CCPC Minutes 09/16/2010 RSeptember 16, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
September 16, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of
the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Chairman: Mark Strain
Melissa Ahern
Donna Reed -Caron
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Page j 1
September 16, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Welcome to the September 16th meeting of the Collier County
Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ms. Caron, would you mind doing the roll call?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Ahem?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here,
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, addenda to the agenda. Any changes anybody know of today?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll move forward.
** *Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is 8:30 in the morning at developmental services room
609. Is that still the plan, Nick or Ray?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that is the conference room on Horseshoe Drive. So that's where we
will be meeting on Monday morning at 8:30 to review the AUK Annual Update and Inventory Report.
Does anybody on this board know if they are not going to make it to that meeting?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? Okay. So that means we have a quorum. We'll be good to go.
** *Approval of minutes. We have none.
** *BCC report. Ray?
MR, BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners met on September 14th; however, there were no
land use items on that agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. Chairman's report. Really don't have anything.
* * *So let's just move into the consent agenda items.
First item up for consent is PUDZ- 2008 -AR- 14048, Robert E. Williams, the Corkscrew Commercial Center
CPUD.
Okay, we've been distributed two different versions. The first one was in our packet, the second one was by
e -mail.
Nancy, I'm assuming the one that we are looking for approval on is the one by e-mail. I want to make sure
the commission members all have it. Anybody not have it?
You don't have it, Diane?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, Ms. Ebert didn't receive a copy. Do you have a hard copy you can give to
Page 12
September 16, 2010
her?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think with those -- all of us that were -- other of us probably have read it. Did
anybody see anything that needs to be corrected?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know about correction --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- but I offer a couple of thoughts.
Looking at the permitted uses, rve circled number 26, educational plants, number 34, group care facilities,
and number 42, libraries, and just wondered whether that would be realistic at all for that area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a consent item, so it's not a matter of being realistic, it's a matter of was that
an issue that was brought up during the discussion and was it one of the stipulations to have those removed from the
document. If not, we can't do anything about it on consent. We can only review on consent to make sure it's
consistent with the stipulations that we did from last time.
Is there any inconsistency from the prior stipulations that you see there?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a recollection regarding that. And I do have a recollection -- I
thought I brought the issue up, but we didn't go over it much. But that's okay. I doubt seriously they'll build an
educational plant out there anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any issues involving the consent?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that motion, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the motion is for the one that was e- mailed to us that we --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carves 8 -0.
** *Okay, we have two items coming up. I'll read them both for the record, then we'll discuss them together,
because they both are companion items to the other.
The first one is DOA- PL2010 -843. It's 850 NWN, LLC, CG II, LLC, and City Gate Development, Inc. for
the City Gate PUD.
The other one is PUDA- PL2010 -845, same group. Again, it's for the City Gate DRI PUD hearing.
Typically we hear these two things together. One is a development order to amend a D.O. Or actually to
correct the change of DRI. The other is the same change to the PUD. It involves the environmental aspects of the
project.
Before we go into it, it's an older DRI PUD. And I want to make sure from the County Attorney's Office as to
our limitations. This is coming forward as a result of a requirement in the DRI PUD to amend it based on the changes
to the red - cockaded woodpecker habitat. And they went ahead and did an HCP plan, and that plan is what's being
Page 13
September 16, 2010
submitted for review today as a change to the DRI in the PUD.
Based on that, are we limited to review of that aspect of the change because it was advertised for that, or do
we go outside that?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, Mr. Chair, we are restrained to that particular issue because of the
advertisement. The advertisement dealt only with the conforming -- the PUD and DRI to the federal permits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure we got off on the right track in our
discussion. Because like all the older documents in the county, there's a lot of history.
And with that, disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had met with Mr. Rice and another gentleman involving the project. We went
over some of the historic issues and how we got to where we are today, and we'll be discussing that here at this
meeting. So Mr. Rice, it's all yours.
MR. RICE: Thank you.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, one little thing called swearing in.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the reminder, Cherie'.
Okay, sir, go ahead.
MR. RICE: For the record, Roger Rice. I'm an attorney and I represent the applicants, City Gate
Development, LLC, CG II, LLC and 850 NWN, LLC.
City Gate -- is this -- how do I get mine on the viewer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the new IT department. Are you in charge of that too?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not yet, sir.
MR. RICE: I thought it was set up. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay.
MR. RICE: City Gate is located in the urban area in western Collier County. It is in the northeast quadrant of
1 -75 and Collier Boulevard.
You'll see to the south of City Gate is the White Lake Corporate Park development. To the east is the Collier
County Landfill. To the north is Unit 28 of Golden Gate Estates. To the northeast is that area known as Golden Gate
City. To our west in yellow is the Mike Davis Elementary School. Also in yellow is the Golden Gate High School.
To the southwest of City Gate is Davis Boulevard. South of the interstate is Beck Boulevard, the Cracker Barrel, the
Comfort Inn.
As the staff report outlines, there are two petitions -- excuse me, let me go over this slide first.
The Phase I plat is outlined in blue. That portion of City Gate was platted a few years ago. It is zoned
highway commercial. Lots 15 and 16 have two hotels on them that are open. One is a Springhill Suites, the other is a
Fairfield Inn. Lots three and four have a gas station/convenience store, and lot five is a car wash.
Outlined -- City Gate wraps around the South Collier Regional Water Treatment Plant, which sits on about 26
acres. To the east of the water treatment plant outlined in yellow are our Phase II plat, which was platted earlier this
year and subdivision improvements have started there and are expected to be completed within the next few weeks.
The portion east of the South Collier Regional Water Treatment Plant is zoned industrial.
As the staff report states, we have two amendments that are before you. The first is to our 1988 PUD. This is
to delete Section 7 entitled Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan.
The second is for an amendment to the DRI D.O., which is to revise section four, paragraph C, entitled
Off -Site Mitigation and paragraph D entitled Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan. These changes are
required to conform to our Federal Fish & Wildlife permit and our habitat conservation plan.
Our federal permit was issued by U.S. Fish & Wildlife on July 1 st, 2009.
These proposed changes do not affect the land uses approved for, or the amount of development approved for
the City Gate project.
This slide is a history of our consultation with U.S. Fish & Wildlife. My clients acquired the parcel in July of
2003. We first met with U.S. Fish & Wildlife in September, 2003. And you can see that the permit was issued July
Page 14
September 16, 2010
1 st, 2009.
This lengthy consultation period was due in part because City Gate's Section 10 permit is the first to involve
Florida panther, it is the first in the State of Florida to involve a privately funded wildlife crossing, and it is the first in
Southwest Florida to involve RCW translocations.
This is a copy of our -- the face sheet of our federal permit.
We met with numerous people. The review not only included the Vero Beach office but also involved the
southeast region in Atlanta. It was also reviewed by the commission, a number of people of the Wildlife Commission.
Early on we chose to engage local environmental groups. We met with Nancy Payton and The Conservancy,
Brad Cornell and the Collier Audubon Society in April of 2004. And there were a number of meetings along the way.
Also at the urging of environmental groups, we began our mitigation efforts in 2004. We have had great
success. Of the four -- four of the 10 active breeding groups of RCW s in the Picayune State Strand Forest have at
least one breeder that was translocated by RCW -- excuse me, translocated by City Gate. And one of the four active
breeding groups in the North Belle Meade has one breeder that was translocated by City Gate.
We have very little left to do because we began our mitigation efforts in 2004, five years before we got our
permit. We have a couple years left of monitoring. We have our final RCW translocation, which will take place in
November of this year. We have to construct a panther crossing, which we'll tell you a little about in a few moments.
Now, this panther crossing is not near the City Gate project. It is east of Immokalee in an area where there
have been a number of panther traffic mortalities. We have all of our permits in place, we have our funding in place.
We are expecting to start it in early -- excuse me, in November, as soon as the dry season starts, and we'll have that
completed in early 2011.
And we have our final donation of our mitigation parcels in the Picayune, a process that's been started and we
expect to complete it in early 2011.
City Gate has already incurred over $2.5 million in mitigation costs. We have 1.2 left for a total of over $3.7
million. That does not include soft costs, like attorneys fees.
We do have a short presentation by our RCW expert. Following that, he and I will be available to answer any
questions.
We also have present here to answer any questions another attorney for City Gate, Donald Pickworth. We
have two members from Davidson Engineering that could also answer any of your questions.
Roy DeLotelle has been a wildlife consultant in Florida for over 25 years. He's authored numerous RCW
management monitoring plans for many properties, private and state owned. Roy was a member of the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife's RCW recovery team. Roy lives in Gainesville but has played a significant part in the conservation efforts
for RCWs in Western Collier County since 1999.
In addition to his consulting work, Roy has been conducting red - cockaded woodpecker research for many
years, publishing his findings in peer - review journals and symposium proceedings. He has been published over 25
times. Now, what makes that incredible is that Roy spends a vast amount of his time in the woods establishing
artificial recruitment clusters, actively participating in RCW translocations and monitoring RCW s.
And in his last slide, this is Roy a few years ago in the Picayune Strand State Forest. He's translocating an
RCW, a subadult RCW to an artificial cavity that he placed in a tree. And you can kind of get an idea of how high he
is in that photograph.
Now, at that time he made this claim, and this is, I'm quoting him, he says that he is the oldest RCW guy still
climbing trees.
So if you will, Roy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, were you sworn in earlier?
MR. DeLOTELLE: No, I wasn't.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. DeLOTELLE: Well, like Roger said, I'm the oldest guy still climbing cavity trees, but I don't know if
that's a good distinction or not. But I have a lot of help from other people to do the stuff, put in the inserts and the
younger guys.
But anyway, we started the HCP for City Gate, we started that process in'03. And as Roger says, a big
component of that is moving birds around.
And I'm trying to figure this out a second. Okay.
Page 15
September 16, 2010
And as most people probably know, City Gate, the orange on this photo or yellowish orange in the corner
there at the Alligator Alley and 951 in this photograph depicts a lot of the historic RCW clusters that occurred around
951 and throughout, most of which are gone today.
All right, why did the original management plan need to be changed? Methodologies, technologies have all
changed since the early Nineties and such when essentially all we were doing was preserving habitat on -site, you
know, and trying to manage it a little bit and really waiting for the birds to be extirpated there and move on.
City Gate is not located in an ideal position to do that. All of the birds that surrounded them had disappeared
over the intervening years by the time we got to looking at it in'03.
Doesn't seem to want to move.
You know, they were disappearing in Western Collier County and they were disappearing all over the county
except for the birds that were on the Big Cypress National Preserve. All the birds that were immediately west of 951,
and in the Picayune we had four groups down there, three of them were males only and one of them was a female
when I started back in '99.
So we -- when I came in, you know, and got involved both in Picayune and at City Gate, one of the things
that I was suggesting that we do is translocate RCW subadults and that we build clusters of artificial cavities, and we
put four of them in what's called recruitment cluster and, you know, we would move two birds in there as subadults
and hopeful they would stay and become breeding groups.
And since 1998 we've moved well over 500 birds throughout the southeast, and over 200 of those have been
donated to Florida.
Now, more specifically, there are approximately 24 small populations of RCW's in the Central South Florida
Recovery Unit. And since 2000 when we really first started doing these techniques, the number of breeding groups
has increased from 264 to well over 300 in that intervening nine years.
And Picayune and the little population here was part of that increase. We increased from no breeding groups
in the south and presently we have 10 groups, two of which are on the mitigation lands on Picayune that City Gate is
supporting.
Eventually, you know, it would have resulted in a net loss of RCW's if we continued with the management on
City Gate. And we've already replaced it with two new groups in the Picayune.
And this is a no net loss philosophy that the Fish & Wildlife Service is operating under presently. The
success ratio is about one to two, one loss being replaced by two new groups throughout the Southeast United States
where the red - cockaded woodpecker occurs. You know, which is essentially from East Texas to Florida up to Virginia
and does -- well, it does include Kentucky, although most of those birds have disappeared.
Management activities for RCW's which includes burning and reducing midstory and such is good for all of
our endangered -- South Florida endangered species, you know, fox squirrels, panthers, gopher tortoises, you know,
creates that open environment, grassy ground cover, which is good, in addition to a number of game species, such as
white tailed deer and turkey.
Here's a picture of some of the habitat conditions that occur both in the North Picayune, occur up in North
Belle Meade on some of the lands up there that have RCW s. And there's actually a cavity tree in that picture way in
the background, but it's surrounded by cabbage palm, holly, melaleuca and a lot of things in the midstory.
And this is a typical situation that we see after we've been able to work where the cavity trees are to reduce
that midstory, create those open conditions that RCW s's prefer. And now, you know, RCW's do better in this habitat
because it's -- it doesn't provide so much cover for predators, such as hawks and things that will eat birds, in particular
small birds like red- cockaded woodpeckers.
In addition to manually removing some of that midstory and also mechanically, long -term the best way to
control understory and create the ground cover conditions that support RCW's's is regular controlled fires. And this is
part -- that was part of the area that we're burning, that City Gate's been burning out on the Picayune. And in this
particular stand there's been two fires, one in I think'07 or'08 and then the more recent. These were controlled bums
that we go out and create the fire lanes and such, make sure the fire's restricted, get the permits, and then come in and
do a burn, a cool bum that bums up the ground cover vegetation in a sense that it reduces it it doesn't kill it, and
doesn't kill the pines so that the pines are left there, because that's where the RCW's are foraging is on the ball and the
canopy of the tree.
Here's what we've been working with -- or I've been working with the last 10 years. You see the green dots
Page 16
September 16, 2010
are occupied clusters of cavity trees with RCW's in it. And we have 10, eight in the south and then two up in the north
part of Picayune. And then there's some North Belle Meade birds, you know, the birds up in Nancy Payton's preserve,
I've been working with those birds the last couple of years with county people. And then there's some birds on Hussy,
and then the Rocco, as we call it, is the cluster sort of in between -- there you go -- in between the Payton preserve
birds and the Hussy birds. Potentially, you know, that will be donated to some state program; we're trying to figure
out which one of them.
And here's just an example of the federal permit that City Gate has to acquire from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service regarding the HCP and the incidental take permit. The permit is split into two documents: The habitat
conservation plans, which is essentially the plan proposed by clients such as City Gate; then the incidental take permit
or the TTP, as they call it, is the Fish & Wildlife Service document. They take the HCP, incorporate requirements
from it or importing procedures, and the general concepts of things to be done, such as fire, putting in cavities and so
on. But anyway, we've -- City Gate's obtained that permit.
Just to give you an example, since 2004, this is a list of the birds that we've translocated either to North
Picayune, and one year we moved some birds down to the south too, and have had recently good success. I think we
have birds throughout the different populations that have been translocated as a result of City Gate's efforts.
So, you know, an important thing here to remember is City Gate started this work well before, and with the
approval of the Fish & Wildlife — before the permit was actually obtained so that a large portion of the requirements
have already been met.
And here's a good example of a picture Jeremy took, he's a good photographer, of an RCW sitting at a cavity
tree. And that's an artificial or insert box that he's perched on. And as you can see, they're armor plated. You know,
the PVC pipe keeps the redbelly woodpeckers from enlarging the hole, which makes it unacceptable to the RCW and
often creates conditions to allow water to drain in there.
And then the wire mesh is on there to keep the pileateds from hammering out the holes; pileated
woodpeckers, the largest ones. And this wood is redwood and it's fairly soft.
So anyway, here's a screen. And actually, there is an RCW that we've translocated that's inside that hole.
And this is what you do: You bring them in, get them from like Apalachicola or Withlacoochie State Forest. This
year we're going to Ft. Stewart up in Savannah, Georgia to get our birds. And we move them.
This is a young male that we're banding. You can see the red in the comer of the white cheek patch. And all
males have that. And the females don't. And we're putting some bands on him.
So four of the 10 breeding groups in Picayune have birds that we've translocated. The breeders from City
Gate have been translocated. Two of their active groups in the Picayune were in the north part of the Picayune.
And, you know, we generally were ending up with birds -- which from a genetic perspective is a good thing,
because with small populations it's possible that you get genetic bottlenecks and stuff, and we've got birds from a
variety of places in the population.
Some of the things that I have to do. You know, annual reports in terms of monitoring efforts we have to turn
into the Fish & Wildlife Service.
We're going to conduct a final translocation right before Thanksgiving of this year for Picayune, the North
Mitigation Picayune for City Gate, and, you know, we'll get the birds up at Ft. Stewart, we'll come in there in the
evening and the birds will be handed off, and then we'll probably hold them all the next day and feed them. And that
evening or late afternoon we'll put them in the cavities and then come by in the morning and pull that screen off so
they can fly out and meet each other and join up, although it's not quite that simple.
In addition, you know, we have to finalize, you know, constructing the wildlife crossing for the panther, and
the donation of the Picayune mitigation parcel.
Just a general map showing the location of City Gate, which you all know.
MR. RICE; No, that's the wildlife crossing.
MR. DeLOTELLE: Was that the wildlife crossing? Pm song.
And here's a map showing some of the panther data that's been collected over the years with a dispersal
corridor where the wildlife crossing will go.
And some of the permits, you know, Swiftmud, Collier County, such for the wildlife crossing. So there's
been a lot of negotiation there.
I don't think that's me up that tree. It's someone. You know, we usually go up about 20 feet and put the birds
Page 17
September 16, 2010
in these cavities, keep them out of the range of fire and stuff.
And so, questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I notice that only I think it's 102 acres are going to be in perpetual
management easement. How are you going to keep the habitat good for the rest of the area where you're translocating
the birds?
MR. DeLOTELLE: Well, you know, the Picayune State Forest has a regular fire program and a control
program to reduce exotics, to manage the forest from a fire protection, and so -- and there's some monies that are
being donated to Picayune to do that sort of stuff.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll probably have some when we get done with the public discussion.
Staff report first.
Thank you, sir, very thorough report. Appreciate it.
Mr. Rice, could you tell us that gentleman's name for the record.
MR. RICE: Roy DeLotelle. I'll provide you with a card.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning.
And you have a staff report for both projects. You have one for the amendment to the DRI and the resolution
that goes with that. And then you also have the staff report for the PUD amendment and the ordinance that goes with
that.
Staff is recommending approval of both. You have findings of fact to support the PUD recommendation.
And we are recommending that it be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and then approval of that, as
well as approval of the D.O. amendment for the DRI.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay.
Does anybody have any questions of staff before we go to public -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Kay, can this HCP be changed or modified?
MS. DESELEM: In the future it can, but it would take the same process, it would take public hearings to
amend it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It would?
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And -- but that was my question, because we are crossing out, in -- this would
be the PUD amendment, we're crossing out all the language in there that says that we have -- it should go before a
public hearing.
MS. DESELEM: I understand what you're saying, I'm song, I misspoke. What it is, they're taking the
requirements out of the PUD document where it had what was required at the time to now recognize the management
plan that's been accepted by the federal and state regulatory agencies.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But what I asked you was can that HCP plan that's been approved right
now be changed in the future.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, my understanding it would be in compliance with the federal and state regulations.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but -- so we are passing along any comments that the county may have
on this strictly to the state and the fed.
MS. DESELEM: I think --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right now we have -- that's why we're here today is it's in here specifically that
the county has to review this. And we are going to give up that right.
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Why would we want to do that?
MS. DESELEM: Basically because the federal and state regulations are the ones that control it. And we're
not going to be going against what they're recommending and requiring anyway. So it's just another layer of
approvals that they have to go through that's seemingly unnecessary.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's as of today this minute. We're talking about in the future. And as
Page 18
September 16, 2010
you know, Collier County has every right to make their rules and regulations stronger and more strict than either the
state or the federal. So why would we give up the potential? I mean, we probably will never use that right ever again,
but why would we strike it out here? I don't understand. I mean, I understand they want us to strike it out, but I don't
understand the benefit to the county.
Heidi?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You're still going to have the reference to the permit in the DRI. And it refers to a
permit and specific dates under subsection C. So if that permit is changed, the way I'm reading this is that this DRI
would have to be amended to reference the new permit.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's the way you interpret --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So it's taken out of the PUD. Yes, and I don't know if Mr. Rice or Mr. Pickworth
would want to comment, but that's how I'm reading it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'd like it on the record that everybody agrees that that's the intent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go that far in relationship to that, Kay, the whole purpose of this HCP is
to move the woodpeckers from the City Gate property to other areas for mitigation. Is that what has occurred or
what's occurring?
MS. DESELEM: That's a correct assessment, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not going to be any woodpeckers on this property, right?
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the whole thing is moot. Whether it's in the DRI PUD or not doesn't
really matter, because the birds are being physically moved and there's going to be industrial buildings put up in their
place.
MS. DESELEM: I think that's a correct assessment.
In reality, we are taking it out of the PUD, but it does stay in the DRI, as Ms. Ashton spoke. It's on Page 3 of
9 in the DRI development order.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a small one. I think I know the answer.
Kay, this doesn't affect their master development plan at all?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir, it does not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to public speakers, any other questions?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one more.
Kay, in all of the revision language here, it talks about — it refers to it as strictly the Red - cockaded
Woodpecker Management Plan, whereas the actual management plan is for red-cockaded woodpeckers and Florida
panthers. Should we not refer to the whole -- should we not include —
MS. DESELEM: My understanding, it dealt with the RCW s's. But let me look at it. I'm not certain, let me
look at it and see.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we just talked about panther crossings, so --I mean, the title of their plan
says that it's a Red - cockaded Woodpecker and Florida Panther Plan. So just to be specific and to be correct, I think
we would use the full title of the plan.
MS. DESELEM: I see no problem with that. It's probably more correct, like you say.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Ray, any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered to speak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any member of the public like to speak? If so, just come up and use the
microphone.
Ms. Payton first and the gentlemen second. Were you both sworn in? Ms. Payton, you were? Sir? Okay.
MS. PAYTON: Good moming. Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation.
And I'd just like to speak briefly in support of the proposals that are before you today. We've worked closely
Page 19
September 16, 2010
with City Gate and their consultants in addressing a number of concerns, and they were very responsive. And this is
really a big gain for wildlife when you think about their mitigation obligations under the original approvals, that
panthers have been added. There's a wildlife crossing that's being built on a road that I don't know how else we would
have gotten a crossing there, because it's a road that's not slated for any improvement, there was no nexus for any sort
of public monies, it's an area that have had significant panther kills, it is an area that panthers travel as they're going
north as we're trying to grow the population,
It set the precedent as to the justification of why wildlife crossings are appropriate mitigation in certain
circumstances. Because if you have females and young females being killed on the road, it really is a blow to
expanding the population and its range.
What wasn't mentioned, which really wasn't directly a part of the habitat conservation plan, but I would like
to mention it, that City Gate was a major contributor to the University of Florida and University of Central Florida's
Eastern Collier Wildlife Movement Study that determined through a scientific process over a year on the ground
review as to where appropriate places are for animal crossings, including panthers, and the type of crossing that might
be appropriate. So they have made significant contributions to the protection and recovery of red- cockaded
woodpeckers and Florida panthers. In fact, they found a county property that was occupied by RCW's's and part of
their mitigation was to improve that property for those birds.
So I think they deserve a pat on the back for working so closely with conservation groups, hearing our
concerns and addressing them and really stepping up and going beyond the minimum for protecting and restoring our
wildlife habitat. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nancy.
Sir, do you want to use one of the mics? You need to state your name for the record, please.
MR. GIOFRIDA: Philip Giofrida. I'm a resident of Collier County. I live across from the water plant where
the woodpeckers been removed and set out into the Estates.
What people don't realize is that area -- I've lived there for 30 years, and we had eagles sitting on pine trees
along the canal bank. And apparently Southwest Florida Management District, Big Cypress Basin, decided to clean
our canal bank, strip it to nothing. Absolutely took every tree out. These people have been trying to get their permits
since what, '04?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2003, I believe.
MR. GIOFRIDA: 2003. I've got pictures here when they first started the desecration of the canal bank.
My property. I own 25 feet vegetation and the trees were right to the canal bank. And all of a sudden they
started ripping them out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the "they ", sir, you're referring to South Florida Water Management District?
MR. GIOFRIDA: Apparently. But it was City Gate's property. And somebody had to approve this. The
county allowed them to come on our property, rip out all our trees, no permits, no permission, no forewarning,
nothing.
We finally stopped -- my neighbors and I finally stopped the destruction of all the palm trees and everything
along the canal bank only five years later to come back and take out everything. And this was a few months ago.
I found out at the board meeting at Big Cypress Basin apparently that time of the year is when they've got to
spend their money and they decided to spend the money by raping the canal bank up and down the street, 39th and --
along with building a new weir, which we were not uninformed (sic) of.
The county has no say. I could not fmd one person in the county, just could not refer me to anybody but Mr.
Tears, who is doing all the destruction.
I talked to Matt Hudson, one of our representatives from the state, because apparently that's the only way you
can talk to Big Cypress Basin. And he gave me a little drawing of how the canal bank is going to be designed. I have
it here with me. And it shows that — I'm in the construction business and have been. I'm a semiretired contractor.
And every project I've made or done or dealt with, I've had to keep -- the water that's on your property stays on your
property.
I have a little cross - section design here that shows a stabilized roadway rolling the water into my property
through a buffer zone and on into the canal. And if I have to do it on all my projects, I don't understand why City Gate
and/or whoever's doing this, the city or -- because the water plant is there. So the county has a certain stake in it. The
state overrides apparently the county. And now I'm understanding the federal is the one that created all the
Page 110
September 16, 2010
woodpecker transformation (sic).
I used to be able to sit at my back table and watch an eagle occasionally fish the canal. Now it's all I've got is
water plant. They're going to put up south -- Big Cypress Basin said they're going to put a buffer zone in. Well, that
buffer zone, III be dead before it's big enough to hide the water plant that's behind me.
My property values keep plummeting, and they keep doing more destruction. I would have thought that they
would have let some of that vegetation along the canal bank and maybe some of the birds would have stayed. I mean,
anybody that's ever driven to Everglades City, on your way down you see telephone poles. The only place they've got
to perch, they're there. So had they left some of this vegetation, maybe we could have had it. But they were allowed to
rip it out. Nobody said a word to them. County said nothing.
I'm here to say something. I just want to know how I have to play by the rules and the county does not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a question a lot of us ask ourselves living in this county, sir. I don't
know how to help you with an answer on that, so -- I appreciate your expressing your concerns to us, but on this issue
we're really — our hands are tied on review today to limit it to the environmental aspects of the habitat conservation
plan.
MR. GIOFRJDA: Well, the vegetation is already down. And I just want to know what procedure can I tell
my -- tell people that -- how to stop this. The county has no say. And I don't know why we're even here. If the state
and federal government are going to do whatever they want, why are these people wasting their time with you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator of the Growth
Management Division.
This item came up a while back. It is BCB clearing in their easement is the predominant reason you're here, I
believe, sir. And we've discussed that with Clarence. We have no control over what they do within that 20 -foot strip.
MR. GIOFRIDA: Why aren't they at this meeting? Did they have anything to do with --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, sir, this meeting is -- honestly, this meeting is not about that issue. That's what
I asked the County Attorney at the beginning of the meeting --
MR. GIOFRIDA: It's about woodpeckers that were on my property and were on the vegetation that was
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the testimony is the woodpeckers have been moved and relocated, and
they've done all the mitigation required by federal and state permitting to do just what they've done.
The issue you have is not one of the issues being discussed today. It is part of an older DRI that started in
1988. The terms and conditions of that DRI is what this gentleman has to adhere to. He will be doing that when he
puts his buffer up and he puts other things up as he progresses into the project. He's not that far along.
What has occurred on his property is not his doing. It is a 50 -foot drainage easement that I have the plat of
right here, and it is off your property. It is on his property. He didn't do it. But because that easement is there, the
agency had a right to do it. And that's what I think Mr. Casalanguida is trying to express, is it was out of the county's
hands. That's the Big Cypress Basin's ability to put their access road in and put their lines in. That's something they
did. We have no control over it at this point, at least at this meeting.
So as much as I understand your concern, I don't know what we could do to help you here today.
MR. GIOFRIDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Any other members of the public wishing to speak on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant wish to have any final comments before we close the public
hearing?
Yes, sir.
MR. RICE: The answer is no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The answer is no. Why you're sitting there, I assumed that.
I do have a question for you, Mr. Rice. I've read your ADA, your DRI, your PUD, the amendments, your
CDD, your bond applications and the settlements that you've had in getting your DRI and the other settlements with
the county, and there are three of them.
In that process, how much impact fee -- how many dollars in impact fees approximately are you obligated to
Page 111
September 16, 2010
or have you already paid? I know you advanced some impact fees to the county.
MR. RICE: A little over six and a half million dollars, I believe, has been paid. The total for Phase I was in
the neighborhood of 4.5. In January of this year we paid a little over $2 million.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And according to your ADA, the construction employment to be generated
from the duration of your project is 4,460. I m assuming your ADA at the time was accurate.
MR. RICE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And according to the permanent employment that you're supposed to generate from
your project, the number of people to be permanently employed over the duration is 4,865. So you're going to be
employing in one manner or form over 9,000 people, and you've contributed six and a half million so far in impact
fees and 3.7 million in mitigation.
Are you going to be asking any taxpayers money for any assistance here?
MR. RICE: Chair, we have spent the last six or seven years permitting the project. We knew when we
acquired the project that it had issues with red- cockaded woodpeckers.
During that time period we put on hold, if you will, our marketing and plans for the ultimate development of
the property.
So the answer is we're today finalizing or coming to an end of our wildlife issues. And after today, then we
can focus on where exactly we're going and whether or not we would be seeking some public money.
But you are absolutely correct, to date we have not solicited one dime.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- it's quite a bit of money and Collier County has benefited from your
facilities so far, and that's commendable that we were able to get the impact fees up -front like we have.
And also your work on the HCP. I haven't seen many do as much as you have.
The only remaining issue, and Td like to ask this, for you to do voluntarily when you leave here is that at
some point get together with Mr. Giofrida and see if you can show him the landscape buffers and provisions you're
going to be actually placing along that north edge. They're not part of today's meeting but I know they're part of your
DRI and they're part of your PUD requirements. And maybe that will give the neighborhood a little bit higher level of
comfort that something is going to be addressed in that north end.
So if you wouldn't mind doing that, I would certainly appreciate it from this board.
MR. RICE: We commit to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions of anybody regarding this matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll close the public hearing.
Is there any discussion before a motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we've got to do is take a motion on each item one at a time. The DOA first,
the PUDA second.
Does anybody wish to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, Mark.
I move we forward with a recommendation of approval DOA- PL2010 -843.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert seconded.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page 112
September 16, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0.
Is there a motion on the PUDA?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with a recommendation of approval
PUDA- PL2010 -845.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye,
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion again carries 8 -0.
Thank you all very much. And I certainly hope that you can make some headway with Mr. Giofrida and the
neighbors to the north, it would solve another problem. So thank you.
Okay, that brings us to the end of advertised public hearings.
* * *Is there any old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Any new business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're moving fast. Cherie's going to have not enough to type up here today.
** *Public comment items?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahern made the motion, seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Motion carries, 8 -0. Thank you all very much.
Page 113
September 16, 2010
* * * * * * * * **
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 9:26 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
/ k P J41�A'J
MARK STRAIN, /Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on loidt Law as presented -jz—/Or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 114