between 55.8 percent and 29.1 percent of the current
population of the Florida panther of this endangered species. Even at
the lower rate, 29.1 percent, this exceptional level of mortality could
very easily cause the extinction of the Florida panther, a species that
now is relatively -- is relatively stable, possibly even growing.
And by the way, for those of you who enjoy the current lack of
white-tailed deer in downtown Naples, and in much of the area, you
can thank the panther for that, because the panther, according to the
January 28, 2020
Page 120
ranger who runs the panther preserve, says that this is the only place
in the United States, in the eastern seaboard of the United States that
isn't overrun by white-tailed deer.
Proponents of the development in the RSLA [sic] argue that
Rivergrass and other proposed developments are necessary to absorb
the increase -- likely increase in population within the county by the
turn of the century. This is a falsehood, and it's largely being
spread -- am I done?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thirty seconds.
MR. NORRIS: -- that is being spread by the proponents of these
developments. That's not -- not necessarily true because of the
almost certainly available land west of Collier County that could be
developed or developed to handle that population.
I've got, you know, other points that I could make, but
remember -- thank you.
MR. MILLER: I want to remind the speakers your first beep
you hear is your 30-second warning.
Our next speaker is Dona Knapp. She'll be followed by
Meredith Budd.
MS. KNAPP: Good afternoon, commissioners. Again, I thank
you very much for having this meeting so that it will give us a chance
to defend our beautiful Collier County.
And, you know, I've been praying that you will vote on the side
of nature; that you will continue to protect and defend the natural
systems to which we all love. And I think something very unique
about Collier County is that within a matter of minutes we can be in
nature. We can be away from the constant hustle and bustle and the
traffic and the pollution where we can actually hear the birds, we can
see roseate spoonbills and wood storks, and these things are so
important because we live in quite an unnatural world sometimes,
and we all need the chance to recharge and to renew and to go into
January 28, 2020
Page 121
these areas.
And, you know, development doesn't seem to have any respect
for these natural systems. And I'd say that the proof is -- of the
pudding is in the eating when we look at what's going on in Big
Cypress now where we're prospecting for oil in such a beautiful
place, disrupting the water systems, plowing over -- these big
thumper trucks plowing over the little cypress trees which have
actually been there for hundreds of years. Although they're very
small, they're still very, very old. And I think this is just the short
end of the wedge if we allow this to happen.
People aren't going to stay out in Eastern Collier County. Of
course they're going to want to come on our beaches. They want to
come to the restaurants that are in our area. So that the amount of
traffic is going to be tremendous, and the pollution is going to be
tremendous.
We -- the water systems are going to suffer. We -- I mean, at
the moment we can't even seem to -- we can't even seem to clean our
own water. We've got karenia brevis, also known as red tide, on our
coastal waters, and then inland we have sign of bacterias. And we
haven't sorted all that out yet. We don't know what to do with it yet.
And although at the moment it's a at minimum, but when the
warm weather comes and the hurricanes come, it's going to happen
again. And we haven't dealt with that.
And to think of building -- this isn't a village. As I said last
week, a village is something very small. This is a city being
proposed. A city the size of Washington, D.C. And we haven't
even -- we don't even know how to clean our own waters at the
moment, and now we're going to build more of this.
I mean, what are we going to do when the hurricanes come
filling in wetlands? Where's the water going to filter? How is it
going to be cleaned? The marshlands and the wetlands are like our
January 28, 2020
Page 122
kidneys and our liver. Without a good marshland and a wetland,
without a good liver and a kidney, our systems get sick, and they
eventually die. So we can't go on in this way.
And I think it's very important to preserve the land that we have.
And nature really doesn't need any help from us humans. I think
we're doing a terrible job as it is with all of this building. It's just
upsetting all the natural systems. Where are the animals going to go?
In my time here -- I've lived here for 30 years. I've sadly seen less
wood storks, less roseate spoonbills. It used to be common at one
time, but not anymore. Not even the bats in my neighborhood, not
even the mosquitoes. Everything seems to be going.
And I just ask you, please, set a precedence and do not approve
this development, and please leave Collier County the way it is.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Meredith Budd. She will
be followed by Michael Seef.
MS. BUDD: Good afternoon. Commissioners, Meredith Budd
on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation.
The RLSA is a compromise. And before you today you have
two components of that compromise. You have an SRA which is
Rivergrass, but you also have SSA 15, which is extensive land
preservation and restoration that the applicant is doing to generate
credits that would entitle the SRA.
SSA 15 is over 5,200 acres of a critical flow-way in Camp Keais
Strand that is set to be preserved in perpetuity. This means no
development, no mining can ever happen on that acreage, and most
of that acreage will not allow for any intensive agricultural. In fact,
the retained uses for over 70 percent of the SSA are limited to the last
two land-use layers, which would include some cattle crazing and
restoration activities.
This SSA also comes along with commitments to actually
January 28, 2020
Page 123
restore over 2,600 acres of the Camp Keais Strand flow-way,
removing roads to restore sheet flow, also restoring old agricultural
fields, and removing exotics.
These restoration outcomes only come with the amended
changes before you today. Yes, the credits are increased to over
30,000 credits, but this is the program, and it's how credits are
generated under the current RLSA program. And this application
needs to be evaluated under that current program, not how myself or
anyone else feels the program should be modified to make the credit
system more balanced, which the county is currently reviewing.
The federation wants to see this restoration come to fruition.
This SSA presents incredible environmental outcomes that we would
not see out of a typical development but, as per the compromise that
is the RLSA, there are credits generated from doing this
landscape-scale preservation, and these credits are generated as
articulated under this current program. These credits can be used to
develop areas of lesser environmental value.
The SRA footprint is completely situated in cleared agricultural
fields, it's directly adjacent to an already platted and developed
Golden Gate Estates, and it straddles a four-lane road, which we've
heard a lot about today, and soon to be a six-lane road.
This is the sort of area that the RLSA should be directing
conversion, and this is how the RLSA works. The applicant earns
credits that can be used to entitle development, and we as the county,
we reap the environmental benefits of preservation of over
5,200 acres and much-needed restoration of Camp Keais Strand.
The footprint of this SSA has long been targeted by the South
Florida Water Management District and the Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed for protection from development and for
restoration. This SSA achieves that goal at no cost to the taxpayer.
There are many components to this adjacent item today that you're
January 28, 2020
Page 124
reviewing. But from an environmental perspective, this does direct
incompatible uses away from those key wetlands and key upland
habitats, effectuates preservation and restoration over that land. SSA
is a win for Collier County. SSA 15, excuse me, is a win for Collier
County.
So thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Seef. He will be
followed by Jen Cardenas.
MR. SEEF: Excuse me. Good afternoon. I hope we're still
awake and viable. I'm here to speak about something rather different
than what we've heard, which is population growth and the
projections of -- by the way, I'm sorry, Michael Seef. I am a
permanent resident of North Naples, and I've lived in -- in Naples for
about 20 years.
So population growth. The -- there was nothing that I saw in the
staff presentations, in looking at PL numbers, or in your executive
summary that showed the population growth. It seems to be a secret
or a well-kept secret, because it doesn't seem to be looked at or have
been looked at.
Now, on the visualizer that you see in front of you, I've
projected population growth. And, by the way, this comes from your
model CIGM, Collier Integrated Growth Model. And the blue is total
RLSA populations. Not houses or acres, but population. I don't
know if you've seen this before. And it shows it growing from
current 2020 to 2050.
Now, there have been some projections beyond 2050, but they're
so uncertain it's like the hurricane views that you have where the
probability gets lower and lower as you have a larger and larger time
out -- time -- future time.
The bottom five depict Ave Maria and its population starting at
about 5,000 and going up to approximately 20,000. And then you
January 28, 2020
Page 125
have a straight line. I don't know if this shows it -- I can't show it
here. The straight line in the middle is the difference between the
total RLSA population projection and Ave Maria.
But I'm assuming, presuming, and I think we all should, that
some of the population that's supposedly destined from Rivergrass is
going to be taken by Ave Maria. Ave Maria has some wonderful
qualities. It was mentioned before a number of times. It has a viable
center. It has all kinds of amenities, and it's very close to Rivergrass.
So why wouldn't somebody who is considering -- one of the two
young people who spoke here before, why wouldn't they be
considering going to Ave Maria just a short distance away and has
walking and has all the things that we're looking for in the RLSA?
Population is key to this whole thing, and it determines dwellings
required. It determines acreages, and it determines whether you're
built out. So these -- the bottom four on the chart show the
populations of Rivergrass, which is approximately 6,000, and the
total for the four villages would be about close to 10,000.
And there are other competitors to Ave Maria. There's Babcock
Ranch. There's urban infill. There are Golden Gate Estates.
Commissioner Andy Solis mentioned before about building. Those
are not in the state forest. Not -- it's -- they're in Golden Gate Estates.
There's lots of room in Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. Your time's up.
MR. SEEF: There's lots of room in Ave Maria and elsewhere.
Thank you for listening.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jen Cardenas, and she will
be followed by Rae Ann Burton.
MS. CARDENAS: Good afternoon. I'm Jen Hammer
Cardenas. I've been in Naples now for 40-something years; in
Florida for over 50.
Rivergrass. Even the name of this proposed development seems
January 28, 2020
Page 126
to make a mockery of the rivergrass, which is our Everglades and
surrounding area.
It was pointed out that a huge chunk of the green space that was
proposed is in the form of a golf course, which we all know is just a
huge dumping site for pesticides and fertilizers. This is very delicate
ecosystem out there, and we all know that that wreaks havoc with the
environment. The area in Eastern Collier County is an extremely
sensitive and unique environmental area that is so important in so
many ways. It affects our water quality, our water flow; it's the only
home to many unique species of plants and animals, and it even
affects our weather.
For the sake of brevity and clarity, I will focus specifically on
the Florida panther. According to studies, Rivergrass Village would
jeopardize the Florida panther, as 71 percent of the Rivergrass area is
within primary zone panther habitat. In other words, where they live
and breed.
The panther currently occupies only 5 percent of its historic
range and is the only panther in the Eastern United States. In the
1970s, only 20 of these animals existed in the wild; most of them
right here in Collier County.
Great efforts were made to save this magnificent cat from
extinction and, as of 2017, estimated numbers were up to about 230
cats. Their extinction is not inevitable if we continue to protect their
crucial habitat. Do we want to be the generation of local government
that undid years of conservation efforts? Do we want to be the
generation of local citizens that stood by and knowingly allowed the
destruction of an entire species, a species of big cat that is literally the
designated official animal of Florida?
Here in Collier County we have a heightened responsibility to
conserve our neighboring Everglades and sensitive areas. We are so
fortunate to live in this unique place, but we also have the
January 28, 2020
Page 127
responsibility of protecting this unique place and its unique plant and
animal life. We must not allow the Rivergrass Village urban sprawl
project to proceed.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rae Ann Burton. She'll be
followed by John Harney.
MS. BURTON: Thank you. My name is Rae Ann Burton;
Golden Gate Estates. I'm three streets from Rivergrass, the first of
many villages.
I started this speech and finished it at 10:00 last night, woke up
at 3:00 a.m. this morning, redid it, and during this meeting I've
redone it again. So I may be a little confused.
The developers are so sure of themselves, they have on Domain
Realty a Rivergrass Village Naples website. No homes yet listed.
It's RivergrassVillageNaples.com.
The agenda itself has plans for utility plants because of
Rivergrass. Who builds? Who maintains? Remember, Collier took
over one before.
Affordable housing. No number giving [sic]. Not required.
State's developer. Rivergrass has 47 percent more than county
medium [sic]. January 17th, 2020, 1,152 homes for sale in Collier;
500 in the Estates.
We don't need more housing. We need cell towers. More roads.
Dense compact housing. Less rainwater absorption. Polluted water
will run into our canals from roads, fertilizers from golf courses, and
landscaping and flooding.
Plus increased 24/7 traffic on once quiet streets to get out.
States not panther habitat. Why, then, are there panther fences shown
on the plans surrounding the development? That very area is very
active with panther and bear sightings. I know. I live nearby.
An animal crossing is not an animal crossing. It is a road crossing
January 28, 2020
Page 128
through an animal habitat. We are told there's a preservation for
animals that can go. Do they know? Do they know where it is? Is it
there where they are?
Agricultural spends 120 mill per year; second only to tourism.
Destroying Naples' unique area will deter tourism.
Stressed? Yes. Angry? Yes. I'm up at 5:00 redoing this
speech, so I brought hugs. The bears represent the environment.
Color yellow. Go cautious. Included are maps are [sic] the panther
habitat and current cheaper homes for sale in the area. Sorry my
printer -- color printer ran out.
I'm so stressed about this project that it's not in the best interest
of the 6,133 neighbors listed on Next Door for the Estates. This is
our children's future and their children's future. The cry is loud. It's
from many sources. It's not a good project. Benefits the developers.
Destroys wildlife habitat. Will create a stressful, unsafe
neighborhood. Environments.
Big Cypress is not necessary. It's only necessary for them.
Promise of community centers with dense compact units, like Naples.
We already have a Naples; we don't need another.
Issue brought up on how much Collier has donated. Being a
former bookkeeper, I know. Donations and hanging onto loss --
profit-loss property creates a big tax credit. Still, they own oil and
mineral rights under our land. Developers can go home, sit on their
lanais, and look at stars and here the quiet signs.
Well, we will sit on ours and hear the traffic storm -- traffic and
sirens on our once quiet streets and breathe vehicle fumes so they can
get out of their dense compact communities. We can only recall what
was once.
Do not approve Rivergrass or any of the other villages. It's
destructible to Golden Gate and the habitat.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Harney.
January 28, 2020
Page 129
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I'll move on. Your next speaker is Lynn Martin.
Lynn Martin will be followed by Nancy Payton.
MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Lynn
Martin. I'm a permanent resident of Collier County. And today I ask
you to withhold approval of the proposed Rivergrass Village.
It seems to me, as currently designed, the applicants have not
upheld their side of the bargain struck with the state and the county
nearly 20 years ago. The spirit of the RLSA overlay calls for
innovation and smart growth. It was clear that the state's intent was
to bring economic vitality into the rural areas of the county, not to
build bedroom communities far from the urbanized coast that we
would require residents to drive for jobs and services.
Developers should not propose villages to circumvent the Land
Development Code and the Growth Management Plan requirements
for towns. The acreage proposed for Rivergrass Village is just under
a thousand which, as you know, is the threshold for a new town. By
doing this, the developers are complying with the form of the law but
not the spirit. The same can be said for the other SRA villages
proposed by the same applicant, Longwater and Bellmar. If
Rivergrass is approved, it will set a bad precedent.
What does this mean in practical terms? Under the Land
Development Code, towns are larger and more diverse than villages.
They are required to have urban-level commercial, civic, and
government services and infrastructure which support compact
mixed-use development, reduce automobile trips, and make them
more self-sufficient. Villages, by contrast, are primarily residential
offering a village center for community support services.
It is not smart growth to split a master planned town into three
separate villages with little or no interconnectivity.
The aggregation rule under the RLSA calls for aggregating
January 28, 2020
Page 130
villages into towns when the same company controls the
developments or there is a common management, second, there is a
reasonable closeness in time between the completion of 80 percent of
one development and the submission of drawing and plans for new
development and, third, there will be a need for common master
planning services such as water management, utilities, and public
services.
We have a situation developing in the RLSA where three almost
contiguous villages are being proposed with combined acreage of a
town but without the amenities required of a town. The applicant can
and must do better.
Please do not approve this plan today.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Nancy Payton, and she'll
be followed by Tamara Paquette.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing
Nancy Payton.
I'm here today to urge adoption of Sending Area 15 resolution
and, by extension, approve -- because it is a package deal. These are
four components under consideration -- the Rivergrass Village SRA,
the water/sewer services agreement, and the Big Cypress agreement
which stops at Bellmar. It's the Golden Gate Boulevard. It doesn't go
further south.
Although staff found Rivergrass consistent with the current
Growth Management Plan, staff also characterized the village, for the
most part, as being a typical suburban development. Well, I disagree.
No typical suburban development brings to the table over 5,000 acres
of forever-protected and maintained wildlife habitat, that's
functioning habitat, and wetlands. And of that, half those acres are
going to be restored to their natural values.
On the visualizer is a page from the Florida Forever Program.
In 1990, February 1990, 30 years ago, CREW, including the Camp
January 28, 2020
Page 131
Keais Strand, was added to the then conservation and recreation lands
priority acquisition list. CARL, as it was commonly called, is now
the Florida Forever Program.
And if you look at what is in this summary, it acknowledges that
the initial focus of the CREW land acquisition is on the Camp Keais
Strand corridor. That's how important Camp Keais Strand has been
for 30 years. And when CREW went on the Florida -- now Florida
Forever list, that was the priority acquisition area. And it was
composed, is, of 18,205 acres that connect CREW lands in the north
to the panther refuge in the south, and Fakahatchee Strand and
Picayune Strand. It's a regional connection, a regional link.
Next one, Leo.
The Camp Keais Strand map that's now on the visualizer was
produced by the South Florida Water Management District which
manages the CREW lands, and it shows the CREW lands in yellow,
and in the red hatch are the SSAs, the sending areas. Sending Area
15, I've handwritten, overlapped in black, just so you can see how
essential and critical it is in that habitat link.
Fifteen and the seven other sending areas that I believe are
within that boundary total 26,130 acres, and it shows how important
and how successful the RLSA and the sending area program is and
can be. We've exceeded the expectation that was set 30 years ago.
Notice in the bottom there's a sign that says Camp Keais parcels.
They're two little blue parcels. Those are 10 acres that the state has
been able to protect.
In the years and decades to come, what will be remembered
about today is not Rivergrass, in my opinion, but it will be what
Rivergrass brought to the table. This is the day, or this could be the
day, hopefully it is the day, that Camp Keais Strand was saved,
forever protected and restored.
Thank you.
January 28, 2020
Page 132
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tamara Paquette, and she
will be followed by Pam Brown.
MS. PAQUETTE: Hi. I wanted to start off by saying I am the
Lorax, but let's just say I'm Tamara Paquette. I am the Lorax. I
speak for the trees and so do you and so does everybody in this room.
And this topic is -- it's contentious, and it becomes very emotional,
and it will make you crazy enough to write speeches at 5:00 in the
morning and not go to bed till 3:00 and even make you want to run
for office.
And this is one of the main reasons I actually -- in 2016 I ran for
office for the seat that my friend Bill McDaniel occupies. So we
know that we have on the Board -- we have a real estate agent and a
real estate broker and a wonderful guy who's never seen a developer
he didn't like. We need Loraxes up here that are going to be
stewards, so I'm sending you love and positive thoughts that you're
listening to all these fabulous people, and not just the folks that are
going to donate to your next campaign. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Pam Brown, and she will
be followed by Deborah Woods.
All right. I don't see Pam. Deborah Woods.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Pam was here. She was right
outside. I just -- I saw her a moment ago.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: She'll hear her name. Go ahead
and continue and call --
MR. MILLER: Yeah. Julie Smelts. Schmelzle. Thank you.
Sorry. She will be followed by Charlotte Nycklemoe.
MS. SCHMELZLE: Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Julie Schmelzle.
I'm here before you as a community leader, and I'm a resident of
Golden Gate Estates as well.
I think this is incredible that you are able to be hearing from an
impassioned community, people that care deeply about what's
January 28, 2020
Page 133
happening in Collier County.
And so I'm speaking from the perspective of having known
Collier Enterprises but more importantly the people that are part of
Collier Enterprises for nearly 30 years. They are honorable and
caring and act with an integrity.
And, in fact, one of my first interactions was with Mrs. Collier
Reed; that is Mile's mother. And she had the vision of putting
healthcare out in Immokalee with the Isabel Collier Reed Center.
And I had that time with her to understand why Collier County was
so important to this family.
Later, as you know, the Colliers were involved in the creation of
the Immokalee Foundation and what was happening throughout
Collier County, not just in Immokalee. They've used their assets for
conservation for a century, and they will continue to do that.
I've known -- and I don't pretend to know completely the RLSA and
all the technical aspects. I'm really here to speak about the integrity
of this company and the people that manage and own it.
I see Rivergrass Village -- I live in Golden Gate Estates. It
represents a comprehensible -- comprehensive, compatible village
that balances the needs of our community. It's not just Eastern
Collier. It's all of its assets: The people, the creatures. And it has an
opportunity to approve, and you have an opportunity to approve, a
well-rounded thought-out sustainable village. It addresses water
quality. I'm on sewer and septic. That is not the case with this
village as we move forward.
Conservation is obviously a key factor, as well as providing
dwelling units at a reasonable price in an area that was set and well
thought out under the RLSA plans a decade-plus ago. This really
represents our best opportunity today. And I know this is a tough
decision. You're hearing from a lot of impassioned people who care
about this community, and I respect that. And I think it's beautiful.
January 28, 2020
Page 134
But this is truly a great opportunity and our best opportunity to
manage thoughtfully the lands in Eastern Collier. With a history of
doing right for this community, Collier Enterprises, and the
individuals that I've known through the years, Mrs. Collier Reed,
Miles Collier, Parker Collier, I highly encourage you to approve this
application today.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Charlotte Nycklemoe, and
she will be followed by Alison Wescott.
MS. NYCKLEMOE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank
you for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is Charlotte
Nycklemoe, and I'm here representing the Collier County League of
Women Voters.
The future success of the RLSA will be made by your decisions
today on Rivergrass Village. The League supports the Planning
Commission's recommendations to deny Rivergrass. The Planning
Commission found that this proposed village did not conform to the
goals and objectives of the RLSA program; that it did not come close
to the litany of provisions.
Do you think the Rivergrass Village conforms to the goals,
objectives, and policies of the RLSA program? The Planning
Commission answered no. We agree. The RLSA program provides
a new town and village concept: Towns and villages that are
interconnected, bike and pedestrian friendly, with a certain diversity
of housing, certain density, and a certain quantity of goods and
services so that residents do not have to leave the community to meet
their daily needs. Rivergrass does not do this. Rivergrass Village is
contrary to the intent -- the intent. There's that word again -- of the
program, says county staff on Page 35 of the agenda package.
Where is the innovation? Their creative land-use planning? Oil
Well Road, a high-volume, high-speed road will split the village in
January 28, 2020
Page 135
half. And there is a complete lack of interconnectedness within the
village. This is not the Stewardship Receiving Area envisioned by
the RLSA program.
Fiscal neutrality. Really? Planning Commissioners found there
was no proof of fiscal neutrality because the applicant refused to
provide access to its model, assumption, and analysis.
Commissioners couldn't even check for accuracy or consistency.
County staff relied on a peer review by Jacobs which concludes that
the applicant's fiscal neutrality determination is reasonable; however,
Jacobs would not warrant or guarantee this conclusion, and Jacobs
pointed out that it did not independently verify the information the
applicant relied upon but assumed such information to be accurate,
reliable, and current.
Do you consider 90 percent single-family homes versus
10 percent multifamily homes an appropriate diversity of housing?
County staff did not consider 90/10 percent appropriate. The ratio for
Collier County is 50/50. Even the planning staff testified to the
Planning Commission that the design of Rivergrass Village is not
consistent with the intent of the RLSA program. It is not innovative
or compact. They concluded -- we ask you to deny Rivergrass.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You still have 30 seconds.
MS. NYCKLEMOE: Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
The Planning Commission expressed real concern for the future of
the RLSA, and Rivergrass Village is just the first of four villages that
will soon be coming before you, as you already know.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Alison Wescott, and she
will be followed by Gaylene Vasaturo.
MS. WESCOTT: Great. Yes, my name is Alison Wescott, and
I'm a resident of Collier County. These comments are my own.
I ask you -- also I ask you to deny this application today. I am
January 28, 2020
Page 136
most concerned that the county staff has accepted the Jacobs
Economic Consulting Group's determination that the applicant's
claim of fiscal neutrality in just 10 years by 2031 is reasonable even
though Jacobs does not warrant or guarantee to the county the
conclusions set forth in the peer review or those in the DPFG report
or their fiscal impact model. Where is the accountability in this?
It seems counterintuitive when we consider that Ave Maria was
permitted 15 years ago and only received -- and only recently
achieved approximately 25 percent buildout. Lely in East Naples
took 30 to 40 years to reach buildout. My own community, Fiddler's
Creek, which began building around 1999, has yet to reach buildout
after 20 years. So how could -- how could Rivergrass Village use a
10-year time horizon?
Furthermore, the motion that a primarily residential village
could achieve fiscal impact in just 10 years would seem to contradict
what we learned from the RLSA workshop and restudy white paper.
County staff offered a rule of thumb: A single-family house uses a
dollar -- a single-family home uses $120 of every dollar generated in
taxes. Commercial consumes 65 to 75 cents on the dollar. Industrial
uses, 35 to 40 cents. So it would seem that a mainly residential
village should have higher cost to taxpayers.
The public record of the workshop explains in rural areas
top-heavy residential land-use patterns at buildout are undesirable.
The premise for the RLSA is for towns to be self-sustaining with a
balanced land-use pattern, including job-creating commercial and
industrial uses preferred.
There is no doubt that the current application for Rivergrass
Village contradicts this, as a village will not offer the economies of
scales or the mix of uses of a town. So the assumptions used in the
analysis are key. If they are wrong, it could mean the county would
have to increase its debt, and taxpayers will have to pay higher taxes.
January 28, 2020
Page 137
And since many people move to Florida for the lower taxes, this is a
big problem. Add to this, on the same time horizon, the growing cost
of infrastructure to raise roads, harden shorelines, and make
coastlines more resilient to deal with sea level rise, more powerful
storms and more frequent flooding, the costs will go up. All of this
suggests the need to be more -- for more careful analysis of the
assumptions before going ahead.
Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gaylene Vasaturo. She's
been ceded additional time from Patricia Forkan. Patricia? Oh, there
you are. And she will be followed by Bonnie Michaels.
MS. VASATURO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm
Gaylene Vasaturo. I've been visiting Collier County for about 40
years visiting my family, and I've lived here full time for about seven
years when I retired as a -- from being an environmental attorney.
The RLSA is a very complicated program. And over the past several
years, I've put considerable time and effort to try to understand this
program and to participate in numerous permitting procedures, as
well as all the RLSA workshops.
Today the question is -- one question you need to answer: Is
Rivergrass Village consistent with the goals and policies of the RLSA
program? Now it's time for you to decide that.
You've heard a lot today on that issue, so I'm going to really
shorten my comments here to just highlight a few things to consider.
Oil Well Road, a future six-lane highway that runs through the
middle, this presents a safety hazard to pedestrians, bicyclists, and
drivers; so says Mr. Casalanguida last year in response to the same
design proposed for Rural Lands West.
The village center, it's on the edge of Oil Well Road. It will be
at the intersection of Oil Well and Big Cypress. It's not internal to
the village. It's not a focal point for the community. It's really a
January 28, 2020
Page 138
commercial center designed for drive-by traffic.
There is no gradient of density from the village center to the
edges. What you have here is a village with single-family homes on
lakes spread out throughout the entire development.
Planning Commissioner Fryer concluded that Rivergrass Village
promotes urban sprawl, and he based this on the design of a long tail
and a long neck and the failure to have a compact pedestrian-friendly
form.
At a 2018 RLSA workshop, Mr. Bosi told us, the premise of the
RLSA is for villages and towns to be economically self-sustaining
and self-contained. This is not Rivergrass.
Second -- second matter I wanted to talk about is, does it make
sense for you to decide Rivergrass before you determine whether
Rivergrass should be aggregated with the other two villages proposed
by Collier Enterprises? Collier Enterprises should not be allowed to
avoid town infrastructure costs and housing and mixed-use
requirements by splitting a town into multiple villages. If you replace
a town with several villages in the same area, you would expect that
you would need the same amount of infrastructure, especially roads.
The three villages together, proposed villages, will not provide
diverse economic activity and the employment base needed to make
the RLSA work. What you will have is many gated PUDs and few
jobs and services, and that was not the intent or the goal of the RLSA.
Third, Rivergrass will be built on habitat essential to the survival
of the panther -- I'm talking about Primary Zone Habitat. I think
Ms. Olson pointed out it was 700 acres -- because the applicant did
not update the Natural Resource Index scores for panthers correctly.
The applicant doesn't deny that Rivergrass will be built on Primary
Zone Habitat. In fact, it can't deny it. Since 2002, panther experts,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Eastern Collier property
owners' own panther review team have identified the location of this
January 28, 2020
Page 139
habitat. And based on telemetry data, they've established that some
farm fields are Primary Zone Habitat.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said in its 2008 Panther Recovery
Plan that the focus should be on maintaining the total area of primary
zone to further -- to prevent further loss of population viability.
The applicant said to the Planning Commission that they don't have
to look at any panther studies because Rivergrass is situated on land
that was not considered Preferred Panther Habitat in 2002. Here the
applicant is referring to the 2002 Land Development Code provision
that lists certain FLUCFCS codes, that's land-use codes, as preferred
or tolerated panther habitat. Because the land-use codes for
Rivergrass are not listed in this 2002 provision, it doesn't matter how
many panthers the applicant observes during its survey. The score
for panthers will always be zero.
At the time of the adoption of the 2002 RLS [sic] overlay and
Land Development Code provision, WilsonMiller made it clear that
the Natural Resource Index values would need to be updated because
there was limited data on the Florida panther, and the science on the
panther and its habitat was continuing to evolve.
In 2008, county environmental staff told the five-year review
committee that what is considered to be habitat used by panthers has
changed since 2002. The FLUCFCS codes, the land-use codes, and
the Land Development Code were not protecting panthers.
In 2011, Michele Mosca of Collier County emailed Al Reynolds
of Stantec about the need to determine whether there have been
changed conditions concerning land-use codes since the five-year
review. Al Reynolds responded, quote, one of the basic principles of
the RLSA is that there will always be more recent and more
site-specific data as the program is implemented. And this is best
addressed at the time a property owner and the county evaluate a
specific application for an SSA or an SRA. That's how it was
January 28, 2020
Page 140
intended, that the NRI scores would be updated, and that didn't
happen here.
Finally, I want to address the SSA 15. I agree with Nancy
Payton, restoration of the Camp Keais Strand flow-way is very
important for numerous reasons: Regional water flow, wildlife, the
ecosystem.
My comments concern some questions raised by the restoration
plan. First, it appears that Collier Enterprises is expected to get over
10,000 R2 credits, restoration credits, for restoration of the flow-way
even if the flow-way is not restored.
Under the restoration plan, work has to be done on both SSA 15
and SSA 14 to restore the flow-way. Collier Enterprises has to
remove a roadway in SSA 14 to restore this flow-way, but the SSA
14 restoration amendment has not been approved.
The restoration plan is not clear on this, but it appears that
Collier Enterprises could seek credits for SSA 15 flow-way
restoration even if the restoration work in SSA 14 hasn't been done.
The approval of SSA 15 should make clear that credits will not be
awarded for restoration of the flow-way until the restoration work in
SSA 14 and SSA 15 is done. Second, what if meeting -- do I get --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. Your time is up.
MS. VASATURO: Oh, no. I get four more minutes.
MR. MILLER: No, no. That was your --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Your time is up.
MS. VASATURO: That was -- I only had --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Ma'am?
MR. MILLER: Yeah. I reset it and added four more minutes to
it without it beeping the first time.
MS. VASATURO: Oh, you did?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: How many more speakers do we
have?
January 28, 2020
Page 141
MR. MILLER: We have 24 more speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We're going to take a
break until 3:00. The court reporter looks like she's about ready. So
we'll reconvene at 3:00.
(A brief recess was had from 2:46 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If you'd go ahead and call the next
speaker.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bonnie Michaels. Ms.
Michaels will be followed by Elena Mola.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me just mention to the -- we
have 24 more speakers and, of course, we've been listening to
speakers for two hours. We're going to listen to everybody, but
there's been a lot of repetition. So I'm going to ask now that we not
have any repetition, if you can manage to do that. You'll get your
time, but be somewhat thoughtful in terms of the decisions we have
to make and the time period.
MR. MILLER: Ms. Michaels.
MS. MICHAELS: Bonnie Michaels, for the record, speaking
for myself. I'll make it short, I promise.
I've been going to the meetings for RLSA since 2008. I've gotten old
going to RLSA; many wrinkles.
In spite of the assurance of staff, I think that there are still a lot
of loose incidence. There's not a lot of clarity about a lot of the
issues. We're still talking about what's really restoration; what's
really credits. We're still talking about Oil Well Road as the big
gorilla.
And, you know, wildlife is back and forth and back and forth.
And just, personally, I would never move out there. I mean, what
would there be to do? I mean, watch the traffic on Oil Well Road?
You know, take a little leisurely walk to Publix?
January 28, 2020
Page 142
And you heard the young people. Who's going to actually go
out there? Who's going to be your population?
Even though you've said that this doesn't set a precedence, it will
set a presence because any other developer that will can come will
say, well, you did this for Rivergrass, so why don't you do this for us?
I really need to -- think that you need to think about the precedence of
this.
One question: What's the rush? You've heard so many
comments, you've heard so many people today. How can you make a
decision? Would it be so bad to pause, think about it, talk about it? I
know you've been talking and thinking about it for a long time
already, but listening to everybody today and how important this is. I
would hope that maybe you would take a step back and not make a
decision today and really ask for everything you want. This should
be the gold standard. This should be something that we're all going
to tell everybody, come out and see Rivergrass the way -- the new
development. Not the way it looks today.
So my major comment is: Don't rush this very important
decision, because what you do today, you can't go back. This will be
the future for Collier County.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Elena Mola. She's been
ceded four additional minutes from Diana Walsh. Ms. Walsh, can
you raise your hand?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Okay. And she will be -- that will be a total of
eight minutes, and she will be followed by Sal Woliver.
MS. MOLA: Thank you very much. I didn't catch the name of
the last speaker, but she -- I think she pointed it very well. This
should be the gold standard for us.
Commissioner Saunders said last week, or two weeks ago, he
January 28, 2020
Page 143
said, this is too important to make a mistake. So I would urge you to
all, you know, just take your time, whether it's a week or whether it's
a month, just to decide, to see what is best.
But I wanted to talk about money, and I wanted to talk about
taxpayers and the cost of growth in relationship to the RLSA and
Rivergrass.
The way the RLSA works is that landowners get expanded
development rights to build self-sufficient contained villages and
towns. The taxpayers are supposed to get public benefits, economic
benefits at no public funding cost. The government is supposed to
get revenues that are greater than or equal to the cost.
So if you look at the RLSA overlay program requirements as the
state mandate order first came out, it says, achieve public benefits
with little or no public funding. Then when you look at the Growth
Management Plan, the RLSA Policy 4.18 says it has to be fiscally
neutral, the development, and have a positive economic impact to the
county at horizon year.
So we went back, obviously, and looked at the fiscal impact
analysis, and the developer presented an alternative economic impact
assessment because, for whatever reason -- and I think you should
think about it. I hope you all got both of my letters. Good, thank
you -- you really should think about having your own impact --
economic impact analysis so you can determine what assumptions are
going in, what methodology, what formulas, and what calculations.
When DPFG, through a locked model, which a number of
people have spoken about, and we can discuss, they came out that at
a 10-year buildout, the 2,500 residential units with the 60- to 80,000
square feet of commercial, which I'm glad to see that it's been
increased, would yield $9,891,000 [sic] a year in ad valorem in 2032.
So you start off at 989,100 in Year 1 assuming that you have sold
your 250 units a year.
January 28, 2020
Page 144
Then you get to impact fees, and they say that they would pay
$59,592,000 in total impact fees in 2032. The way those impact fees
are paid, as you know, is they are paid when you issue the certificate
of occupancy per unit. And I calculated that at $6 million a year,
approximately.
When I read both -- the economic assessment for the applicant,
it says, the DPFG assumes no responsibility for inaccuracies in the
information obtained by the developer; you can read the rest. It says,
it does not warranty or -- no warranty or representation is made that
any of the projected values or results contained in the assessment will
be achieved.
It says that DPFG has not rendered any expert opinions nor is
any party entitled to rely on the economic -- to rely upon the
economic assessment without prior written consent. Then it
continues. It says -- when I started asking Growth Management how
these impact fees were calculated with the assumptions, they said,
well, we've hired Jacobson [sic] Engineering to do a peer review. So
I went through the Jacobs Engineering peer review, and this is what I
find; that Jacobs did not undertake its own economic impact or fiscal
neutrality analysis or determination; that the overall assessment is
underpinned by the fundamental assumption of fiscal neutrality at the
project's horizon, year buildout 2030; that the applicant's
determination of fiscal neutrality was reasonable; that Jacobs relied
on information which was not independently verified and was
assumed to be true, accurate, complete, reliable, and current; that
Jacobs does not warrant or guarantee to the county the conclusions
set forth in its own peer review or in the DPFG report or its fiscal
impact model.
It continues. The fiscal analysis is not a cash flow analysis. It
does not include a year-by-year examination of the county sources
and uses of funds; that the development may not achieve fiscal
January 28, 2020
Page 145
neutrality in the early stage; that the county must make initial
investments to accommodate growth to fund the necessary
infrastructure services; that substantial changes to variables,
including what happens with the U.S. economy, could render the
analysis obsolete.
The cost of future financing is not included in the analysis. This
factor can add substantially to the overall cost of infrastructure
development and, thereby, could negatively affect any findings of
neutral fiscal impacts should financing be employed by the county,
the fire district, or school district. Now, we all know what -- the level
of debt the school district and the county has.
So this is the bottom line. The economic impact bottom line is
increase county debt and increase taxes for payers -- for taxpayers.
Because when you look at every single qualifier that is contained in
both the Jacobs report and the DPFG, it says, assumes no
responsibility for inaccuracies, no warranty or representation, may
not achieve fiscal neutrality. Changes to variables could render the
fiscal neutrality obsolete.
Basically, all that translates into the county and its taxpayers
taking all of the financial risks associated with the provision of
infrastructure and long-term servicing of Rivergrass.
Now, I just wanted to -- you guys go very quickly. This is the
amount of debt right now that we have, okay. We had to have this
one percent sales tax so that we could basically fund capital
improvement projects, because if not, we'd have had a deficit. I want
to leave this with you, but with this kind of debt that we have, we
cannot be the taxpayers who guarantee whether their assumptions are
correct.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Sally Woliver. She'll be
followed by Leigh Kistler.
January 28, 2020
Page 146
MS. WOLIVER: Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to see all of
you and, as always, thank you for your service.
I've been a Collier County resident living in the Golden Gate
Estates primarily for the last 29 years. And like many of my fellow
friends in this room, I'm also a graduate of Leadership Collier. Hello
to Rich, Julie, and Crystal. Proud members of the class of 2020 [sic].
Like them -- I know, I just gave away something. It gets worse.
I say 2020. 2000. Yeah, I'm ahead.
Forgive my rushing. I'm a little nervous.
My comments are a bit different. We're, all of us, as we should
be, focused on the here and now. My focus is to pull you into a
future a lot of us, especially folks like me, are not going to see maybe
in the next 20, 30, 40, or 50 years. We need to imagine a time that
looks at our children and our grandchild. And over the last four
years, I've taken my volunteer efforts, and I've put them towards
climate change and sea level rise.
And toward that end, I spend a lot of time with Mike Savarese
and Peter Sheng, who you all know well, working with them on their
NOAA grant, and I'm going to talk about that at the very end.
But keep the focus now ahead. Think about your children.
Think about your grandchildren. I'm worried about what we're doing
looks like something out of that wonderful movie from Kevin
Costner, also 20 years ago, Field of Dreams. "If we build it, they will
come."
And I think we have to take -- all of us take a step back and look
at some of the facts. First let's look at population protections. And
this was something that caught my eye last fall. Zillow reported on
it, but Fox News picked it up and did an excellent job, and it referred
to all of us baby boomers as -- there's a new word for us. We're the
silver tsunami. So you can take that one home with you and tell your
kids to respect the silver tsunami.
January 28, 2020
Page 147
And what it said is that we are in unprecedented territory. The
U.S. housing market is on the verge of being inundated with homes
for sale on a scale that hasn't been seen since the last great recession,
the housing bubble that we all remember in the mid 2000s.
This silver tsunami, they claim, is driving this because the grim
reality, guess what? We're all going to die.
So on that cheery note, that means that over the next two
decades more than 21 million homes are -- will be available.
Contrast that to the last housing bubble where there, on the average,
were about 450,000 homes available for year.
We also know, as a result of this study that Zillow did, that
retirement destinations, especially in Arizona and Florida, will
experience the most housing turnover in the wake of what is being
called the silver tsunami.
Hank Fishkind, which I know many of you follow and I've
followed for years, has said our population is slowing down, and this
is the part to pay attention to. We have gone down from 322,000 to
233,000 last year. The thing that is increasing are mosquitoes. We
rank seventh in the nation in terms of mosquitoes and mosquito-borne
disease.
So I know it's not easy to think about a future that doesn't exist
yet. At the end of May, Mike and Peter will be done with their
report. Wait till then, please, to make your decisions. They'll have a
lot of good recommendations. And thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Leigh Kistler. She'll be
followed by Brad Cornell.
MS. KISTLER: Hi. I'm Leigh Kistler. I live in Naples.
I would like to begin by quote -- two Amish quotes. The first,
the earth is what we all have in common. The second, the earth
provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's
greed.
January 28, 2020
Page 148
On that note, I would like to say our duty is not to provide
potential future residents but to provide for our current residents and
our quality of life.
Water. Runoff is caused when we pave over our permeable
soils. That's what this will do. Our water is now brown in the Gulf
of Mexico. When I arrived 23 years ago, it was aqua. Humans
pollute.
Traffic. Six lanes. I tried to cross 41 last week on foot. It took
me five minutes, and I was scared to death. That is not a good thing
to have through the middle of a village.
Six lanes. And our jobs -- duty is also to protect the habitat and
the wildlife, and I don't see this being a need. I see it being a greed.
And as -- Theresa Heitmann, who is running for mayor of
Naples, her platform is, for the residents, not the builders, not the
lawn services.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be
followed by Judith Hushon.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Audubon Western Everglades and also
Audubon Florida.
I want to raise the first thing which is an urgent issue. In answer
to the question of what's the hurry, the hurry is that we have
ecological problems that need solving, and one of those is in the
Camp Keais Strand.
Conservation benefits from Stewardship Sending Area 15 are
really, really important. The south Lee County watershed plan found
after the 1995 floods in the CREW system that put people in east
Bonita Springs out of their homes for three months, that water from
Lake Trafford and Camp Keais Strands was actually backing up into
the Imperial River watershed.
January 28, 2020
Page 149
And one of the solutions to that that was identified was
removing a road that actually acted as a damn across the Camp Keais.
That's part of the restoration that's being proposed in this project for
SSA 15. There's two roads to be removed as well as restoration.
That's going to benefit wood storks. It's going to benefit panthers,
water quality, wetlands.
I remind you that we have lost in Lee and Collier County over
26,000 acres of wetland since 1996. If the Clean Water Act and our
regulations were doing their job, how did that happen? You know,
I'm working really hard on that front to try and fix those problems,
but it remains a big challenge. And all you have to do is look to
Washington to see how big a challenge that is today.
On the credits issue, the most important thing is that resource,
preservation, and restoration are being done through this SSA;
however, Audubon does agree that there are issues with too many
credits being generated and, in fact, when I was on the five-year
review committee 10 years ago, we had made a recommendation to
the Board to fix some of these problems, to recalibrate, to figure out a
better way to do restoration and not break the bank. Those sat on the
shelf for 10 years.
Now that looks pretty stupid that we did that, and it's time -- I
would say we would all agree that it's over time to get to that issue as
soon as possible. And I know you are because in October you gave
direction to work on that.
Two other issues that I think are incorrect assertions that are
being made. One is that no one is going to build one house on every
five acres. And I think we all know that that's not true; that people
are coming here; that affordable housing is an issue; that finding a
place and -- a little mansion in the woods is going to be attractive.
That's what Golden Gate Estates is, and that model has been going
for decades. And, unfortunately, that's not a good model, and we
January 28, 2020
Page 150
want to discourage that. That's what Rural Land Stewardship does.
It incentivizes an alternative.
And the other fallacy that by building these towns and villages,
that we're somehow going to be inducing a population growth here in
Collier County that otherwise would not occur, and that is not true.
These people are coming, and we would be foolish not to have a plan
to accommodate without harming the nature of this place; where we
put all these people. How do we build our communities and not harm
the wetlands and panther habitat?
And I will remind you that your own interactive growth model
shows that if you stop Rural Lands Stewardship today, you're going
to have 105,000 people. If you keep it, you'll have 116,000 people in
50 years. It's almost the same.
So I will finish by just saying that this is a regionally significant
plan. The village is not really the claim to fame. The claim to fame
and the take-home message here is that we're going to get over 5,000
acres of restoration and preservation forever, and this is really, really
important and needed today.
So I thank you for that consideration. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor has a
question for you.
MR. CORNELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Hi. Mr. Cornell, I'm a little
confused. There are two roads that need to be removed now.
MR. CORNELL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One is in SSA --
MR. CORNELL: SSA 14, and the other one's in SSA 15. But
the SSA 14 road is the old road to Immokalee between -- it's a 3-foot
grade, maybe even higher. I was out there recently, and it's a pretty
high dam, basically, that needs to be removed, and it goes for several
miles. If you take that out you're going to increase flow during the
January 28, 2020
Page 151
wet season, and you're going to lengthen the hydro periods for the
other wetlands downstream.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In SSA 14.
MR. CORNELL: That's in SSA 14 north of Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. CORNELL: But south of Lake Trafford.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So you would agree with the
comment -- earlier comment by a speaker that both roads need to be
removed in order to restore that very, very important flow?
MR. CORNELL: They both should be removed, and the pinch
point that's on the south, south of Oil Well Road, there's 100 acres of
some farm field that's going to be restored to wetlands. That's also
really important to expand the width of where the water flows. And
I've been out there and looked at it, and it's a big opportunity, and it's
something that's been sorely lacking for many years.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. CORNELL: Yeah.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Judith Hushon. She's been
ceded four additional minutes from Gary Bromley, who is right there,
and she will be followed by Diane Flagg.
MS. HUSHON: Hello, Commissioners. You're hanging in
there.
You know, I've been through all the hearings in the 2007 to
2009, I've been through the hearings from 2017 to 2019, and here I
am today again. I didn't have white hair when I started. Neither did
Mr. Saunders, I might add.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I think I did.
MS. HUSHON: Your job is to protect our natural resources and
our quality of life. That's really your job. You're sitting there as
the -- with the power.
And I'm going to go back and just talk a little bit about natural
January 28, 2020
Page 152
resource scoring. It's flawed right now. We lack the baseline data.
The scoring for Rivergrass -- and you didn't hear that presentation by
Mr. Passarella -- was done based on 2002 data. He walked around
the site a little bit -- actually, he walked around it 16 times, but he
only went once in the wet season. And they didn't note that the large
portions of this site in the wet season are covered with water and
wading birds. That's -- it's a birder's place.
But this Natural Resource Index, all the county has available to
it are what I'm calling the composite gray-tone maps, and you can see
those in the SSA applications, the gray-tone maps. At least they used
to be in there when I used to get them. And the gray-tone maps, you
can't take and go down to the natural resource score, and you don't
know how it was made up. So I think we need to do some work as a
county on that.
As I said, I guess it was last week, we also need to look at that
number 1.2, because that number is artificial and is not protecting our
animals. This is the cutoff. If it's above 1.2, you can't build there.
That's the why, the 1.2. And it just so happens there doesn't happen
to be any of that on this property, and Mr. Passarella would have said
that as well.
The other thing that we need to know is that we do know now
that we need to add the FLUCFCS codes, and this is a minor addition
of three FLUCFCS codes to our Land Development Code. It's
nothing. Because the panthers, we know, use farm fields. So that
was just kind of my little panther thing.
In 2020 there was a vision for the RLSA. It was set forth in the
Growth Management Plan and the Rural Lands Stewardship for the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area and the Community Character Plan.
There was a vision. This has been lost. This development does not
implement that vision, and I think that's what a lot of people have
been saying.
January 28, 2020
Page 153
This has to do with a range of housing. Is has to do with a
gradient density. It has to do with a town center that's in the center so
people who live around it can walk to it and bike to it.
It has to do with interconnectedness, compactedness, et cetera. Staff
called it two PUDs separated by a six-lane road, and it does kind of
look like two PUDs, except we don't have any environmental areas
set aside because we didn't have to here. We don't have any
parkland. We don't have any -- if this had been a town -- it is three
acres short of a town; three acres. If it had been a town, it would
have had to have a park, a community park. Well, I think it's up to
you to give us that park.
I think this ought to be a town. And if it were, you'd get that --
what Mr. Saunders wanted. He wanted that larger amenities area,
stores, and things. A town has to have more of that. There's a
requirement for more. The town would also have to have community
parks and more services available. And I think we owe it to our
people to provide that, especially when we're coming so close to
being a town. Three acres is farcical. So that's one of my
conclusions.
I just want to speak a little bit to SSA 15. SSA 15, when we
restore -- I think the restoration credits should be based on what we
restore, not on the whole land. They are not restoring the whole land.
They are restoring a little piece of it here and a little piece of it there.
That should get restoration credits, not the entire set of acres.
I find it difficult to understand how this piece of land can
generate enough credits for 5,000 acres of town, this was one SSA,
can give us five of these villages.
That's too much. That's not what was envisioned. That is not --
that was not the dream plan. And it has kind of morphed, and it's
being played out so that they can claim -- they can claim they're
restoring -- when they're leaving it as farm fields. It's going to be as
January 28, 2020
Page 154
Ag 2. They're not restoring that. It was still ag -- it was Ag 2
yesterday. It will be Ag 2 tomorrow.
So I think you need to look at what's being restored, how much
is being restored. And I think it was April who showed you the map
of the areas that had the restoration marked off in them. To me, that's
what you should get credit for.
If you take a road out, fine, I'll give you those credits. If you
take out some exotics, I'll give you those. But I just think we need to
put our smart hats on, because this is going to be a precedent. This is
the first town. It's after Ave Maria, yes, but it's the first town of its
type to really come through with the rules. Ave Maria started as a
university and a church, so it already had stuff to work around. This
has nothing. This is a blank slate. And we have to do this right so
that we do it right every time we have to do it again. So thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Diane Flagg. She's been
ceded additional time from Molly Cook, from Sue [sic] McFadden --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I don't see Sue.
MR. MILLER: -- from Dan Miller. And that will be a total of
12 minutes, and she will followed by Neville Williams.
MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Diane Flagg.
I'm a 40-year resident of Collier County, retired from Collier County
after 32 years.
Today it kind of reminds me of that Hans Christian Andersen
fable. RLSA was that king walking down the street with those fine
clothes on and all the gold and all the braid and all the people on the
side of the streets yelling and screaming how beautiful the king's
clothes are, until that one small child said, look at the king, look at
the king. It has -- he has no clothes. And I think what you're hearing
today is a lot of people being that little boy saying, look at the king,
RLSA has no clothes.
If you look at what the Board approved -- this is a map of all of
January 28, 2020
Page 155
RLSA. It's 195,000 acres; 184- and change are privately owned, so it
could be developed. When the Board adopted RLSA, there were
supposed to be a total of 16,800 acres as a development footprint.
Your current Land Development Code -- your current Growth
Management Plan states that only 10 percent of this entire area is
going to be used for development, yet we learned through this that
our current GMP is not what is being said. What is being said is
instead of this 16,8- acres, that the Board is being asked, ultimately,
to approve 45,000 acres for development.
What that relates to and what we heard today from the applicant
is that the housing on this 45,000 acres is going to exceed in total 2.5
dwelling units per acre. What does that relate to? That's more than
286,875 people within RLSA. That's more than 225,000 cars coming
down two streets, because what we talked about just briefly at the
workshop, there are two roads that actually cross Collier Boulevard:
Immokalee Road, which is already bumper to bumper, and
Vanderbilt Beach Road goes to Collier right now, and it's already
bumper to bumper.
Vanderbilt Beach Road is going to be extended, and the
taxpayers are going to pay to extend Vanderbilt Beach Road to the
developer's development.
But these two roads, for people to get to work, for people to get
to the beach, for people to get to the parades on Fifth Avenue, these
two roads are the roads -- the only two roads in the next 20 years -- in
the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan, these are the two roads
that are going to get them west from out here in the east.
Rivergrass Village does not adhere to all the shalls in the Future
Land Use Element. In order for Rivergrass Village to go from what
they're entitled to, which is 200 homes -- that's what the zoning
entitles them to. They're allowed to build 200 homes. They want to
build 2,500 homes. That is a 1,250 percent increase in density; 1,250
January 28, 2020
Page 156
percent increase in density.
In order to go from 200 homes to 2,500 homes, they have to
meet all the shalls in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth
Management Plan, because a shall means it's black and it's white.
You shall do it in order to get that increased density.
And as you've heard multiple times today -- so I'm not going to
go into a lot of detail -- they don't meet the housing -- the diversity of
housing. Countywide it's 50/50. They're proposing 90/10. They
don't meet the mixed-use village center, because if you look at what
the "shall" is, they shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as
the focal point.
Here's the village center. Does that look like a focal point?
These people here don't even have access to the village center
without going across a six-lane highway. This, up in the far corner of
this development, is definitely not the focal point of this entire
village.
The other thing that -- and that's a shall. Another shall is that
they shall have an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system
serving not 50 percent of the residents; all of the neighborhoods.
Now, I take my grandkids cycling a lot. This -- I call it destination
cycling. We cycle to a destination: Ice cream, lunch, candy.
Crossing a six-lane highway that's going to be a freight road, so the
speeds are going to be higher, that is not an interconnected pathway.
It would be for this half of the development, but that's not what the
FLUE says. The FLUE says it has to be an interconnected pathway
for all neighborhoods, not just this side of the road. All
neighborhoods.
In addition, another shall is the demonstration of fiscal
neutrality. This was covered, so I won't go into a lot of detail other
than to say this is the Land Development Code. And again, "will,"
will is a black and white. Will is it either is or it isn't. It says, will be
January 28, 2020
Page 157
fiscally neutrality or positive to Collier County tax base.
You can see here the Planning Commission voted to deny
Rivergrass Village. You know why? Because they -- the chair asked
for the working document for the fixed neutrality fiscal impact
analysis, and he was told no.
Now, why -- if you don't have any issues, why wouldn't you
provide the chair of the body that's going to approve or disapprove
your plan? He was told no. His final statement, without that
document, I certainly have no faith in the analysis for fiscal
neutrality, and I certainly don't know how the consultants we hired, if
they didn't have that document, could have done the same thing.
This is a critical point because, basically, the chair of the
Planning Commission says he has no faith in the fiscal neutrality.
They would not provide him the information.
And then we look at -- I'm going to give you just one example,
because I share those concerns. Persons per dwelling unit per the
United States census is 2.5 people -- 2.55 people per dwelling unit.
Jacobs, who was the county's contractor, they were contracted to
verify the developer's consultant's information. Jacobs, on packet
page -- and I use the pages that you have in front of you -- Packet
Page 203 says that the proposed development consists of up to 2,500
dwelling units broken down by type in the table below. All right.
So here, persons per dwelling unit: 1.05, 2.21. But in a
different part of the packet of the information of the report, they said,
the population per unit assumptions were 1.26 and 2.65. Same
document; different numbers of people per dwelling unit. That's a
big problem. And that was not able to be verified because they
would not release the information that said that.
Now, why would you underestimate how many people per
dwelling unit your project is going to cost? In order to say it was
fiscally neutral. I dare say if you use the United States Census
January 28, 2020
Page 158
Bureau numbers at 2.55 people per dwelling unit and they opened up
that model, you would very quickly see that this project is not fiscally
neutral. This project is going to be funded on the back of the
taxpayers.
This is a very important decision. I know Commissioner
Saunders has said it many, many times. The decision you make
today is going to impact Collier County for decades to come. There's
no turning back from this decision.
This -- I hope this does not define your legacy.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Neville Williams, and he
will be followed by Michael -- or Matthew Schwartz.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Yeah,
Neville Williams. Lely Resort. We're 23-year property owners;
10-year full-time residents.
Before I start, I want to -- Dave Trecker asked me to pass on
some information. Yesterday, the Collier County Presidents Council,
representing over 20,000 homeowners, voted to oppose Rivergrass
Village, and a few days before the Citizen Council, in a majority
vote, opposed it. So I've done that, Dave.
Mr. LeBoeuf referred to the two-year restudy hearings that the
public believed -- the public hearings, and the public believed their
recommendations and inputs would be heard, but the resulting white
papers were never adopted. The planners who led the process, Kris
Van Lengen and Mike Bosi, henceforth quit and left the county.
Perhaps they realized that the public process was for naught.
Was the exercise simply a ruse to provide cover while the
development plans were finalized? Does the Growth Management
Department work for the county or for the landowners and the
developers?
This project, 35 miles from the coast that no one asked for that
January 28, 2020
Page 159
will have immense countywide impact, puts the interest and profits of
one wealthy landowner over the welfare of 300,000 county residents
and voters, I might add.
The first rule of capitalism is that supply creates its own
demand. Right now there is more than enough supply of new homes
in Greater Naples to satisfy existing demand. There is plenty of
buildable infill available.
Have you seen the massive new residential developments along
Collier Boulevard, Santa Barbara, and Davis, and along Immokalee
and Vanderbilt? These are not projects I like, but we have to live
with them. They're there. They're going to get built. They're not
really smart growth, but they're happening. Have you seen the
mile-long expansion of Isles of Collier along U.S. 41? Have you
seen then the explosive growth in East Naples and the traffic? We
cannot stop future building in the RLSA, but we don't need to create
more supply right now without careful thought, good environmental
planning, and visionary innovative design.
You can make that happen. I've lived in three high-growth
counties where local government put the public interest ahead of
private property and the outcome benefited everyone. It can be done.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Matthew Schwartz. He's
been ceded additional time from Susan Novotny and from Eric
Lorenz for a total of 12 minutes.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Thank you. I will try not to use the
12 minutes and, in order to shorten up this presentation a bit, I made a
decision while I was sitting here to add some slides and maybe do a
little bit of a slide presentation.
When I talk about the panther -- by the way, Matthew Schwartz.
I'm the Director of the South Florida Wildlands Association, a small
organization that was founded in 2010 to protect the wildlife and
January 28, 2020
Page 160
habitat in the greater Everglades. I've spoken in front of this
commission many, many times on issues concerning wildlife.
I always like to remind the commissioners that while you are
representing a county, you're also representing the Amazon of North
America. The public lands in this place are without parallel
anywhere in North America. That's been verified by many scientists
and by all the people here who love the Big Cypress, the
Fakahatchee, the Corkscrew, and all these wonderful places.
And the wildlife that lives there is a national treasure. Many of
them are listed as federally in danger or federally threated.
This statement by -- it's from the Kautz, et al study. This is the study
statement in 2005, 2006 that actually determined the primary,
secondary, and expansion areas, dispersal areas for the panther. It's
one sentence. It basically will tell you everything you need to know
about the panther in a very short statement.
The Florida panther, Latin, puma concolor coryi, is an
endangered wide-ranging predator whose habitat needs conflict with
a rapidly growing human population. That's the panther. It's a
predator. It's a carnivore, an obligate carnivore. It doesn't eat cat
food. It kills its own animals. It needs a wide range. A male panther
could use up to 200 square miles; a female, 80. It's wide-ranging,
and the conflict is obvious in all the road kill that we're seeing.
I actually have the control. I've got it. Give me a second.
Besides that statement -- whoops, this is another map I like to
show. This is not really a map. This is what an astronaut would see
if he rolled down the window flying over the United States at night
and started taking photos. The United States at night. What do you
see? You see some dark areas, big dark areas in the western United
States. That does support a healthy population of mountain lions,
cougars, pumas.
In the Eastern United States, what do you see? It's covered over.
January 28, 2020
Page 161
The only good thing about South Florida for panthers is that
dark area you see right here. That's it. That's it. That's why there are
panthers here. There's nothing good about South Florida. It's too
wet. The vegetation is wrong. There's not really enough prey.
Northern Georgia would be much better. In fact, panthers lived all
through the United States at one time. They're relegated to
Southwest Florida because that's what's left of them. That's why
they're here.
When panther scientists were assembled to put together various
studies, 2005, Kautz, et al -- I'll just read. That was of the first
assessment. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation
for the Florida panther. The primary dispersal and secondary zones
comprise essential components of a landscape-scale conservation
plan for the protection of a viable Florida panther population in South
Florida. Assessments of potential impacts of development should
strive to achieve no net loss of landscape function or carrying
capacity for panthers within the primary zone or throughout the
present range of the Florida panther. As we've been told, this village,
a thousand acres, contains 700 acres of Primary Zone Habitat;
300 acres of Secondary Zone Habitat. The scientific conclusion is
none of this should be developed.
We're hearing from my fellow colleagues, the environmentalists
that are threatening us with, well, if we don't do this, if we don't stop
these dense developments, if we allow five -- what is it, five -- one
home per five acres -- I mean, one home per five acres everywhere.
But person after person has come up and said, there are five-acre
parcels everywhere that are not being developed.
Commissioner Solis, rhetorical question. Did you get the
answer to the question? How many five-acre parcels are developing?
We didn't get that. We didn't hear it.
But I think very few. There are five-acre parcels throughout the
January 28, 2020
Page 162
Golden Gate. Somebody also talked about all the available parcels in
Ave Maria. There's no need for this.
I'm going to go -- I don't want to run out of time. I want to tell
you why I think you should take a step back, why you don't need to
do this right now. I'm asking you to deny this on the basis of damage
to wildlife, damage to wildlife habitat. We know the Camp Keais
Strand is a major -- let me actually -- before I do that, let me just go
through the two next slides I have. I only have four slides.
This is roadkill. See that red marker over here? That's
Rivergrass Village. This is roadkill all around the area. Roadkill.
State Road 29. How are people going to get to -- by the way, I lived
in the Golden Gate Village for a while; Eastern Golden Gate. You
know why I moved? I couldn't stand the drive. I couldn't stand
driving from Eastern Golden Gate to places that I wanted to go to. I
couldn't stand -- and when I would come in from the east side, I
would avoid going up State Road 29. I'd go all the way to Collier
Boulevard, come in all the way around to avoid State Road 29
because I knew it was a highway of death for panthers and black
bears. I didn't want to go through there. So I'd go all the way around
to try to avoid that.
And here you're putting a dense development, 2,500 people, and
just part of the 45,000 acres that are coming, those 45 [sic] acres are
the Habitat Conservation Plan, the multispecies Habitat Conservation
Plan for Eastern Collier County. You're going to do this 45 more
times? Forty-five thousand acres in South Florida in the
primary/secondary dispersal zones for the panther? It's the Eastern
Collier multi species.
Let me tell you the other species. Because I used to get accused
sometimes, I would go to off-road vehicle management plan meetings
in the Big Cypress and people will say, ah, Matthew, harping on the
cat again. So let's not harp on the cat again. So let's not harp on the
January 28, 2020
Page 163
cat, the panther. It's an umbrella species.
When we protect habitat for the panther, we're protecting it for
all these other species, and the Eastern Collier Multispecies Plan lists
the following: The Florida panther, number one; Florida bonneted
bat.
These are endangered species, in danger of going extinct in the
habitat. Florida panther, Florida bonneted bat, red-cockaded
woodpecker, Everglades snail kite. All endangered, federally
endangered.
Federally threatened: Wood stork, Northern crested caracara,
Eastern indigo snake.
Candidate species for federal listing: Gopher tortoise, eastern
diamondback rattlesnake, gopher frog.
State listed species: Big cypress fox squirrel, Everglades mink,
burrowing owl, Florida sandhill crane. I've got to go to another page.
Little blue heron, roseate spoonbill, Southeastern American kestrel,
tricolored heron.
I'm getting very sad reading this list. They're all in trouble.
They're all in danger.
As another resident said, we're not seeing anything anymore.
Everything is shrinking. Everything is disappearing due to
development, due to water drainage, due to pesticides, due to
invasive plants, invasive species.
You're not hearing any support for this project. I'm not hearing
it. I think one person -- one resident spoke in favor of it. Everybody
else is telling you don't do it. Take a step back.
You're wilting. I can see it. You guys are wilting as person
after person is coming up to you and saying, don't do this.
Here's a reason why you shouldn't do it. Six years ago the
Eastern Collier Property Owners submitted their Habitat
Conservation Plan to the federal -- to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
January 28, 2020
Page 164
A draft EIS was released in 2018. Why not at least, at the very least,
wait for the federal scientists to do that work? None of you are
federal scientists. We haven't heard from a single wildlife biologist
here who said that this is okay.
Dr. Robert Frakes, who wrote one of the panther studies, had
said no development. I'll read his statement; I'll read his study.
Because there is less panther habitat remaining than previously
thought, we recommend that all remaining breeding habitat -- that
includes this, because panthers do use tomato fields, by the way.
Nobody lives there. Panthers use it all the time.
The reason it doesn't come up -- and I'll explain a little bit about
how they get the panther positions. They're doing flyovers -- they
used to do flyovers of collared panthers. The FWC no longer collars
panthers. They're not flying over at night when panthers are hunting.
They're flying over during the day when panthers are sleeping.
They don't sleep in the middle of tomato fields. They sleep in forests.
So that's why they're not showing up on the telemetry in this
particular location.
At night they're there. And this map right here shows you
they're there. They're all over the place.
Let me go to another map here about that -- and talk about the
panther habitat.
Here's Rivergrass Village again. The other letter's a little bit
smaller. Let's look what it's surrounded by. Let's look what it's in the
middle of. The CREW Flint Pen Strand, Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, the
Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, the Big Cypress National
Preserve, the Picayune Strand.
So here's the Rivergrass Village surrounded by a nexus of public
lands. And I can tell you when the Florida -- when the FWC did
collar panthers, none of those collared panthers -- because they could
January 28, 2020
Page 165
see from the collaring exactly where they go. None of them stay
within the boundaries of public lands. This is a single population of
panthers; one single breeding population moving all through this
area, right through Rivergrass Village in the middle of it.
None of you could come here and say that this is not going to
be -- leave the panther on the -- on the path to extinction, and that's
what your Comprehensive Plan says you should not do. You should
at least, at least, at the very least, wait for the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the federal government that we pay our tax money for them
to do this work, to release their opinion. That's the next step in this,
because we've already got the draft EIS. We haven't seen their
biological opinion. We haven't even seen the final HCP. What's the
rush? To make it easier? To make this project more shovel ready
because the Colliers have figured out that they could make more
money growing houses instead of growing tomatoes? What's wrong
with growing tomatoes? Perfectly -- you know, I like tomatoes. I eat
tomatoes all the time.
Why not keep growing tomatoes? They're making money on
tomatoes.
Why do we need to continually -- and there's just no rush to do
this. At the very least, wait. Wait for the Fish and Wildlife Service
scientists to release their report. That's almost -- if it is positive and
say go ahead and develop 45,000 acres, that's almost surely going to
go through litigation, because nobody -- there's no scientist that we
can identify that says that 45,000 acres of new development in the
panther habitat is acceptable.
I've got a minute left. I'm going to stop. I'm going to stop there
and save you guys some time. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Frankenberger,
and he will be followed by Michael Dalby.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: How many speakers do you have at
January 28, 2020
Page 166
this point?
MR. MILLER: We're down to the top 10.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The top 10. I like that. I like
that.
MR. MILLER: Or the final 10.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Does that include these two?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
MR. FRANKENBERGER: Good afternoon. My name is
Michael Frankenberger. I'm an ESA Certified Ecologist. I've been
working as a Biologist/Ecologist for the last quarter century. Since
1997 I've been a private consultant in Southwest Florida working for
both developers and governments.
About a year ago I had a resident ask me to look at the SSA 15
restoration plan. I made comments. I know he forwarded on any
comments. This year -- or this past year I asked -- the Conservancy
asked me to take a look at several of the plans and asked me to speak
specifically today on the restoration plan for SSA 15, which is
significantly different than the 2016 application.
So as earlier speakers brought up, what the -- what the applicant
is offering is that they're going to restore on SSA 15 roughly
116 acres, potentially. That 116 acres is broken into three different
types; 104 acres is a farm field that they're providing to re-grade and
turn into native lands in order to provide an increased width both on
habitat and flow in the slough. That would be the pink area; Area 4.
So that's 104 acres, and they're proposing to take out the perimeter
berms and ditches, roller chop grade herbicide that area in order to
create a series of wildlife habitats. Great idea.
They're also proposing to do 8.15 acres of exotic vegetation
removal in two locations up in the north. There are two different
fringes. It's No. 3 and No. 4. So small they don't show up at this
scale. And that -- those are areas that they're mapping as having
January 28, 2020
Page 167
more than 50 percent exotics, and they're going to take the exotics
out.
And then inside SSA 15 there are two roads that -- roads or trails
that they're proposing to take out. One is -- actually, I'm going to
move over and point for a second, but it actually ties in next to Area
4. And that is a -- right here. It is a raised farm field road that,
according to applicant, overtops during the rainy season but
otherwise provides a berm in that section of the slough, and that
would be removed.
The other area is immediately south of Oil Well Road, which is
right here. That is -- they claim is an elevated road that they're going
to remove. That is, according to -- they don't provide any data, no
hydrological data to support their assumption that this is going to
provide great environmental benefit and hydrological improvements.
They don't provide cross-sections of these roads. They don't provide
as -- they don't provide success criteria on how they're going to
generate credits. You have -- they're going to go for 21,000 units just
for those three items, those 16 acres, saying they're going to restore
26,000 -- 2,600 acres. And, yes, they are identifying something in
excess of 14-. We think that should be avoided.
They provide no data except in '16 they did do a hydrological
monitoring plan, but that is irrelevant because they took out most of
the restoration, and it doesn't identify all the additional development
around the sloughs.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Dalby, and he will
be followed by Nina Bergman.
MR. DALBY: Thank you, Commissioners, for your service and
working on behalf of the citizens.
The homes, the amenities, the jobs, the local goods and services
that are planned for this new village are desired in Eastern Collier
January 28, 2020
Page 168
County. This master plan community will be located on a thousand
acres that are currently impacted by agricultural activities and, more
importantly, will be dedicated -- will dedicate more than 5,000 acres
of conservation lands that will help maintain an important wildlife
corridor.
I didn't introduce myself in the beginning. Michael Dalby. I'm
the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce.
The neighborhood shopping and the potential employment
opportunities and restaurants that will be integrated in this village
will allow Rivergrass residents to stay close to home, which means
less traffic on our roads and roadways. Additionally, the jobs, goods,
and services that will be readily available to residents of Golden Gate
Estates, Immokalee, Ave Maria, and other nearby communities.
Some of the arguments that I've heard today demonstrate some
pretty interesting doublespeak. The opponents argue for increased
density and walkability, something that the Chamber has supported
for years, yet some of these same individuals have stood before this
commission and vehemently argued against development density
increases. They've complained about development on a major
arterial road, yet scream when developers aren't locating their
developments adjacent to established roads.
They complain about cul-de-sacs, yet many people live in
communities with cul-de-sacs and champion cul-de-sacs as a way to
keep traffic out of their space.
They argue development should be concentrated on the coast
and yet vehemently fight any new coastal development.
Some of the organizations were part of the creation and the
approval of the RLSA and now claim it is unfair and injust [sic]. In
fact, what they want are goal posts that never stay put, that always
move.
You started this whole project with a town that had more jobs
January 28, 2020
Page 169
and services, and you oppose that. Now you have a village, and you
oppose that. The developers who want to build homes, apartments,
multifamily living, integrated walkable communities are constantly
opposed before this body in a misguided attempt to raise the
drawbridge, but there is no drawbridge.
We do need more housing for our citizens, all types of housing
for all of our citizens, not just the people who can spend eight hours
here today. A lot of people aren't here because they're working.
We need housing for young and old, working and retired, the
youth who will grow to adults in our community. They have just as
much right to newer and newer developments.
We need neighborhoods with centralized sewers and water
systems, not defaulting to more septic tanks and housing
developments that don't have those amenities.
You reject this, you reject the conservation benefits. Collier
Enterprises' commitment to exceed the county's development
guidelines, including the preservation of 5,000 acres of
environmental lands in the Camp Keais Strand protects, in perpetuity,
valuable wetlands and natural habitat area.
Rivergrass has been negotiated and adjusted over many years to
meet demands. This is a solid, good development. It addresses many
needs within our county. And I would encourage your support.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Nina Bergman.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I think I see her. Pam Brown, I know, has
returned, and Pam will be followed by Rick Barber. Pam?
MS. BROWN: Well, I started out as good morning,
Commissioners, but it's good afternoon now.
As most of you know, I've lived in Collier County/Immokalee
my entire life, and I care deeply about my county and the rural
lifestyle.
January 28, 2020
Page 170
After have sitting here all morning and afternoon listening to the
commissioners, I'm really worried that you-all have already made
your mind up. I'm here because I'm concerned about the push to
develop Rivergrass and respectfully ask that you consider further
studies and formula for fiscal net neutrality. This was a concern for
the Planning Commission, and it's a concern of mine.
They requested a working document for fiscal neutrality and
was not provided one. As you can see, many of us are here today
because we're concerned the destructive economical environmental
impacts the project and future village projects will have. The study
that Jacob Engineering was lacking information to make good
opinions and recommendations. Throughout their presentation,
Jacobs stated they do not warrant or guarantee the conclusions set
forth therein in the DPFG report or its fiscal impact model, which are
dependent and based upon data, information, or statements supplied
by the third -- the county or third parties.
With respect, why would county staff accept the developer's
plans so easily and the Planning Commission? Unfortunately, growth
doesn't appear to pay for growth. In 2018, the county staff advised
commissioners they were short on funding and proposed that the
citizens pay a 1 percent sales tax for 18 projects. Is there any
assurance this will not happen in the future?
Has there been actual budgets generated for schools, water and
sewer, road projects and all the others that we're going to have to deal
with? If this village is approved, it will take precedence in the future.
County staff agrees to purchase right-of-ways, et cetera, from
developer. Who will pay the cost of development? Ultimately the
taxpayer. Please consider the county adopt fiscal impact model
before approving any villages.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rick Barber, and he will
January 28, 2020
Page 171
be followed by Steven Pryor.
MR. BARBER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Are you
worn out?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Come on.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No. We're just getting started.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let's go.
MR. BARBER: I'm Rick Barber. I'm a Florida Registered
Professional Engineer. My license is still active but I'm not. I'm here
as a citizen today. Collier County resident for more than 40 years.
Southwest Florida for 60 years.
I'm your former Big Cypress Basin Chairman, and I'm excited to
hear about the restoration about Camp Keais Strand. And it's
refreshing to hear people like Brad Cornell parrot the words that I
beat on with over the years, about the flooding in Bonita Springs, and
how Lake Trafford runoff ended up in the Imperial basin when it
should have gone down Camp Keais Strand. So that's very important
to me.
Water use will change dramatically. I think once Rivergrass is
developed, you'll see less water being used. The water that isn't used
will go down into the Fakahatchee Strand and down to the Merit
Pump Station and into Picayune Strand for the restoration of
Picayune Strand.
I've heard you this morning talk about Conservation Collier and
how Conservation Collier has purchased 4,300 acres since 2003 for
$106 million. Rivergrass will transfer 5,295 acres to conservation at
no cost to the taxpayers for the privilege of developing 100 percent
agricultural land. Approximately 70 -- and I heard Commissioner
Fiala say 79 percent. I'm not sure if I know that's true -- but it's way
over 70 percent of Collier County is already in conservation or
preservation, and I would say your policies are working. You ought
to be congratulated, and please support Rivergrass.
January 28, 2020
Page 172
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Steven Pryor. He will be
followed by Neomi Perez.
MR. PRYOR: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Steve
Pryor. I've been a resident of Collier County since 2015, and I'm here
speaking to encourage your support for Rivergrass.
I am the former President of Exxon Mobil Chemical Company,
and in that capacity, I managed a portfolio of investments, large
projects. We invested approximately $1 billion a year in very large
capital projects, and we had a rigorous system for doing that so that
these projects met the highest standard of safety, of health and
environmental protection. And normally those standards were well in
excess of regulatory requirements.
Now, if you look at the development plan for Rivergrass, it
clearly exceeds the environmental requirements for a village. We
heard about that in detail this morning. It also, in that plan, provides
for the restoration and the permanent preservation of the land at no
cost to the taxpayer. We heard about that this morning.
You know, in my experience over the last several years in
Collier County, Collier Enterprises is a company that does everything
right. And if I look at the body of work of their other developments,
they really strive to be good stewards of their land and of the
environment.
Now, I currently serve as chair of the board of the Immokalee
Foundation, and I'm very proud to be involved with this great
organization. I serve alongside on that board Mr. Don Huffner. Don
is the CEO of Collier Enterprises. And among the many things Don
has done -- and he's a very active and committed and passionate
member of the board -- he has worked with us to shape a concept and
helped us fund that concept to train our high school students for
rewarding professional careers right here in Collier County; careers
January 28, 2020
Page 173
in construction management, careers in engineering, careers in
business management.
And, specifically, what Collier Enterprises has done is they've
donated a tract of land, and they've also funded the majority of the
site preparation costs for a new housing subdivision in Immokalee,
which our foundation, on that property we will build 18 single-family
homes over the next five years. And this is going to provide a unique
learning laboratory for our students. They're going to be exposed to
every aspect of the home-building business, from planning a project,
constructing the project, to marketing and sale of the home. And
these are going to be very well-made sustainable homes. We're very
proud of that work.
And the reason I'm telling you about that is because this
demonstrates the kind of company Collier Enterprises is. To me,
they exemplify what a good corporate citizen looks like. I've gotten
to know these people. These people care about their community.
They invest in the children of this community. They've been doing it
for years. And thousands of lives have been impacted. And they are
really devoted to be good stewards of their land, because that's the
foundation of their legacy as a company.
Please say yes to Rivergrass.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Neomi Perez. She will be
followed by Vernon Wheeler.
MS. PEREZ: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Neomi Perez, and I serve as the President and CEO of
the Immokalee Foundation. I want to thank you for this opportunity
to participate in today's public hearing.
I'm here to support Collier Enterprises. Collier Enterprises has
been an essential partner to the Foundation across the entirety of the
29 years that we've been providing educational opportunities to the
youth of Immokalee.
January 28, 2020
Page 174
The company's commitment to our students is based on creating
brighter futures, not only for the individual students and the families,
but for the entire community.
With the support of Collier Enterprises, we recently launched a
program called Career Pathways Empowering Students to Succeed.
Part of the curriculum for our middle school students is to take our
summer STEM program, and it includes a two-week segment about
natural environment in Collier County.
Our students take field trips to places such as Lake Trafford and
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and learn about the importance of
water quality, wildlife habitat, and environmental lands.
The Foundation and our board certainly recognize the
importance of educating our students about protecting the
environment. Through the support of Collier Enterprises and other
generous donors, these students then proceed through individualized
career-based programming that helps each student discover a
professional career that leads to financial independence. And the
success of each of our 1,400 students that we serve per year helps
fabricate Collier County to grow stronger.
I will conclude my remarks by simply saying that Collier
Enterprises has been the largest and most faithful supporter to the
Immokalee Foundation for many years, and that's why I support
Collier Enterprises.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Vernon Wheeler.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's not here.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Marcela Zurick.
MS. ZURITA: Zurita.
MR. MILLER: Zurita. Sorry about that, Marcela. She will be
followed by Tim Thompson.
MS. ZURITA: Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Marcela
January 28, 2020
Page 175
Zurita, and I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates. I'm here to urge
you to deny the SRA application for Rivergrass.
Just like the majority of the people that are here before you
today, Commissioners, when you needed our votes, you came to our
communities. Today, we come to you to ask you to take the
recommendation of the zoning commissioners who voted against this
project, as the project contradicts the fundamental goals of the RLSA.
These goals are the following: One is to protect agriculture;
two, directing compatible uses away from wetlands and listed species
habitat; three, discourages sprawl by using innovative planning
techniques. There is nothing innovative about River [sic] Village. It
is no different than any of the current developments in the urban part
of Collier County.
Replacing agricultural lands with gated communities will greatly
decrease the connectivity of the landscape and increase other
mortalities of Florida panthers, which is the number one leading
cause of death.
The proposed area of construction falls within what U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Services scientists recognize as Primary Habitat Zone
for the Florida panther. With that being said, what do you think is
going to happen if we continue to develop in these areas that are so
vital for their survival?
The applicant is aware of the importance that is to preserve the
Primary Habitat Zone of the Florida panthers but choses to ignore the
RLSA principles, as Rivergrass Village falls within the Primary
Panthers Habitat Zone.
It is heartbreaking to know the impact -- the effect these
proposed villages, including Rivergrass, if approved, would have in
our iconic state memo [sic]. It will lead to the decimation and demise
of the Florida panther and many other unique species federally listed
as threatened or in danger. We have to do a better job.
January 28, 2020
Page 176
If we don't act now to prevent these species from becoming
extinct, future generations will be reading about the Florida panther
as another extinct species that was lost while under our watch due to
our greed.
Your decision today will affect the fate of South Florida, the fate
of Florida panther and other species, and our water resources.
Commissioners, I'm urging you, once again, the denial of the SRA
application for Rivergrass Village. I want to see truly sustainable
development in the RLSA away from endangered listed species
habitat. If this board approves Rivergrass Village today, then this
board of commissioners will be defying the purpose of the RLSA and
why it was created in the first place.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker is Tim Thompson.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, I have four slips of names
that I've called that aren't present. Other than that, that's your final
speaker.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We'll close the public
hearing.
Mr. Yovanovich, you have an opportunity to say your piece
here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My piece? I would like to ask Ken
Passarella to come up and give some brief comments responding to
the comments regarding SSA 15. I think there were a few
inaccuracies, and I think we just need to better explain how SSA 15
works and how the restoration works and how it coordinates with
SSA 14, and then I have some brief summary comments.
MR. PASSERELLA: Good afternoon, Ken Passarella with
Passarella & Associates.
And I just briefly want to go over the concerns or issues that
January 28, 2020
Page 177
were raised regarding the restoration activities that are proposed
within SSA 15 specifically related to the hydrologic restoration that's
being proposed.
So first I just wanted to point to the Land Development Code
here.
And can we zoom in on that so we can read that. Right there.
This is 4.08.06.B.3.f in the Land Development Code, and it
specifically talks to restoration stewardship credits. And it references
here in the second sentence, it says, in certain locations, there may be
the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration such as locations
where flow-ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past
activities.
And so what we did when we came up with the restoration plan
for SSA 15 was we looked at the Camp Keais Strand and we looked
at where the flow-way had either been constricted or impeded. And
so we went back to -- and I'm going to change this out here. The
whole slide.
So we took a look at what was happening in the Camp Keais
Strand. And the District -- and I think this was referenced earlier and
some of the speakers had mentioned this. South Florida Water
Management District in 1999 did the South Lee County Watershed
Plan, and they identified an old road grade south of Lake Trafford as
an impediment to surface water flows that historically went south
from Lake Trafford into the Camp Keais Strand.
And at the time, they're being blocked by this road, diverting
flows to the west which someone else had mentioned about the
flooding in Bonita that had occurred. So that roadway occurs -- and
this is right in this area up here just south of Lake Trafford. There's
an old roadway that crosses through the strand and runs the entire
length of the strand. And that roadway is about a two- to three-foot
high roadbed that totally traverses the strand and cuts off flows from
January 28, 2020
Page 178
north to south.
So as part of the South Lee County Watershed Study, there was
modeling done that showed how much water was being blocked
there. As part of our application for SSA 15, I think it was referenced
that there was no data or analysis that supported what we are doing.
We actually had ABB, the engineering -- the engineer firm on the
team. They ran a HEC-RAS model showing the removal of that
roadway and the improvements of the flows to the south through the
strand.
So we took that HEC-RAS model and looked at the wetlands
south of that roadway and the extent of improvements that would
occur as a result of the removal of that roadway, the hydrologic
improvements.
And what we saw was that there would be not necessarily higher
water levels during the summer, even though there would be some
improvement to that, but it extended the length of time that water
would be in the strand and passing those flows from north to south.
So what we were doing was increasing the length the water,
being in that strand, improving the hydrology and restoring the
hydrology of the strand during a longer period of time and extending
those water levels into the dry season.
So what happens now in the strand is the water gets blocked. It
flows during the summer, but then it quickly drops during the dry
period because of the road blocking the flows. So by removing the
road, we lengthen the time of water in the slough, and we increase the
flows to the south by doing that, improving the hydrology of those
wetlands.
There was also two other roads mentioned that we were working
on. There is a -- on this map here you can see this little white area
right here. That is a farm road that crosses through the middle of
Camp Keais Strand.
January 28, 2020
Page 179
So if you looked on that bigger picture of Camp Keais Strand,
Camp Keais Strand flows all the way from north to south. And this
big, wide strand coming down, it pinches down into this little tiny
point here, and all the flows come through this tiny point here
through Camp Keais Strand, and that's what we refer to as the pinch
point in the Camp Keais Strand.
And so what we're proposing to do is to remove this old farm
road, which is the pinch point road, and restore this farm field in
orange here, or yellow, on this map by widening that area. So we're
taking a constricted area, and we're making it wider, allowing a larger
area for flows to pass through there. So I just wanted to point that
out. The restoration work we are doing is significant, and it will
make a significant improvement to the hydrology of the strand.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
Yes. Just -- we heard some testimony that that's fine and dandy, but
SSA 14 needs also to be restored or some work done on it. Can you
comment on that?
MR. PASSERELLA: That's correct. SSA 14 is currently under
review by county staff, so it is in place right now. This is part of SSA
14, the removal of that road. So it's currently under review by county
staff.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd show you all my rebuttal slides, but
I'm afraid that I would not survive if I put them all up.
So I just want to focus what we're actually here for today. We're
here for Rivergrass Village, which is a 997-acre village. We're not
here to discuss potential changes to the RLSA. We're not here to
discuss the potential development of 45,000 acres. We're here to
focus on the petition, and is the petition consistent with the Growth
January 28, 2020
Page 180
Management Plan and the Land Development Code. That's all we're
here to discuss about today.
So I want to go back to one of my earlier slides. And I'll use the
visualizer.
Did I put that on there correct? I did.
This is from your executive summary for today's meeting. This
is the document you focus on to figure out what is your staff
recommending. You don't cherry-pick older staff reports. You look
at what is your staff recommending. And this is the executive
summary for Rivergrass Village, and it says, staff recommends
approval of Petition SRA-PL20190000044.
They're recommending approval subject to five conditions, and I
took you through those five conditions earlier. You can only
recommend approval if we're consistent with the Growth
Management Plan and the Land Development Code. So your staff
has determined, based upon their review, that we are consistent with
the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code if we
meet these five conditions, which I've already told you we are willing
to do.
You have the companion landowner agreement in front of you.
We've said -- and we've already signed it, so we're willing to do that.
Check that one.
The interconnections; we've shown you the interconnections.
We've met that condition.
We've agreed to the Listed Species Management Plan. We've
negotiated an interlocal for Collier County Water and Sewer, and
we've agreed to make those few minor changes.
We have satisfied your staff's conditions for them to continue to
recommend approval. Your staff is recommending approval of all
four petitions.
This is just one process that we go through for the overall
January 28, 2020
Page 181
approval or entitlement of this community. We still have to go
through state and federal permitting. Just because we meet your local
requirements with regard to being able to go forward, we still have to
deal with state and federal permits, and we're going through that
process.
We are -- I think what people are trying to say is they don't --
they want you to somehow not trust the federal permitting process
with regard to listed species and wetlands. We're going to deal with
all of that through the federal permitting process with regard to the
panther, et cetera.
You have very specific requirements for your NR scoring. And
in your backup -- and I can bring Ken up here, but I'm not going to --
and your staff has acknowledged we fully staff satisfy those
requirements, and our scoring is, in fact, accurate.
The model that people were referring to, the fiscal neutrality
model, was provided to staff. It was provided to your consultant. It
was provided to everybody on the Planning Commission. All the
backup material, the entire model was there.
They wanted -- and the assumptions were all laid out for
everybody, and your independent reviewer and your staff could
verify the assumptions were accurate.
Some people wanted to have the ability to tinker with the data in
the model, and because we wouldn't let them tinker with the data in
the model, they said they couldn't recommend approval.
The analysis was fully before your Planning Commission and
before your staff, and your staff has determined that the fiscal
neutrality analysis is accurate, and so has your independent reviewer.
Now, I know people want to say that, you know, the catchall
language that's at the end of probably every document is -- you know,
there's no guarantee. Things change. We know that. But based upon
the data and analysis and the reasonable assumptions, we are fiscally
January 28, 2020
Page 182
neutral, and your staff is recommending approval.
At this point, I don't want to belabor and rebut every comment,
because I think I'd be here for quite a while. At the end of the day,
this is a good program. You are getting a tremendous amount of land
set aside through SSAs to entitle, basically, farmlands. And with
this -- you have heard from two of the original founding members of
this program, both Nancy Payton and Brad Cornell, and they are
telling you that this is a good program, that there are tremendous
benefits through this SSA 15, and the tradeoff and the compromise
has been beneficial to Collier County.
And we request that you vote to approve all four petitions. And
we're still available to answer any more questions you may have,
obviously subject to the changes we had agreed to prior to the public
comment becoming part of the --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's see if there are any
questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just have a few. I'll try and
make them very simple. One of them I heard talking about the
panthers. Many people have talked about the panthers. And when I
moved here in '74, they were saying there were 30 panthers in the
entire state of Florida. It's an emergency. It's an emergency. Then
they sent out, probably in '76, to get the some tigers -- or no -- some
Texas Cougars, right --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Cougars.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and bring it in to get them
activating again and so forth. And then they had to take them out
because they were pretty active.
Meanwhile, we've prepared for them 79 percent of Collier
County as conservation land, their very own bedroom. Nobody can
even bother them there. And they've just been multiplying.
Although everybody keeps saying their numbers are dwindling down
January 28, 2020
Page 183
to 260 now. You know, all that roadkill that they find, the roadkill
right now doesn't even have collars on them. So that even proves that
there are more.
But, anyway, we are trying our best. These people are trying
their best. All of the Wildlife Federation is doing their best.
Everybody's trying to preserve it. Nobody's trying to get rid of them.
And they've got some kind of a corridor just for the panthers just
carved to make sure they're safe.
I have to say a couple other little things, please, and that is, you
know, we keep talking -- people mentioned urban sprawl. If you
think that we're going to stop people from coming down here to
Naples, Florida, you've got another thing coming. Which one of you
wants to go away and leave room for them so that they can move in?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I will do that. In fact, I did do
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good you can do that, then.
But I think that -- you know, we know that they're coming.
We've read about people coming from New York, Chicago and, let's
see, Massachusetts. Because of the very, very, very high taxes, they
want to come down here to our wonderful -- not only do they get low
taxes, but they also get a gorgeous climate. It feels like you're living
in paradise.
I don't think our numbers are diminishing. Someone said that
they were down to 260,000, and we're way up over 375,000 now so --
you know, as far as people here. I'm not quite sure where that --
where that came from.
But, anyway, there are many other things, but I don't want to
hog this right now. But I just want to tell you, I think this is a good
project. I've listened to everybody, what everybody's had to say, and
I think it's a good project because they're trying to cover all bases and
trying -- they can't be all to all things. We can't stop growth. We
January 28, 2020
Page 184
can't just force the people to move out to the west part of our
community, because west is pretty well piled up on top of each other,
and we see the traffic because of that. You've got to spread east. It's
the only way you can go.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you, Commissioner.
I had been asked if I had gotten an answer to the question that I asked
at the beginning about the number of permits. Nick, do you have
this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have it, sir. I can put it on the
visualizer if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If you would. And I think this is --
you know, a picture's worth a thousand words, as they say. This
shows, I guess, pictorially, the number of permits -- these are permits
that have been pulled since 2014.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: January 2015, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: '15.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it's 5,440 residential homes.
And when you pull out Ave Maria and some of the developments, it's
about, in the Estates, about 3,000 to 3,500.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thirty-five hundred permits in the
last five years.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In the Estates, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In the Estates. I mean, so, this is --
this concern that was the whole intent of the RLSA to avoid, I mean,
is a real thing. It's happening. We have to figure out a way to
minimize that.
The intent of the RLSA, as we've heard over and over, was to
minimize that or figure out a way to bring that in -- that potential
growth, and there's still a lot of it there, into areas where we would
want it to be because it would be more compact. It would be -- it
January 28, 2020
Page 185
could be on centralized sewers and utilities and all of this to minimize
the impact both physically on the county and environmentally.
So our rules right now provide for villages. If the rules provide
for villages and the applicant meets the rules, I don't know that there's
a lot that we can do. We can't change the rules in the middle of the
game. That's not the way this process can work.
We sent staff -- we directed staff in December to go back,
sharpen their pencils. And I had many conversations with the
applicant that, you know, they have to sharpen their pencils. We
have to get past the concerns that the Planning Commission had and
that the staff had, and we did that.
And I think everybody -- and, you know, the definition of a
good mediation is when everybody goes home unhappy. Well, I
don't think that it's a perfect solution. We're not in a perfect world.
This is a negotiated process to try to come up with the best solution
we can today.
It preserves 5,000 acres -- over 5,000 acres. You know, when --
I'll just say when Nancy Payton talks, I listen, and it was good to see
her again. Her involvement in the beginning of this is -- we have to
take note of that. This was her and Brad and everybody else that was
involved in this -- I mean, this has been their life for the last 20 years,
right? Or more.
So I'm going to support the project as well. I think -- could it be
better? Well, maybe. But we are where we are today, and I don't
think that we can change the rules. If we don't like the way our rules
are, then it's incumbent upon us to maybe we need to change those,
but that's not what we're here today to do. So I'm going to support it
as well.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Thank you.
And I concur with Commissioner Solis. I mean, there's a lot of
January 28, 2020
Page 186
discussion. My predecessor in this seat put forth $1.2 million in
funding to review these master plans that encompass the majority of
Eastern Collier County. We've done two, the Golden Gate Estates
and the Immokalee, and we're still working with the RLSA and the
RFMUD.
But we're not here today to talk about the shortfalls, necessarily,
one way or the other. The recommendations of the five-year review
committee, Brad, you and I worked about that -- on that process back
in '06-ish?
MR. CORNELL: Seven, '8.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Seven, '8. Two years of our
life. And we're still talking about whether or not those adjustments
would increase the value of this product for -- and development of the
RLSA.
And, again, in an effort to not repeat -- there's been a lot of good
things said as to the value of approving this project. One that hasn't
been said yet -- and it's little known -- is the disposition of lands.
And I believe it's 5,000 acres, 4,000 acres, somewhere in there the
sale of those agricultural lands to Gargulio to the north have a
30-year reservation for continued agricultural use within the terms of
the purchase agreement.
Now, they have the right to develop. It is America. But there
are costs associated with that that are pretty heavily weighted towards
the initial sale of that. So I think some of the benefit that's coming
from this -- it's little known -- is that preservation.
Secondly, I'd like to say if we -- Commissioner Fiala stated that,
you know, the folks are coming. There's a thousand people a day
moving to Southwest Florida -- South Florida or Florida in general.
There's no spigot on I-75 -- I've said that regularly -- or on 95, and we
have to plan for that growth. That growth is inevitable.
And the infrastructure that's provided within this community,
January 28, 2020
Page 187
within this project, will it benefit the folks that are coming?
Absolutely. But are we in arrears for supporting the infrastructure
needs for the population that is here today? As well, absolutely.
The northeast regional wastewater facility that has pipes that are
supporting the wastewater and water for this particular project, it's
going to be integrated into the entire wastewater/water facilities for
all of Collier County. We have tanks in our current system today --
holding tanks today that we can't take off-line and do PM,
preventative maintenance, simply because of capacity issues and the
necessity for this increase in infrastructure to support the community
and the residents that are here today.
So, with all that -- and, Mr. Chair, are we going to go through
these items individually?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're going to go through
individually. I'm going to ask the County Attorney to guide us
through that, but we have -- Commissioner Taylor has some
comments, and I'll have a few comments as well.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's get through the comments,
and then get the County Attorney to guide us through the appropriate
motions.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm going to make my motions
[sic], but I would like you to put this on the visualizer.
I think we all recall up here that faithful day on December 6th when
the developer sitting before us threatened to sue us, Collier County,
that would mean you as taxpayers, if we didn't play the way he
wanted us to play.
I think we all remember that prior to this submission, it was
customary for Collier County to get the right-of-way on
developments. Not to be, well, at some -- at one point it was given.
Now it is definitely we buy it predevelopment for the roads that are
January 28, 2020
Page 188
required for this development.
Let me give you some history. This development came through
as a town, and then suddenly it was withdrawn, and it became
villages, and suddenly the town that needed this road that the
developer paid to get a Long Range Transportation amendment that I
voted against on the MPO and was lobbied personally by the
developer's representative at that meeting to the point where I came
back and I said, let's reconsider this, and at the next meeting it
passed. They wanted this road.
And so now what are they saying? Play our way, or we're going
to sue you. So what did we do? We had a meeting. We postponed
it, and we had a meeting. The meeting was in January with our staff
and with the developer's representatives.
And what happened at that meeting? Well, they gave a little bit.
But guess what? The rules are still the same. We don't approve.
You pay more.
We have never done business like this in Collier County. Ever.
This is what we want, my colleagues? Who's going to pay? The
taxpayer. Is this what we want? Is this the kind of precedent that we
are setting?
The argument is not, here, whether the RLSA is a great program.
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Rivergrass.
Rivergrass that does not meet the standards established by the RLSA.
Ma'am, you asked for housing for essential services. We've already
heard from staff that the housing is not balanced, and there's not a
diversity of housing. And you, rightly so, asked for that to be
changed. And what did the developer come back? He said, okay, I'll
put a half a million down in Community Foundation for down
payment.
But according to their own papers, every house is 41 percent
higher in price than our median price in Collier County. It would be
January 28, 2020
Page 189
more economical to live in here than it would be out there. What are
we doing?
And this is what we are asking for? This is what we think is
good?
There's so much potential for this development. I don't want to
vote against this development, but I would like to see if there's
support up here to continue this and allow the staff to go back to the
developer. I cannot vote for a developer's plan that will assess the
cost of right-of-way on the backs of the taxpayers of Collier County.
I am sorry. If we do this, they'll give us this. That's -- I'm sorry.
That's contract zoning in my opinion. That's illegal, and I'm appalled.
So I think we have potential here. I think we move this forward,
but I would like to see if there's any support here for a continuance.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me ask you a question. You're
suggesting a short-term continuance, I assume, for the next meeting
or whenever that would be. If that occurred, there would be no
opening of the public hearing. There would be no more testimony
from the developer other than to respond to questions that you have
concerning the developer agreement. Is that what you're --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. I would -- yes, exactly.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. I don't have any problem
with that. I don't know if there would be support for that. I know
that that creates a bit of a problem, but we certainly have the
authority -- the ability to continue an item for a couple of weeks.
That's -- no harm, no foul in doing that. So...
I will tell you that I have a little bit of a problem with the
right-of-way issue. And I did talk to Mr. Yovanovich on a couple of
occasions about the right-of-way issue. And I have a little bit of a
problem with that as well. And I would support a delay -- a
short-term delay. I don't want to cause any problems for the
developer on this. But I would support a short-term delay for the sole
January 28, 2020
Page 190
purpose of having staff revisit with the developer the issues of that
agreement.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion to that
effect.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Well, I'll second that. I
don't know that we have support to do that. This would be a
short-term continuance for that sole purpose to the next meeting. All
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That fails. So we're going to take
our votes this evening.
So I have -- I've had mixed emotions about this project, and
I'd -- to be perfectly honest with you, when I came in this morning, I
had no idea how I was going to vote on this. I'm still not sure how
I'm going to vote.
I agree with Commissioner Solis that we are dealing with a
situation that exists. We can't just change the rules in the middle of
the game. If I vote for this project, I think I'd make the statement that
I would not be voting for another village. And I realize there's four
or five other villages along the way.
But this particular village -- and maybe it's not in the worst of
locations since it's at that major intersection. But villages further to
the south, to the north, and to the east, I just don't think that's the right
thing for Collier County.
So when we call for the vote, you'll be surprised, just as I will
be, as to how I vote. Because I've changed my mind up here
January 28, 2020
Page 191
probably a hundred times today.
Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Attorney, if you would --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Andy Solis had his --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Actually, I just turned mine off just
because it related to the motion to continue it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, then I had a question.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So say, for instance, we approve
this now and an issue came out that they wanted to add a -- add
another few thousand feet to the commercial site, for instance, but
we're already voted and everybody approved, can you add and
subtract and move things around after it's approved?
MR. YOVANOVICH: (Witness shakes head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. This is it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'd have to -- if I may, we'd have to
come back and ask for an amendment to the SRA document. Right
now -- remember, we've already bumped up the commercial by
another 20,000 square feet. We'd have to go through this same
process to add more commercial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The thing is, we've been working
on this -- well, we haven't been, none of us have been working on
this -- since the '90s. And I only got into it in about 2002. And it's
been moving along. I mean, we could just keep kicking this can
down the road, but I think it's about time we move forward. If you
guys had felt that way, that would have been maybe something to say
a little bit earlier, but I just -- you know, I think it's time to move
forward.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
January 28, 2020
Page 192
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, I don't
think anyone's suggesting at all that we not have a village here. I
think the suggestion -- and at least I don't suggest that. That's not
where I'm going.
What I'm saying is the RLSA is here. You were there. You're
the only one that sat up there and understood what the goals of the
RLSA was. And I think when you look at Rivergrass it doesn't meet
those goals, the intent of the RLSA. The staff has said that. They
said that in the staff report.
So what would the alternative be? We say, all right, we don't
really want this like this. You have an opportunity to change it, or
you can just accept the denial. We can continue it. But make it so
that it -- not conforms, but it is better -- it is a much better project.
They can do it. Just much better in terms of the design of that
project.
Remember, planning -- our staff, David Weeks, got up on the
Planning Commission and gave it a D minus. This is not the design
that we're looking for.
If you look at Ave Maria -- look at Ave Maria. That's what --
you were there. You approved it. This is the opposite. This is not --
we could do so much better. And I'm suggesting that we could do
better. I'm not suggesting kill it and go away.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any other comments?
Mr. Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I would suggest 9B first.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. Which one?
MR. KLATZKOW: 9B, which is the new SSA.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: 9B.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not yet. We're going to do them
one at a time.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, 9B is the resolution amending the
January 28, 2020
Page 193
Stewardship Sending Area 15.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Wouldn't you do 9A first? That's
the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, you can do them all at the
same time.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I don't want to do all at the same
time.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. If you want to go 9A,
that's fine.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It just seems like that would be the
logical start. What is the vote requirement?
MR. KLATZKOW: Three.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. All right. Is there a
motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, you. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I'm -- the motion's going
to pass, but for pure consistency going forward, I'm going to vote
against the motion because I don't like these villages, and I'm going
to vote against villages as they come forward. So I don't want to vote
for one today and then turn around and vote against the next one.
So, if there's no further discussion, all in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed, signify by saying aye.
January 28, 2020
Page 194
Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It passes 3-2.
Now we'll go to 9B.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Make a motion for approval
as staff recommended.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and a
second.
THE COURT REPORTER: Who seconded?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
Now, I think probably all of these require -- some of these are
going to require four votes. I'm going to vote for all of the
subsequent motions at this point because the main motion is already
approved, and these motions will enhance the quality of that product.
So we have a motion and second on 9B. All in favor, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It passes 4-1.
Mr. Klatzkow, we're on 11B; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion for
approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and
January 28, 2020
Page 195
second. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It passes unanimously.
11C.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion for
approval.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. After the vote, don't
everybody jump up, you know, because we may have a few
comments -- I have a couple comments after this.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? Passes --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Passes 4-1.
I want to congratulate our staff, the audience, the petitioner,
everyone that's been involved in this public hearing. We've been here
for about five hours, and it's been very polite, it's been very
professional. I think we all learned a lot, and I think we have a lot to
January 28, 2020
Page 196
be proud of in terms of just the conduct of all the participants.
Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, we have Item 15 left to
cover this afternoon. That's staff and commission general
communications. I have nothing today for the Board, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right.
MR. OCHS: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. McDaniel, do you have
anything for the good of the order?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you want to go -- I'm
looking at my notes, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think I had some, but at this point
they're gone, so I'll save them for next time.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I'll do the same thing. It's
been a long day.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Just one thing, and we'll
put it on the visualizer. The town hall, the water quality 2020 town
hall is coming forward, and what we've done we've managed to -- at
Mike's suggestion we are going to have two locations for this. And
it's on the visualizer. It's in front of you. It's going to be here in
January 28, 2020
Page 197
Collier County, the chambers, but it is also going to be at the Marco
Island Historical Museum.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And we have the capability of
folks -- up to 24 hours before this town hall, they'll be able to email,
right, email their questions to staff. And then as it goes forward that
day 5:00 to 7:30, questions and texts can be emailed in for folks who
can't make it here but still want to participate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this is going to be February 18th
for both of them?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Both at the same time? One on
Marco Island in the museum and the other one is?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This will be -- the town hall will
be here, but folks who don't want to travel in from Marco Island can
sit in the museum, and they can participate and listen to the speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And we've got -- and thank you,
staff. That's Collier County right there. And we also have UF,
University of Florida, FGCU. We have Archbold Biological Station.
We have King Ranch represented by Mitch Hutchcraft. We've got
Mote Marine. And then we are also waiting for someone to come
from the Health Department, hopefully from the state level. So that's
where we sit.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And just a quick question. Is
that an interactive participation, or they just get to sit and watch?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. People -- not only can
people ask questions here, they can also ask questions from remote,
yes, or they can be at home on their computer and do it. This is
fabulous what you've done.
MR. MILLER: Just to clarify, they can text or email starting 24
January 28, 2020
Page 198
hours before. So if you're at Marco or if you're at home, you can text
us. We'll get it in real time and pass the questions along that way.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I did find notes, and there
were none.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So you didn't really find your
notes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have the Florida Association
of -- or -- yeah, I think the Florida Association of Counties -- well,
actually, it's not. We're going to be in Tallahassee next week, but it's
not part of the Florida Association of Counties.
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm going to be going up.
Commissioner Taylor, are you going up?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. Legislative days.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I am.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'll be going up on Monday.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Me, too. Yes, I'll be there on
Monday night.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah, same here. I'm going up
there primarily to deal with the veterans nursing home issue. We're
going to try to move that project along. I know -- I don't know if,
Mr. Ochs, you have any words of wisdom for us at this point, or
we're all set to go.
MR. OCHS: We'll bring home the bacon, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amen.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If there are no other comments --
THE CLERK: Commissioner Saunders.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE CLERK: Hello. Very quickly. I wish the whole room had
January 28, 2020
Page 199
been here, but upcoming February 7th from 2:00 to 4:00 at the
Orange Blossom Library headquarters, we will be having a session
on all of the Clerk's services for the community. We had a very
successful session on Marco Island last week; about 30 attendees.
And it went very well, so I'm hoping more people will show up at the
Orange Blossom event. They have a lot of space. You do need to
register.
And, of course, I want to bring up our Valentine's Day wedding.
For those who have not registered, we'd like everyone to register by
tomorrow for -- Friday -- I'm sorry, Friday the 31st for vow renewal
or original weddings. And so we want to offer that to the citizens.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If there's no other business, we are
adjourned.
**** Commissioner Solis moved, seconded by Commissioner
McDaniel and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE ENCLAVE OF DISTINCTION PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE LIVINGSTON
ROAD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item #16A2
January 28, 2020
Page 200
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES FOR LOGAN LANDINGS, PL20180002504,
ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE
POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $40,553.97 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND LOGAN
BLVD. N
Item #16A3
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $243,904 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER
PL20180002459 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
SEYCHELLES - WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY
HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS
FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS
Item #16A4
APPROVAL OF THE SHORT-LIST OF PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS AND ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH HIGHSPANS ENGINEERING, INC.,
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(“RPS”), “CCNA SOLICITATION #19-7632 CEI & RELATED
SERVICES ELEVEN BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS EAST OF SR
29" (PROJECT #66066) - MINIMAL TO NO MAINTENANCE
January 28, 2020
Page 201
COSTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE INCURRED WITHIN THE
FIRST 5 TO 7 YEARS OF SERVICE AND WILL BE ABSORBED
INTO THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
THEREAFTER; AND THE NEW STORMWATER FEATURES
WILL REQUIRE MINIMAL MAINTENANCE THAT WILL BE
ABSORBED INTO THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE
Item #16A5
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE AN ESCROW
AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,444.75 WHICH WAS
POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS, PL20170002331, FOR WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK PHASE THREE PLAT
Item #16A6
TWO LICENSE AGREEMENTS REQUESTED BY THE STATE
OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RELATING TO COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY REQUIRED FOR
THE UPGRADING OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED
FACILITIES ON US 41 AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND WITH ESPINAL
BOULEVARD – WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT MAIN COMPLEX
Item #16A7
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMISSION OF A SAFE ROUTES TO
SCHOOL APPLICATION WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION TO FUND THE DESIGN AND
January 28, 2020
Page 202
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ALONG 31ST PL. SW, 31ST
AVE. SW, 45TH ST. SW AND 44TH TER. SW TO GOLDEN
TERRACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - SOUTH IN THE
AMOUNT OF $837,453.75 – APPLICATION DEADLINE WAS
JANUARY 10, 2020
Item #16A8
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE THE BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $61,568 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY
FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER PL20180000161 FOR
WORK ASSOCIATED WITH CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK
PHASE 3 – LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BLVD, NORTH OF I-
75
Item #16A9
SUBMITTAL OF A US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR GRANT
APPLICATION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS AS PART OF
A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, AND COLLIER COUNTY TO FACILITATE
MARINE DEBRIS REMOVAL ON LAND UNITS OF TEN
THOUSAND ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE,
COLLIER COUNTY AND STATE OF FLORIDA. THE TOTAL
GRANT IS $290,003.41, AND NO MATCH IS REQUIRED -
LIMITED TO MARINE DEBRIS THAT POSES A THREAT TO
HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY AND/OR NATURAL
RESOURCES (FLORA, FAUNA, AND THEIR HABITATS),
SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO DERELICT VESSELS,
January 28, 2020
Page 203
DERELICT FISHING GEAR, AND VARIOUS
CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION DEBRIS RELATED TO
HURRICANE IRMA
Item #16A10
A FLORIDA BEAUTIFICATION GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR A
MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INVOLVING A PORTION
OF STATE ROAD 41 (U.S. 41 NORTH), FROM GULF PARK
DRIVE TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, AN EXISTING
BEAUTIFIED ROADWAY SEGMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$103,522 FOR CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION AND
APPROVE AN AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL
Item #16A11
A FLORIDA BEAUTIFICATION GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR A
MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INVOLVING A PORTION
OF STATE ROAD 41 (U.S. 41 NORTH), FROM PINE RIDGE
ROAD TO GULF PARK DRIVE, AN EXISTING BEAUTIFIED
ROADWAY SEGMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,631 FOR
CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION AND APPROVE AN AFTER-
THE-FACT SUBMITTAL
Item #16A12
AGREEMENT NO. 19-062-NS WITH APOLLO METRO
SOLUTIONS INC., AS A SINGLE SOURCE PROVIDER, FOR
THE PURCHASE OF LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (“LED”)
January 28, 2020
Page 204
LUMINARIES, NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 ANNUALLY –
COMMENCING ON MARCH 22, 2020 WITH AN ADDITIONAL
OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR
PERIODS
Item #16A13
A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR
STATE REQUIRED ANNUAL MONITORING OF COLLIER
COUNTY BEACHES AND INLETS FOR 2020 UNDER
CONTRACT NO. 15-6382, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER FOR A NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT OF $226,920.50 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS
EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM - USED TO
EVALUATE, RECOMMEND, AND PRIORITIZE ANNUAL
BEACH SEGMENT RENOURISHMENT
Item #16A14
AWARD AGREEMENT #19-7563 “EAST NAPLES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN,” TO TINDALE-OLIVER
& ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A TINDALE OLIVER IN THE
AMOUNT OF $173,563 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT - SERVICES ARE EXPECTED TO BE
COMPLETED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 2020
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2020-17: A BARE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
CAPRI COMMUNITY, INC., FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN
ARMED SERVICES/VETERANS MEMORIAL – LOCATED AT
January 28, 2020
Page 205
920 CAPRI BOULEVARD
Item #16C2
AGREEMENT NO. 19-7523, “DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY
MASTER PLAN FOR COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES,” IN THE
AMOUNT OF $515,470 TO HEAPY ENGINEERING, INC., AND
TO AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT –
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C3
SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKINGS FOR REQUEST FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NO. 19-7605, “DESIGN-BUILD OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD, LOGAN BOULEVARD, AND
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NEW 24-INCH FORCE MAIN
PROJECT,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP RANKED TEAM OF
QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC./Q. GRADY MINOR &
ASSOCIATES, INC., SO THAT STAFF CAN BRING A
NEGOTIATED CONTRACT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S
CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING - ALLEVIATING
THE CONVEYANCE CONSTRAINT OF THE 12-INCH FORCE
MAIN ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM THE HERITAGE
BAY MASTER PUMP STATION (“MPS” 167) WEST ALONG
IMMOKALEE ROAD THEN SOUTH ALONG LOGAN
BOULEVARD TO MPS 104 LOCATED ON VANDERBILT
BEACH DRIVE, JUST EAST OF LOGAN BOULEVARD
Item #16D1
January 28, 2020
Page 206
(1) SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY'S U.S
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR FY2017-2018 AND FY2019-2020
THAT REALLOCATES $75,000 FROM COLLIER COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY TENANT-BASED RENTAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO OAK MARSH RENTAL
REHABILITATION ACTIVITY AND CHANGES THE
LOCATION OF A HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
DEVELOPMENT; (2) AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO
APPROVE AMENDMENT #2 BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND OAK MARSH, LLC – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D2
THIRD AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.,
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND NAMI OF
COLLIER COUNTY – ADDRESSING BUDGET CHANGES AND
MODIFYING THE FINANCIAL PENALTY LANGUAGE
Item #16D3
APPROVAL OF THE RIVERS ROAD PRESERVE FINAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN 5-YEAR UPDATE UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM – LOCATED 2.5 MILES
EAST OF COLLIER BLVD, SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16D4
APPROVAL OF THE DR. ROBERT H. GORE III INTERIM
January 28, 2020
Page 207
MANAGEMENT PLAN UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER PROGRAM – LOCATED 5 MILES SOUTH OF
GOLDEN GATE BLVD. W, ADJACENT TO DESOTO BLVD.
Item #16D5
AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” GRANT APPLICATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $15,000 TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR A SHADE STRUCTURE AT
TIGERTAIL BEACH PLAYGROUND – APPLICATION DUE
DATE WAS JANUARY 3, 2020
Item #16E1
RENEWAL OF THE NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND
RESCUE DISTRICT’S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ADVANCED LIFE
SUPPORT NON-TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR ONE YEAR AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE PERMIT
AND CERTIFICATE – EXPIRING MARCH 31, 2021
Item #16E2
MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2020 FISCAL YEAR PAY &
CLASSIFICATION PLAN CONSISTING OF THE REMOVAL OF
TWO OBSOLETE CLASSIFICATIONS, FOUR ADDITIONS,
AND SIX RECLASSIFICATIONS MADE BETWEEN OCTOBER
1, 2019 AND DECEMBER 31, 2019
Item #16E3
January 28, 2020
Page 208
RATIFYING THE COUNTY MANAGER’S EXECUTION OF AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE FOR DISPATCH
COMMUNICATION SERVICES - ESTABLISHING A FORMAL
AGREEMENT OUTLINING COMMUNICATION SERVICES
PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO
MEET REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS
HIGH SCHOOL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
Item #16E4
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL – TWO (2) CHANGE ORDERS
MODIFYING CONTRACTS BY -$96,564.44, NO AMENDMENTS
AND ONE (1) AFTER-THE-FACT MEMO WITH A FISCAL
IMPACT OF $5,831.12
Item #16E5
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF
PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE
DISBURSEMENT – NO ONLINE SALES THIS PERIOD;
DISPOSED OF ITEMS HAD $1,621.72 IN BOOK VALUE AND A
TRADE-IN VALUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500
Item #16F1
January 28, 2020
Page 209
SECOND AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE SALES
AGREEMENT WITH RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH,
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE (AND NOT INDIVIDUALLY) FOR THE
EXTENSION OF THE DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD FOR THE
SALE OF THE 47 +/- ACRE PARCEL KNOWN AS THE
RANDALL CURVE PROPERTY FROM JANUARY 31, 2020 TO
MARCH 31, 2020 - PROVIDING THE COUNTY WITH
ADDITIONAL TIME TO REVIEW PURCHASER’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPOND AS REQUIRED BY THE REAL ESTATE SALES
AGREEMENT
Item #16F2
TERMINATING AGREEMENT #18-7294, “COLLIER COUNTY
NAMING RIGHTS AND SPONSORSHIP,” WITH THE
SUPERLATIVE GROUP, FOR CONVENIENCE, AND SEND
NOTICE TO THE CONTRACTOR - STAFF BELIEVES THAT
THE SUPERLATIVE GROUP HAS NOT PERFORMED TO THE
EXPECTATIONS OF THE CONTRACT
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2020-18: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F4
REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING
RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO
January 28, 2020
Page 210
AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY –
AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE ROCK ROAD MSTU (#20-207)
AND THE MOTOR POOL CAPITAL RECOVERY (#20-148)
Item #16G1
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 16-6561, “DESIGN
SERVICES FOR MARCO EXECUTIVE AIRPORT TERMINAL,”
WITH ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., TO EXTEND THE
SCHEDULE AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180)
DAYS TO COINCIDE WITH CONSTRUCTION AND INCREASE
THE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXTENDED SCHEDULE
BY $147,162 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING
CONSTRUCTION - NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE PROPER
CEI SERVICES IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF
CONSTRUCTION AND ALLOW FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE
PROPORTIONATE FEES COMMENSURATE WITH
PROVIDING THESE SERVICES DURING THE EXTENDED
SCHEDULE
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 28, 2020
Page 211
Item #16J1
REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF
COUNTY FUNDS AS OF THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER
31, 2019
Item #16J2
RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN JANUARY 2, 2020 AND
JANUARY 15, 2020 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J3
BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINED A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JANUARY 22, 2020
Item #16K1
RESOLUTION 2020-19: RE-APPOINTING SUSAN CURLEY
AND HERMINIO ORTEGA WITH TERMS EXPIRING
FEBRUARY 14, 2023 AND APPOINTING BARBARA DAVIS AS
ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Item #16K2
January 28, 2020
Page 212
RESOLUTION 2020-20: RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM POTEET
AND MICHAEL SEEF TO CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH TERMS
EXPIRING FEBRUARY 11, 2023
Item #16K3 – Moved to Item #12B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2020-07: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91-53, AS
AMENDED, THE AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY ALLOWING AN ADDITIONAL 4,400
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
EXPANSION OF THE FURNITURE STORE UP TO 65,000
SQUARE FEET LOCATED IN TRACT Y OF THE AUDUBON
COMMERCIAL CENTER SUBDIVISION; BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 2.06 AND 6.13 TO REFLECT THE CHANGE IN
SQUARE FEET, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE
SUBJECT PUD, CONSISTING OF 754.75± ACRES, IS LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF US 41 EXTENDING WESTWARD
ACROSS VANDERBILT BEACH DRIVE TO LITTLE HICKORY
BAY, IN SECTIONS 5, 7, 8 AND 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
[PL20190000502]
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2020-21: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 ADOPTED
BUDGET
January 28, 2020
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:58 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
BURT SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
G
-**,„1- 2,
•
*rtes .,& inn's
o �
sI 3rr I
These minutes approv by the Board on ,21,15-194,,10 , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 213