The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 07/20/2017Jrly 20,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF TTIE MEETING OF TIIE COLLIER COTINTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 20,2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building rtFrr of the Govemment Complex,3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Patrick Dearborn Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Ned Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeftey Klatzkow, County Attomey Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page I of35 h:Jy 20,2017 PROCEEDINGS MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday July 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good moming. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearbom? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt had a conflicting environmental seminar he had to attend today, so that's why he won't be here. Addenda to the agenda. We only have one item on today's agenda for the advertised public hearing, and it's discussion of the preservation standards that we previously reviewed in January. Then I have -- I remember from past that Stan had wanted to add a discussion at some point conceming submerged land -- no, sea level rise. Do you still want to do that, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eventually, yeah. Today would be good, but I can wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just get past it so we know what it is your issue is. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's add it to -- since today there's only one item on the agend4 let's add it to new business; new business, i0A. Then l0B - I heard from the County Attomey's Office that Ned - and I saw he passed something around this moming -- has an issue he'd like to discuss about NIMs. Ne{ is that okay for today's agenda? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I lB (sic). COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, please. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, because those are announced today, if there's any action needed on those, we may have to forgo the action till it's properly noted, but we'll see what the issues are when we get to them. Planning Commission absences: We originally had scheduled a meeting for the 3l st in the evening to discuss an LDC amendment, and there's no need for that now based on some recent actions by the Board of County Commissioners, so the Planning Commission's meeting on the July 3lst will not occur. And we have no cases to discuss on August 3rd. So the Planning Commission meeting on August 3rd is canceled. And, for your benefit, there are two items tentatively scheduled for the second meeting in August. You'llprobably be notified by staffon whether or not they end up getting advertised and put forth on that date or they move to another date, which takes us to the next - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Yes, sir. Page 2 of35 July 20,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. Just so that you know, I will not be in attendance on the second meeting in August due to an unavoidable out-of-town conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes that were included in our electronic transmittals. May 18th. Does anybody have any changes to May 18th's minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motionto approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AYC. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody oPPosed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. The second one is the July lst meeting. Anybody have any changes? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move approval by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AYE. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. That takes us to -- well, wete not going to -- there's no BCC report and recaps. Ray's not here, and we'll let Mike -- get him offthe hook on that. I have no chairman's report. Consent agenda, there's nothing on it. **'r'We'll move right into the first advertised public hearing, which is 9A'. It's an adoption of amendments to the Land Development Code, and this particular one is for 3.05.07, the preservation standards. We don't normally swear in for these. I don't see a need to today. We'll just go into presentation and discussion. Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Good morning. Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager with Growth Management Page 3 of35 JluJy 20,2017 Department. Happy to be here again. It's been quite some time since we reviewed this amendment last, and looking forward to finally getting through it today. So we have at least one new planning commissioner today, so I'll give just a brief overview of the history of the amendment and some of the other things that are changing in the amendment. So this amendment actually goes back to 2015 when the Board had some concems about the amount of money that came along with land donations for off-site preservation and gave staffdirection to increase the land management endowment so that it lasted longer than the current endowments are lasting, and to also consider removing the land donation altemative. So we had kind of two options as we started this amendment. And as we've gotten into the amendment, we've also tried to -- or gotten into this section, we've also tried to include in the amendment closing some loopholes, some issues that we've noticed in this section, so there's a number of other changes to the section in addition to the changes regarding the land management endowment. So beginning with the applicability section, I'11just kind of walk you through each section. What we -- what this section does is allows for off-site preservation for the preserve requirements for projects that have a preserve requirement ofup to one acre. There is an exemption from that one-acre limitation for affordable housing and essential services facilities. There's also a PUD deviation section where off-site preservation can be allowed for preserve requirements up to two acres through that PUD deviation process. There are -- there's also a stipulation that you cannot get a deviation ifthose preserves have already been identified on an SDP or plat. The current restrictions section is being retitled to a prohibition section. What this does is ensures that these prohibitions can't be deviated from. And then getting to what was the subject of most of our discussion back in January, the off-site preservation alternatives. There are two altematives for off-site preservation. The first is a monetary payrnent. In this case, just a monetary paSrment is paid from the developer and that monetary payment is made up of two elements: The cost to purchase the land. And at the last Planning Commissionmeeting, you all had talked about basing that on the AUIR. And the next element of that payment is the land management endowment. So this is where we had the most discussion; what that endowment should be. That's based on the staffestimate of the annual cost for exotics maintenance and then also an initial exotics removal cost. And it's that staffestimate of annual exotics that we've made modifications to, and that's really the main change from the last time you saw this in January. The second altemative is the option for a land donation that - in addition to the donation of land also comes along with that land management endowment, again, made up of the same two elements: The annual exotic maintenance cost and the initial exotics removal cost. And there's also a 4-1 donation ratio included. So, as I said, we made some modifications to that annual cost, the estimated annual cost for exotics management. And you can see the change here. At the last meeting we were using a figure of $558 per year, and we've modified that now to $304 per year based on a couple of changes, namely to the costs for site visits, adminisfative tasks and signage replacement, so, really, some of the staffcosts associated with managing these parcels. So in your packet today there was -- there's a table in Exhibit 1 that identifies the management costs for Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head. Since sending that packet out to you, we've been able to put together a little bit more information about actual costs that Conservation Collier has paid for just the exotics removal portion of that - of the management of those parcels. And so you can see in the case of Red Maple Swamp the average cost over about four years was $142 per acre. So if we were to take the staffcosts identified on that last slide and add that to the$142 for exotics removal, that total cost would end up to be $300 per acre to manage the parcels in Red Maple Swamp. And then looking at Winchester Head, the average cost for three years of management was $506. Again, that's just for the exotics maintenance portion. Addmg the staffcosts to that brings that cost up to 664. So looking at these two examples, looking at some of the other examples in Table I in Exhibit 1, I Page 4 of35 JuJy 20,2017 think that the modification to that land management -- annual land management cost really does represent kind of a minimum of staffcosts associated with managing these parcels. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Marh can we ask questions at any time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to Jeremy. I was going to kind of let him get through it to see if he answers some of your questions, but if you have something, I don't know why we can't. MR. FRANTZ: l'm happy to take questions whenever. It's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I kind of remember asking about the exotics in Winchester Head at one time, and I was told that there was no exotic removal because the parcels were so disjointed. Are you removing the exotics from Winchester Head parcels? And how effectively are you doing? 100 percent removal, or is this just some parcels, some -- MR. FRANTZ: My understanding is that the removal that we're doing is only for parcels that have been donated, but I will stand corrected. That's correct. So only for the parcels that have been donated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So all the parcels that have been donated have had all the exotics removed from them? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. MS. SULECKI: Good moming. Alex Sulecki, for the record, Conservation Collier Coordinator. Yes. Thank you for the question. We remove exotics to approximately 5 percent. That's our goal. And all of the donated parcels in Winchester Head have been treated. They were initially treated when they were given to us, and we've treated them again to follow up on that initial treatment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Back up. You said we removed parcels -- we remove exotics to approximately 5 percent. What does that mean? MS. SULECKI: That means we like to have no more than 5 percent exotics on the property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So if I were to go out there and take a look, I wouldn't hardly see any exotics at all on any of the parcels in Winchester Head that the cotnty owns? MS. SULECKI: You would see a lot less than what's next door depending on where you are in the cycle. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thankyou. MS. SULECKI: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So then, if you recall, we were using a 20-year model to generate that endowment cost using the annual maintenance cost. So plugging that $304 into that same 2O-year model we used in the past comes out to an $18,000 land management endowment. So what that means for these two altematives in terms of the costs associated, you can see here we have two different costs for the monetary payment altemative depending on the location of the development, whether it's in the trban area or non-urban area, and then again for the land donation alternative there is that land management endowment per acre as well as a 4-l donation ratio. I have a couple of corrections to your packet that I just wanted to go over really briefly. On Page 4 we have this image that kind of depicts the applicability for off-site donations for a number -- in a number of circumstances. And you can see where I've got this red line crossing out right-of-way acquisitions. That was an existing provision that was removed early on in the vetting process of this amendment, but it was never removed from this image. And on Pages 8 atdg,we have two tables that describe the elements of the land donation fee. Ln your packet it calls the numbers in the right-hand column the per acre cost. That was incorrect. The per acre cost is actually in the parentheticals on the left-hand side, and the total cost that you see on the right-hand side is actually the total cost per donation in those instances due to the donation ratios. And on Page 24, this is actually in the amendment text we noticed that there was a reference to a couple of sections that have been deleted, and so we've just removed that reference. So that's the end of my presentation, and we're open to any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, being the newest member to this Soup, would not presume to offer substantive changes to things Page 5 of35 Jily 20,2077 which have been looked at very carefully by the people, the other people up here. But when I looked at the proposed LDC language, I found it, at least in my perception, not to be suffrciently clear. And so I attempted to revise it in a way that, at least with one exception, was intended not to make any substantive changes in what staff was proposing and that this commission had previously reviewed with the sole objective being to make it more clear and readable, also in the event that down the road this language were to become a dispute of some sort between adverse parties, that the county would, at least from my perception, be in a better position to defend the substance of what was being offered. So having said that, and in order to present in as clear a way as possible my suggested changes to this language, I have handed out a redliner, a black and white redliner that, unfortunately, probably because of the limitations of my printer, is hard to read, and so I apologize for that. I also printed one color copy, and for some reason the color copy picked up my additions but not my deletions. So it was of limited value. But staffalready has that in hand for use on the overhead. May I go through these, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. That wouldbe best, Ned. Thankyou. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. First of all - and you might refer to the redliner. You will see that I've suggested a subject for Subsection F that seems to incorporate everything that is being addressed in that subsection. I then moved purpose and intent into its own subsection so that it would apply to the entire section. It then occurred to me that I was confused by the section captioned "applicability." It seemed to me rather that that section was intended to deal with preserve requirements of one acre or less. And so I reorganized the language so that Subsection 2,little romanette ii, dealt only with preserve requirements of one acre or less. Then there was language -- and I should say that I've had several very helpful conversations with Jeremy about this offJine, and he helped me focus on what the intentions were so that I could be sure that I didn't change the meaning unintentionally. But the last sentence of what was No. 2, applicability, I believe is intended to apply not only to one-acre-or-less situations but the greater preserve requirement -- acreage requirement as well. So I moved that to a free-standing Sub 3 so that it's clear it applies to both one acre or less and greater than one acre. Let's see. I renamed - I moved the 2D from exceptions to the subject that seemed to - at least wording, which in my judgment, at least, better captured what was to be said in there: Preserve requirement of greater than one acre. So all of that deals with that. And then the new Subsection 4 is the language that is intended to apply to both situations: One acre or less and greater than one acre. Then I rewrote slightly the prohibition section to try to make it a little more clear without, I hope, changing any of the substance of it. The Subdivision C of what is now 6 was actually changed by staff and I accepted their changes. I had raised the question that it didn't seem to make any sense to me as written, and so they changed it, and I embraced their changes. Then the only substantive change I made is down in what is now 7A on Option 1 -- well, it's also on Option 2. But, first of all, I had to get over the hurdle of whether a land donation was a required option under the GMP. I looked at the language, and the word "or" is used between -- or among the options rather than "and." So I took it from that that land donation does not have to be an option as long as at least one ofthose disjunctive options were offered. So having gotten over that hurdle though, I thought about when off-site donations or off-site -- payments for off-site preserve requirements are made, it seemed to me that they should -- those payments should reflect not the situs of the donated land but the situs of the original land so that in urban areas the higher price would apply to the calculation of the donation than it would in rural areas. And so that shows up as a parenthetical in what is now what I would propose to be 7A. And those were the changes that I made or am proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like clarification, but I certainly think we're going to have to Page 6 of35 IuJy 20,2017 provide some time for staffto see if the clarifications produce the equivalent intent that was intended from the way staffhad written it. Unless you've already reviewed it ahead of time, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, we did get the opportunity, as I said, to speak about his changes. I have looked at the - a version prior to this that was passed out today. And I don't have any objections myself to the changes. I don't see any changes that would aflect the substance of the amendment, so unless there's an objection maybe from the County Attomey's Office to any of the changes - CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my only concern is if it's not been vetted as thoroughly for us to read ahead of time and possibly other members of staffor stakeholders who may want to read it. That's the immediate concern if you get into this extensive kind of change. MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Chair. Mike Bosi, the Planning and Zoning Director. One of the things I would like to do if we would take any action on this, it would have to be - it would delay, because we would need environmental staff, we would need Conservation Collier, we would need all the stakeholders to be able to also, you know, come to the substantive -- or the agreement that these aren't substantive changes and that it's been vetted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get through the day and see where it all goes, and we'll have to make a decision if we want to go forward after that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I didn't get it ahead of time, but I did read through Mr. Fryer's changes. I do have a couple changes to his language if you'd like me to address it now or wait until we get to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'lljust wait until we -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just wait till we get to it in the section, if that's okay. MS. ASHION-CICKO: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there may be -- we're going to - typically we walk through these kind of step by step, so we're still going to do that. We can see how these changes -- or you can react to them as we get into each page. MS. ASIilON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which, honestly, takes us to any other questions from the Planning Commission, holistically, before we just walk through the pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one item I had thought about last night; because I have been very, very troubled over this issue of monetary payment and endowments and also the issue of what we, as quality in Collier County, look to in our developments, and one of the greatest things we have is preservation and green space. And we have a lot more of it than most other counties. We have great architecture. There's a lot of things we do that are different than Lee and Miami and other places, and we need to keep those up. What bothen me most about this entire thing is it's all based on the allowance of a deviation for preservation that somehow tums into a monetary buy-out for a program that I'm not sure -- I'm not very comfortable with. And why do we even need to go there in the hrst place? I mean, I went through yesterday and found examples of where we prohibit deviations in other parts of the code and when we have strict criteria that looks at public health, safety, and welfare and things like that in other parts of the code if they're going to ask for a deviation. And I'm just now taking a step back, and it's not because I thought the deviation initially was a bad idea. It's because I think this is a bad idea where this is heading in the way we're arbitrarily pulling numbers together to say this is how much you've got to pay. I just don't like the methodology here. But in thinking about that, I thought, well, if we want Collier County to be what it's been, why are we allowing these preservation areas -- now, in some areas of this you called them preservation areas, but in the GMP I think it's referred to as open space or other kind of -- maybe not - maybe not preservation, but green space. I forgot the other words. But why aren't we looking at this and just keeping it and saying if you - not encouraging. Because if Page 7 of35 Jrly 20,2017 you give a deviation as an option, they're going to take it. And if you give them up to two acres, theyle goi ng to take it, and this just isn't coming out right. I think we're going to be encouraging when we're trying to discourage. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi, Planmng and Zoning Director. And I apprcciate the comments fiom the Chair. And I think what Jeremy's response would be was we were reacting upon a specific direction from the Board of County Commissioners to address the endowment cost. The questions and the comments that the Chair made are much more programmatic and influenced from a policy discussion. And the question is the direction and the allowance for off-site preservation, should that bc an acceptable deviation within our codes that we provide for? That's a much different question than what the Board of County Commissioners asked us to act upon. I think that's a fair recommcndation from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners that they have concem with the allowance - the continued allowance for off-site preservation within our LDC and ask the Board of County Commissioners, could we revisit that or should we revisit that in whatever manner that you would like. So I think because we touch those issues within this amendment, it's a fair recommendation to make to the Board of County Commissioners. But from staffs perspective, we were tasked specifically with the charge to find a more appropriate endowment for the off-site - when we have conservation land provided for. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, if memory serves me correct, we started down this path a number of years ago when we had an industrial property. I believe it was, like, a towing company, and the on-site prcscrvation was kind ofsilly because it was a very small lot, and itjust made no sense to preserve a small number oftrees. And weVe somehow expanded that concept to something that was very different than what we were originally talking about. You know, eventually you get to the point where it's become almost like an exaction where we don't really want you to do a preserve in these zueas, so wint wint wint give us money and, you know, we'll put it to better usc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - and, Jeff, when - my reading of that last night again, I just can't - I can't accept the monetary issues put forth in this document. And then I got to thinking, why are we even doing this in the fint place? This is not what has made Collier County better; by encouraging ways or providing ways to circumvent our rules. And I would just as soon maybe we take a look at this in a different light. And I know, Jeremy, you've spent a lot of time on it. I would have mentioned it to you when we had talked this week. It was last night when I finally gave up trying to figure out what all these numbers meant. And I got to thinking of a couple things. When I - I had a little fishing boat, l7-foot long. And I remember people used to joke with me. Do you know what a boat is? And I said, what? They said, well, it's a hole in the water you continuously dump money. Well, when 9l percent of Conservation Collier's purchases are in the rural lands in areas that, by the way, already have a lot of environmentally sensitive areas that are protected and they buy something out therc and they try to maintain it, it becomes another hole in the landscape that wete constantly going to dump money into. And proofofthat is, there's $32 million in Conservation Collier's budgeted account now for maintenance. Now, they've got 3,700 acres, a little less than that. That's like $9,000 an acre for perpetual maintenance going on out there. And as Einstein once said - and I had to write the quote down -- the definition of insanity i s doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. We will never see a different result in the rural area until those areas are cleared surounding them and the seed source starls diminishing. It's like Stan had brought up a long time ago. Everyrvhere he and I kayak or he and Drke or other people kayak, all we see is exotics. Wete never going to get rid of them piecemealing it and picking one hole and dumping continuous taxpayer dollars into it. So I am not comfortable with this. And I know youVe spent a lot of time on it, but it's the monetary Page 8 of 35 Jrly 20,2Ol7 part of it that gets me. And then I thought, well, how do we stop that? All of a sudden a light bulb went on and said, why don't we just stop the deviations? Without the deviations, therc's no monetary issue. So, anyway, that's kind of a tact l've been trying to think of. I wanted to express that to you today to see what kind ofreaction and discussions we have, and maybe that's a better way to go. MR. BOSI: And as the characteristics ofJeremy, he - in his thorough due diligencc, he did call to the attention, I think, a relevant fact related to the Growth Management Plan related to these off-site preserves. Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: So regarding the deviation, there is a section in the GMP conservation -- or the CCME that requires a deviation process from these standards from the off-site donation process. So that's the reason that we have that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who4 whoa. It says - look at the third word; "may." You think "may" is a requ ement? And, by the way, it says "native vegetation." It doesnt say preservation or preserves, habitat, and things like that. So ifyou've got a native tree there, it could theoretically fit the green space objectives that many of us have moved here for. But do you really thinl that the "may" i s a mandatory? MR. FRANTZ: Well, this is the section that we're relying upon when we included thc deviation process. Under the cunent prograrn you can get a deviation. It's just not enumerated in this section, and so there's no upper limit on the deyiations, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your starting comment was, it's requrred. I'm wondering if it's rcquircd orjust it's something we should consider. MR. BOSI: And I think you have to read that sentence in - fully. And it's saying it may grant the deviation, and because it may grant the deviation, you have to have in place the [:nd Development Code regulations for how you process that deviation. So you don't have to grant the deviation, but by having the possibitity in the GMP, it enhance - requires that you have an LDC regulation that dictates for how you could obtain that deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - but if it says the county may grant a deviation, wouldnt that mean we have the choice whether we want to even grant it or not? And if we don't want to, we simply write the implementation code, which is the LDC, so that we dont - theyte prohibited. We're actually doing it. We've done it in numerous cases. MR. BOSI: Well, I think you would have a conllicting policy within your GMP. You're specifically saying you may grant them a deviation, but then within your LDC regulation you're saying that there's no opporhmity for deviation. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the choice we've made based on that policy. MR. BOSI: Well, that would be an inconsistency. That policy would need to be addressed, I believe. And I'm not saying that ifs not appropriate. And, once again, let me say that this is a discussion, I believe, that is at a policy level that the Board is - or the Planning Commission would potentially request the Board to make an evaluation upon because ofthe concems, and they're expressed by the Planning Commission regarding thc value of IRMA preserves, and there's justification for it. It's just it's much greater than, you know, the specific action that Jeremy was tasked with from the BCC. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But, Mike, don't we already have a deviation process by allowing one or two acres to go off-site? MR. BOSI: Yes, we do, and I think what the Chair is suggesting that maybe the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that we eliminate the opporhmity for that off-site deviation process. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I thint what he's suggesting is the off-site deviations beyond the one or two acres. Am I correct -- or for the whole section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Heidi, this - the effort to deal with a monetary piece of this thing has been such a nightmare, and it's so seemingly arbitrary in the number ofdifferent ways it could be done. Ijust am not comfortable with it. And then I tried to figure out a way, okay, we need to get away from this. I don't think it was right, and if rt isn't, how do we get away from it? Well, dont allow deviations for preserves to bcgin with or native vegetation. Page 9 of35 ldY 20,2017 And, by the way, it is native vegetation. It's not preserves. It's a big difference. And we keep focusing on preserves, and we are not thinking necessarily just of native vegetation, but it can be either one. So someone doesn't have to have a site with preserves on it, preserve-quality green space, but they've got to have a - ifthe site has natiye vegetation" that in itself would quali! for the ability to leave it on site, and then they'd have to have, by this language, a deviation to take it off-site. MR. KIATZKOW: There needs to be policy decision underlying alt of this, and the policy decision is whether or not you're required to do this, period, or if you reach a certain size we dont care. And I dont really know that we've ever had that discussion. I mean, again, my recollection was we had this one instance where we had this one parcel, and it seemed to be an unfair result, and this all grew out of that. I don't know that we ever had that basic policy decision as do we want these presewes in these -- we call them preserves -- in these urban areas, and what size should they be. And if we're not going to call them preserves, native vegetation is fine, too. Or what do we want? Do we want preserves or do we want green space? I mean, theyte very different ideas. That's the basic policy issue that everything else will flow fiom. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, by instituting this deviation process or even supporting it, we're encouraging you to come through as a - MR. KIATZKOW: Well, what policy - CHAIRMAN STRAN: - variance. MR. KLATZKOW: What policy does the deviation support is what I'm getting at. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: But what I'm - well, apparently the deviations to support Policy 6l I of the CCME. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I don't know what the GMP says, but what's the policy? What do we want? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's another whole - that's a board-level discussion, I agree with you. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, yes. But at the end of the day, you're the body here charged with looking at this shrff and making recommendations to the Board. And if you don't believe that a certain mechanism is currently working - and, apparently, you don't - you know, it's - one ofthe things the Planning Commission does is make recommendations to the Board to fix it. But what I'm saying is you need a core policy here that everything else grows out of, and I don't know that we have one. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well - and as an altemative, too, Jeremy and I started talking, and I think yesterday we achally met. Because on Monday I suggested, if we're going to go provide an opportunity to go from one to two acres off-site -- and there doesnt seem to be anything limiting the first acre except the prohibitions - then what's the criteria to go from one to two? Because without criteria, it becomes more arbitrary. And so Jeremy tried to write up criteria. And I got thinking about that last night, and I related it back to variances. And I thought, well, wait a minute. If we undid deviatioos for this preservation or native habitat and wc left it as a variance application with a prohibition above a certain threshold, then they would have to meet the hardship criteria and other criteria of *re variance. That might be a better standard to consider in leaving it like that as its treated elsewhere in the code and not get into this whole new ball of wax involving a deviation for something that may not be the right policy to begrn with. Anyway, that's how I got to where my thoughts were. I thought I d express them so that at least during the discussion we have time to talk about them. And Summer's up here arxiously trying to patiently say something. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. I'm Summer Araque, Environmental Planning Supervisor. As the supervisor ofthe section who uses this, I really wanled to make some key points on some things *rat have been said. Cunently the GMP does allow for deviations, but deviations are not included in thc code, in this section of the code. So applicants can go back to the GMP and refer to that to request their deviation but, like you said, Page l0 of35 Jnly 20,2017 there's no criteria; so with that, the sky is the limit. They can request as much as they want. So that's why we put limitations in here. Currently, a commercial property can take two offwithout getting any deviations if the preserve rcquirement is two acres or less and they don't meet any ofthe rcstrictions, prohibitions, et cetera. So that's why we went with that two acres. So, actually, we moved it down to, across the board, one acre or less, but you could deviate up to two, and two is the limit. And that's why we did that, because ofproperties wanting to come in and remove seven, eight - they start with seven, eight acres requesting a deviation. Who lcnows what the acreage is next that they request. And I thmh too, in regards to the native vegetation, the way that this policy is written is that it's referring to the native vegetation on the site is what we use to determine the preserve requirement. Sojust some clari fi cation there. And I'm happy to answer any other questions, and I might pop up again depending on the conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, please do. MS.ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just expressing some thoughts I had last night, because I cannot get comfortable with this monetary issue we're dealing with, and I'm trying to avoid a way to have to do that, so -- MS. ALAQUE: Yeah. And that's a whole different issue that's really outside of my section, but I think that - CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. It's in your section now. That's y,ttat we're doing here today. I wish we wcren't. MS. ARAQUE: But what I mean is my - that's a Conservation Collier thing. When I say "my section," I say Environmental Planning. Yes, it's in our section of the code. But as far as we're concemed, we're dealing with the property comes in, can they take the preserve off-site? And if we're not going to amend the GMP, and that's not up to me, then we - I would really highly request that we have something in the code that limits petitions from coming in and requestrng as much acreage as they want, because currently they can - CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, if we were to consider -- MS. ARAQUE: - and have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the recommendation will never be to take the deviation process out of this section of the code, it would be to make the preservation and prohibition then to remove it. So it wouldn't be - you wouldn't have that issue an).rnore. MS. ARAQLTE: Currently, thoe is no deviation section in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, but apparently there's people that believe we need to put one in there based on what youjust said because ofthis Section 6.1.1. MS. ARAQUE: Right, because of the GMP, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And if that's the need and we put it in there but we take and address the "may" as, okay, that means we can or can't -- MS. ARAQUE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - we'll decide not - maybe we could decide not to and leave the preservation alone. We've got - the flood of deviations coming in with PUDs is getting more overwhelming than necessary, and I'm not getting very comfortable with it, and I thought maybe it would stabilize, but it doesn't seem to be going that way. MS. AIAQUE: And if it werent for the GMP, I would - then it would be really easy to not allow any deviations in this section. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that, we had left off and starting to move into the document. Andjust for our discussions, does the rest ofthis board want to walk through the pages ofthe document? I know Ned already has, and he's distributed a document which - if it's clarifications that help the situation, by all means, they Page ll of 35 Ju'ly 20, 2017 should be considered by staff and go forward with it. As far as my comments on the rest of this, Ihaveafew. I don't know if the rest ofyou had any others. Anybody have anything else that they want to - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just some observations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The endowment models, if you look at them, they -- because you have a certain interest rate that it starts out with, the 2.25 percent, and then you have this maintenancc number that increases by 3 percent, the model, because of the way they picked the numbers, it starts goLng up and then it starts coming down. So I took their Excel sheet and duplicated it and ran it all the way down. And in 50 years you totally run out of money, period. So it's not in perpetuity. It's just 50 years. The DSAC model, though, runs a little longer, though, because they figure in the first few years you're going to spend a lot of money to take out the exotics, and then the amount ofmaintenance after that is going to be lower. I dont know if that's true or not. And you were talking about all the different places you see exotics. We canoed to Lely Outfall Canal yesterday, down over the spreader weir and out into the Naples Bay. It's a beautiful ride if anybody wants to do it. And one of the best feahres of that is you wi [[ see every exotic known to man along the banks: Carrotwood, Melaleuca, the Brazilian pepper. The only one I didn't see was downy rose myrtle. But ifyou want an example ofwhere it's a good teaching tool to show people what these things look like, Australian pines just huge. You're not going to get rid ofthis stuff. Youte just not. You were right about that. I agree with almost - I agree with everything you said. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you. COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: You're welcome. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, he's out in the woods as much as I am or, actually, you're out more than I am anymore. COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: I'm retired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. It makes it a little easier. I just - the experiences I have out there just don't seem - I don't know how we're ever thinking that we can keep dumping money into this and see a different result. I just don't. But, any,way, with that, if we want to walk through the comments we have on the rest of it, just dcpending on how this goes so everything at least is on record, we have the first part of the fust few pages, let's say drough Page 3 of the packet. Does anybody have any questions? And this is on Page 4 of 20 of the packet. It's labeled Page 3, but it's actually electronic page 4. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only comments, I've basically already statcd them. I'm concemed about the - if we allow the deviation, you're going to have it for zero to one for every project that doesn't fall into the prohibitions. The prohibitions aren't criteria. There's a different level, so I still think we need the criteria. So even ifthey don't hit one ofthe prohibitions, we still need to see criteria to say, okay, you're not prohibitive because you don't have this kind ofvegetation, but what's some criteria that we could put on there that might help not see it moved off-site? So that piece of it's still part of the discussion that I saw on Page 3, for example. But the piece fiom one to two acres is more conceming, because if we evcn insinuate you can go up to two acres, you'll have everybody in here. They'll hire an expert to say what they want them to say, and the experts will stand here and tell us it's bad vegetation, and it will all be disappearing, so - but *rat'sjust what happens. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Can you just remove deviation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to - wait till we get done walking through this. That's something we probably need to talk about, and I want to hear public speakers and other things, too. If we go to the next few pages, and on the bottom right ofyour packet, it should say Packet Page 4 of 20, for example. Let's go to Page - through Page 7 of20 and see if we have any other issues. And this is where we get into the references to the deviations section and how many acres, and it Pagc 12 of 35 Jttly 20,2017 might be here, ifnothing else, we decide not to open the deviation up for one to two acres, and we just prohibit past one acre and then drop that other piece out. We get into the - after that we get into Pages 8, 9 and 10. If we could look at those. If anybody has any questions . Jeremy corrected a table or two on there that needed some correction. We get into a discussion on Page 8 of CLACC's 4-1 ratio for land donations and how it applies, and that's the piece that's starting to get us into the monetary part ofit. So I would certainly like to understand the 4-l ratio. If we were looking at using the AUIR, now how does a 4-l ratio fit in? But I think - I don't know what's the rest. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just a point of clanfication. What's an AU - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Annual update inventory report. In a couple of meetings, you will experience it live. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's actually one of the more interesting and probably one of the most important documents this county deals with. It sets the pattem for all the expenditures of our budget for the upcoming year. It talks about all the capital improvements, what each department's doing, and how they want to spend their money. And it's there, if we make changes, will probably have the greatest impact on the budgct. But very few people who involve themselves with the AUIR. We sit here to an empty audience, and we talk about it, and it's very limited in, unfortunately, how much the public gets involved. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have anything else on those pages. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into the actual text, it starts on Page 10of20, and Ithinkon Page I I of 20 we start getting into the achral issues. Some of it's akeady been talked about in the narrarive that Jarnre (sic) provided in the first l0 pages. In the CCME, Jeremy, it refers to native vegetation retention. It doesn't say anything about habitat or items like that. How do we look at determining what is - how do we determine the functionality of the native vegetation retention, say, if it was less than one acre or even between one and two acres? Case in point, Addie's Comer came in to us. They originally had to set aside a certain quantity of preserve, and nobody ever did anlthing there. So over l0 years the exotics supposedly invaded the balance of the property, and now the preserve count could be reduced. And that means the functionality then was no longer viable because - the functionality ofwhat? The f,urctionality as habitat? The functionality as wetlands? Whereas, the CCME refers to just native vegetation retention. So does that mean ifthose exotics weren't cleared, the native vegetation couldn't have survived? Because if it could, then why would we change it? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. So on Page 12 of 20 thsre's some of the applicability provisions that we've sfuck through. And we had a couple of sections that dealt with that issue. And in this - in the revision we've eliminated that analysis of the success of the preserve or the exotics coverage so that is no longer a factor in the revised amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if - and let's use Addie's Comer because it's a relative -- it's a most recent example. Ifthey came in after this was adopted and they said, we want to reduce our preserves because we've hired someone who says that it's got greater -- it's got over 75 percent exotic infestation, would we then say, well, you can't - that doesnt mafter. You go in and clear the exotics out, and the native vegctation should still survive? I mean, it does, so why would we say it's not functional? So we wouldn't? MR. FRANTZ: Right. I mean, unless they met some of the other applicability. But, yeah, just in terms oftheir preserves are, you know, covered in exotics; that's no longer one ofthe applicability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that surely would have helped a lot of people understand it befter from the neighborhood there. Anybody else got any on Page - we're up to Page 12. And that's the page that starts with your PUD Page 13 of 35 July 20,2011 deviations, and that's part ofwhere my introduction discussion had -- where I was focusing on. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get into the next couple of pages, and we start talking about the options that Ted has -- or Ned - I'm sorry, Ned - Ned has offered some suggestions to as well. And I, you know -- agaiq my struggle has been trying to deal with the monetary issues here. I still am concemed about that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, if no one else has any comments, my comment is on Page i2, Line 16, 17 and 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And it's also - Mr. Fryer picked up part of the conflict. So you have your prohibitions for the off-site preserve, and then it says, the remaining portion of the on-site preserve must be a minimum of one acre in size. And then that last sentence, unless preserved with higher quality habitat not qualiffing for off-site native vegetation; something needs to be done with that section. Because it's either saying you can have less on-site preserve or you have to have more on-site preserve. If it says more on-site preserve, then I don't know how staffwill enforce that greater t}an one acre because it's going to be anywhere between one and two acres. So it cither needs to say "or greater ifpreserved with higher quality habitat," which then will create conflict with staffand the developer as to how much between one and two acres in addition to the one needs to be on site, or you just say the minimum has to be one acre. I don't know how you want to go with that, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer? Jerany? MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, for the record. I'm finc with your recommendation tojust put a period after one acrc in size -- MS. ASIITON-CICKO: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: - because what this section is ctrrently safng, in so many words - but I think it's difficult to understand - is that if you have a high4uality habitat referred to in A and B above, like a xeric scrub, I think is one ofthe examples, and you wanted to leave, say, just a half an acre ofthat, you could with this provision. So if we just want to stay to, if you're going to take anything offsite, you can't leave small amounts on. You just need to either take it all off or keep it on. Does that make sense? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think that the prohibition, if it has any of the A or B, then they cant take it offsite. They can't take part of it off site and say we'll just keep the part that has the xeric scrub. I don't think that's how this is written. MS. ARAQUE: I think that original writers ofthis may have been trying to think of50 different scenarios that you could come across, and one of those scenarios could be that you might have, say, a pop ash are4 which is a rare habitat, and maybe it's only just a half acre but surrounded by somethrng else that's not necessarily protected by A and B, so then in that case they would take the half acre of the -- what's not covered under A and B off but leave the other half acre on. lt's really, in my opinion, not somethutg that's been utilized. I think that it is considering a situation that may or may not be out there, and I think that it's just finc to put a period after "one acre in size." MS. ASTITON-CICKO: And then there is some excess language going back to Page I 1 on Lines 49, 50, and 51, where it says shall not be allowed to have the on-site native preservation retention provided off-site. That's kind of duplicative now that you've changed it to a prohibition. So I would recommend deletion of that language. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. And then while I'm here, at one pornt I would like to go through Mr. Fryer's and put those up on the visualizer page by page when we get to that point. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And what we'll do is we'll walk th.rough the pages, then we1l step back again, and now that you've had time to take a look at some of Ned's comments you can - we'll bring them up then. That would be good. As we go into the options on those Pages 12 and 13, Jeremy, the per - on Page 12, which is electronic page 13, Option 1, and I thhk it .. yeah, it does actually get used. And Option 2 is a reference to a Page 14 of 35 JlulY 20,2017 percentage. The per-acre land value for nonurban designated land shall be 8.37 percent ofthe current AUIR. How did we pick 8 .37 percent? MR. FRANTZ: That was based on the costs that Conservation Collier has -- the difference in costs that Conservation Collier has paid for urban preserves and nonurban preserves, and then we applicd that ratio to the AUIR numbcr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how does the 4-l ratio relate to the 8.37 percent? MR. FRANTZ: It's not a part of the monetary payment altemative. That's only applicable to the land donation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: And that 4 -- the reason that ratio exists was to - one of the discussion points that we've had at past Plannmg Commission meetings was to see if there was a way to find some parity between the costs associated with these two altematives, and so that was the motivatron for adding that ratio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else, if we're moving on to, let's say, Page - wcll, that takes us - the LDC language ends on Page l5 of20, which is -- that's your electronic, down in the righrhand comer. Then we get into tables and your exhibit. Let's take the rest of the pages. Anybody have any other issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to hear - oh, you wanted to walk through Ned's stuff first, Summer? You want to do that right now? MS. ARAQUE: Whenever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're either going to have public speakers or you. \i/hat would you prefer? MS. ARAQUE: Let's do public speakers, because I have not had time to look through all of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, then why'd you ask? MS. ARr{QUE: I wasjust saying, if you're giving me the option, Ill take the later option. CHAIRMAN STRAN : Okay. Mike, would you - let's start, if we have any - let's start - if there's any registered public speakers, call those first, then we'll go to those that aren't. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. We do have one registered speaker. It's Nicole Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't need to -- well, if you want to register, you're fine. If you don't, we'll still call you. MS. JOHNSON: Following the rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. You always do. MS. JOHNSON: Good moming. For the recor{ Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I can't, obviously, comment on some ofthe proposed new language. I do appreciate your desire to make this more understandable because this is complicated. So probably if the stakeholders would have some additional time, ifyou do decide that you would like to incorporate some ofthat new language, to bring that back to a future meeting. In looking at this policy section in its sntirety, the Consewancy's preference would be for it to all go away, not because ofthe issues of the monetary donations and land donations and payments, but because it just isn't a good policy idea to allow for on-site preserves, on-site native vegetation and green space to be taken offsite. And I remember when this idea came up. And, Jeff, I didnt recall that it really started with an industrial parcel, but I do remember sitting at the table will Bill Loraz going around and around in circles and saying, how can you -- how can you determine that at one acre an on-site preserve is so not valuable that you can just go ahead, wipe it out, and take it off site? Where is that magic number? And there really is no magic number. I mean, that's the problem. The Conservancy fought very hard to make sure that we could get that off-site option to be so low as possiblc. One acre, at least for the residential and PUDs, was that number. But that is supposed to be a ceiling. And I think what we've seen recently is that it's simply a floor that provides a launching pad to then take acres and acres ofpreserve offsite, and that's what we werc concemed would happen. Page 15 of 35 JolY 20, 2017 So, ideally, ifit could all go, that will be great. Ifthat isn't possible, then tightaring up the language to make sure that it isn't abused like it has been in the past is going to be very, very important. So some ofthe ilrings that we like about what staffhas done is, you know -- and I think that it does, in the first parts - and I'11just go by the - not the packet page butjust the LDC page number, Page 10, is hopefully under the purpose and intent it's saying that the purpose is to preserve native vegetation on site and to make it very clear, if you're going out offsite, it's in very limited circumstances. I do have a question on Line -- I guess it's Line 24 and 25 where it talks about existing portions of preserves located within single-family platted lots. I don't know what that means. In talking with staff, there is a little bit of confusion about, you know, is this ifyou have a PUD that has a little bit oftheir preserve on a platted lot, then you can take that off site, but ifthat's in an aheady-developed community, you shouldn't be going back and removing prcserves. So the Conservancy would recommend that you eliminate that No. B. It was a carryover from what was already in there, but staffis recommending removal of other what I would call problematic language on Page I I and so we'd recommend that that be removed also. Going to Page 11. On Line 12, where it talks about the existing and proposed preserves with that 75 percent exotic coverage, the Conservancy definitely agrees that that should be removed. I mean, right now the irony is a landowner is incentivized to allow their property to become exotics hfested because then they have to preserve less on site. So we want to remove that incorrect incentivization where we can. And then also, No. G, starting on Line 17, ifyoute not managing your creative preserve as you should be, you should not be rewarded by allowed - being allowed to go offsite. As far as the PUD deviations under 2, little i, starting on Lhe 31, the Conservancy's recomrnendation would be you prohibit deviations for this. Agairr that one acre or the two acre for commercial industrial, that was supposed to be a hard ceiling. And if you allow deviations like this, it's no longer a hard ceiling. Ifyou have to have some sort ofdeviation, then allow it between one acre and 1.1 acres. Okay. If you're just a hair over one acre, then we'll let you apply for a deviatior! but it should not be doubled to two acres. So our recommendation: Remove it in its entirety. If you can't, then make it really a very nominal number. As far as the options for the Conservation Collier, the monetary payment and land donation, you know, it looks like reference to the AUIR could be a good way to make sure that ifyou are in the urbanized area and you utilize the off-site preservation policies, that the cost is commensurate with what you're getting in retum. It needs to be painful, because we really don't want people using this option. So it has to hurt a little bit. And, you know, hopefully with the numbers that Jeremy has put in here for what the AUIR for the parks shows, there is going to be that painfi.rlness. As far as the land donation and the 4-1 ratios, that's something that the Conservancy really hasn't weighed in on in the past. We don't really have, as a policy departrnent, the expertise to weigh in on that. It is interesting the vast array ofrecommendations from the CCLAC to DSAC to staff, but we're leaving that for the land management experts. So with that, if you have any questions for me, I think that summarizes -- oh. And we agree with Heidi that on Page 12, that Subparagraph C, it's confusing. I'm not sure that putting a period after "one acre in size" really eliminates all the confusion, but I'm going to have to think on that a little bit more. So with that... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRIER Ms. Johnson, I'm coming down the road toward where you are on getting rid ofall of it, but along the way I ask myself and would ask you, in the case ofnative vegetation areas that - where the area is simply too small to be viable, I don't know whether it's slash pines or some other vegetation that just isnt going to live very well in the same sandbox with the development, those sihrations, on a small scale, I assume you'd be willing to move offsite? MS. JOHNSON: Well, it gets to how do you define viable. Are you talking about viability as, you know, part of a home range for a panther? Are you talking about urban wildlife may be able to utilize the site? Page 16 of 35 Jrly 20,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just talking about viability of the vegetation itseli MS. JOHNSON: Well, as long as you don't go in there and plow it over, it's going to be viable. The vegetation will survive. So I'm not sure that there's any magic number that below that number, the vegetation won't survivc. If you set it aside and you manage it or you don't pave it or dump all your stormwater in it, the vegetation itselfis going to survive. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The other question I had has to do with affordable housing which, as you know, is an exprcss policy of the BCC. And in some cases, it's been proposed that some ofthe allowances for off-site preservation be more generous in the case ofaffordable housing because it would cnable more affordable housing on site. What is your position or your organization's position on that? MS. JOHNSON: Well, you know, it's - there's this balance between you don't want to dis-incentivize aflordable housing and, yet, if you're putting in an affordable housing community, having some of that native vegetation could be a nice amenity for the people living there. We haven't, you know, taken a specific position on that affordable housing component in these policies, but certainly an affordable housing community, I think, could benefit fiom some green space, open space, just as every other community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree completely. I think the devclopers, though, would say that in order to make the affordable housing affordable, we've got to reduce costs or increase capacity or density, and that's why they would want to move the native vegetation off. MS. JOHNSON: That excuse has been used by - I've heard it used by the non-affordable housing. you know, if I have to preserve on site, then my project is no longer marketable and viable, but then when they decide that they might not have the votes of the County Commission, all ofa sudden, well, they can preserve on site because they can make it work. So if you allow an allowance for offsite, then I think every applicant is going to say, yeah, I have to go off site to make it work. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My final question, I guess, is really for the Chair or the Commission or County Attomey or staff, and that has to do with the history of this. In the little reading I was able to do to try to gain some background, it seemed to me around 2010, at the time ofthe recession, it was decided or detirmined that in order to continue to incent developers to undertake developments, that we would make it easier for them to comply with some ofthese rules, and that's why things like off-site reserves and donated land and the like came into being; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Without checking the lime frame, Ned, I couldn't tell you for sure l know that after the recession we tricd to open up the floodgate for development in Collier County, just like the govemor tricd to open the state up, and I don't think we've but a cork in it yet, so maybe now is the time to start considering that. But I can't tell you the time fiame now. MS. JOHNSON: I think these poticies predated the recession, but I think the recession allowed these policies to really not be used. But it seems like it was a number of years. I don't know if Summer - MS. ARAQUE: (Nods head.) MS. JOHNSON: Yeah. CoMMISSIONER FRYER: In any event, seeing as we may well be out of the recession, it may be an appropriate time to consider things like tightening these restrictions somewhat. MS. JOHNSON: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank You. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in or out of a recession, if we can keep the standards of values for the natural habitat in Collier County hrgher, it's going to benefit all ofthe property owners in Collier County, because all of our properties will stay stronger. So just eliminating thcse would help that Second ofall, affordable housing; one ofthe criteria that we stress so vividly to allow affordable housing, it's no different than the regular housing. Wc want everybody to fit in. We want the communities to be compatible with one another. Welt, if they've got the exception not to have the green space everybody else requirei, we're hurting tbar compatibility. So maybe they can find a way to work with the people who should benefit from it,just like everybody else in Collier County does, and that green space -- as the prelude to this whole document said, there's a benefit to the hees, 20 times what they're worth. Page 17 of 35 Jluly 20,2017 Last question of you in particular, Nicole, is Conservancy, I believe, owns parcels of land throughout Collier County. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you have some down in Rookery Bay. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- yeah, I think you do. I've been down in that area. And I'm going to have to noti$ Code Enforcement you're not clearing your exotics like we do on our property. But it goes to the point, I don't think most agencies are. I think right now -- and you have -- whether it's Big Cypress or the rest of them that have got these huge swaths of land in the rural area, they're not out there maintaining it and clearing it every single year because I think they realize it's a hole in the water you are going to just pour money into. So I think maybe we need to rethink about how we treat our rural landscape in regards to perpetual maintenance of exotics. I think that's the biggest failure of the language I've seen in this document which is triggering the other concefirs I've expressed today, so... And now that you don't do it, I mean, there's your example. There's the gold standard for Collier County right there. MS. JOHNSON: We try. You know, it's a phased approach. And we're doing some great work in our preserves on site, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your - the Conservancy facility in the urban area. Oh, yeah. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's real tough. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On your home. MS. JOHNSON: But you're right, it's -- you do have to allow for the fact that it is -- it's a constant battle to get rid of exotics and then keep them offproperties. So, yeah, it's -- you have to cut the land managers some slack on that. And just one final thing. We were talking about affordable housing. I know that the Habitat for Humanity project that was proposed on Whitaker Lane - I'm not sure where that eventually panned out, but even though - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're still processing a conditional use. They just got acknowledged that - they had a meeting in March, so that it was able to allow them to continue processing, so... MS. JOHNSON: But they, at least in their initial plans, even though they didn't have to retain native vegetation on site, they chose to do so, at least in their initial application. So I think that goes to show that you can have an affordable project and still retain native vegetation. I don't know where it's gone from there, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a different twist. They originally came in and were going to take advantage of no vegetation on site, but then they ran into the part of the site that's actually a flowway that's -- MS. JOHNSON: Ah, they had to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- somewhat conffolled by either South Florida or Big Cypress, and they weren't finding it as flexible with their rules to remove all that as they were with our rules. So I think that's why most of it's now staying. That's the last I heard. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Well, thank goodness for some agency being tough on that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nicole? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You made a comment during your presentation about how developers are allowing their parcels to become infested with exotics because it lowers the value. Is that why you guys do it? If you -- MS. JOHNSON: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just, you know, you said cut the land manager some slack. MS. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you go out 41 past Port of the Islands five miles, there is Page 18 of35 July 20,2017 the east river on the right. Ifyou go -- launch into that area and go under the bridge and take the canal on the north side of41 up maybe another mile, there's a route that goes out into -- up into the Everglades, up into the Big Cypress, Fakahatchee, whatever. As you get about a mile away from 41, it becomes solid Brazilian pepper. I mean, it's eve4,rvhere. Now, this is not a -- you know, not a matter of cutting the land manager some slack. You guys have totally lost control of exotics, just totally. It's so thick you can't go through it. MS. JOHNSON: I don't disagree, but I think that's a different issue than - COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: No, it's not. MS. JOHNSON: - the urban parcels - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That is the seed source. MS. JOHNSON: - that then benefit. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's the seed source for everything else that's infested in Collier County, I can show you county parcels - and I don't know ifthey're still there - that are infested with earleaf acacia. That stuffis everywhere. You know, you've got a handle on the Melaleuca, but it's coming back. The Brazilian pepper is just out of control. I'm seeing Carrotwood in places where, you know, it shouldn't be. It's a lost cause. And, you know, it's just - like he said, it's a hole somewhere that you're just pouring money intojust to pay people to do something. But it's senseless. It really is. But that's just me. MS. JOHNSON: Well - and I don't believe that you're referring to Conservancy property in the Everglades area, but - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, no, no. I'm talking about the National Park Service who is a federal agency who somebody should get on their butts and say, hey, you know, you've got thrs big thing. Why don't you have a big fire, you know? MS. JOHNSON: But when we're talking about having native vegetation, having green space in urban parcels, that is negatively impacted by the fact that those parcels that have been sitting in the urbanized area and accumulating exotics year after year after year then benefit from the fact that it's exotics infested and they have to set less aside, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What benefit is to the park system to do that, you krow, to Iet their parcels infest? (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's not a matter of somebody's benefit fiom it. It's a natural process, and you've lost control of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew ttrat thrs would get Stan going, and we succeeded. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm sorry. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Stick a fork in me; I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nicole. Any other registered public speakers, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes; Mr. Doug Fee. MR. FEE: Good moming. Forthe recor4 my name is Doug Fee. Can you hearme? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. FEE: Okay. I live up in the Wiggins Pass area. And I appreciate this conversation and thc fact that you all are discussing it this momirg. I wasn't planning to defend the Conservancy; however, I live in Tarpon Cove, and across the street fiom the entrance of my development is 13 acres that the county owns. It's owned by the Utility Department and is used for a flowway in the Wiggins Pass area. I have yet to see the county take care of its exotics on these 13 acres, okay. So we can all point fingers, but what I can tell you is it's very important to maintain exotics, to get rid of them. As a homeowner in a development that has preserves -- let's say we have 20 percent ofour development - we put money into our rcserves every year to make sure that we get nd of exotics. And, in Page 19 of35 July 20, 2017 fact, the county code requires it, and the county Code Enforcement will come around if we do not do it. So there is great value in maintaining preserves. The other thing I wanted to mention was we know the expense of taking citre ofpreserve land green space. The Conservancy in our area has, for many years, performed water testing in the Cocohatchee River area, and that is very valuable because it lets us know where the water quality is and, you know, what we can do to make sure that we keep the standard up there. So thank yoq Conservancy. Why I came down here was to encourage you to maintain preserves in Collier County, okay. And what I mean by that is, I'm not exactly sure - I'm right with you, Mr. St'ain. Ncole said it very well. I'm not sure how this actually got started. In North Naples, you can see this map - and I'll use a pointer here - much ofthis area is golfcourse. It's green. And, in fact, you tell any ofthe homeowners who live on these golf courses that we want to change preserve requirements, they will be up in arms because it's a big part ofwhy they buy here in Naples. You go six miles, l0 miles north, there may not be those requirements. So we do have green space that is contiguous. It's important to keep it. Specifically, what happened was a year ago or two years ago there was seven acres on 41 that a Mercedes dealership built, and they were able to mitigate their property. I do not believe they put any preserves on that property. It was seven acres. They got to buy land out in the eastem area and then develop the site. Well, interesting, directly behind the seven acres was a homeowner association that had eight to 10 acres itself, and it has a corservation easement and, in fact, that homeowner association maintains it for the witdlife, for the preserve. So it was contiguous. So I think sometimes you have to look at what's sunounding. We have a property on Wiggins Pass. Right now it's only one acres (sic), and if they don't have a preserve requirement, they're going to donate 17,000 to Conservation Collier. That money is then going to buy land somewhere else. Bul in fact, in this one acre, it's next door to the 13 acres that the county owns for the flowway, okay; property owner adjoining. So I'mjust throwing out some things that - you know, it's hard - I guess case by case, but in this case I don't understand why you'd have the mitigation when, in fact, in that very area there is green that's required and being maintained. The other thing that I wanted to talk about was -- so I would be for basically getting rid ofthe deviation, okay. I can see in very highly industrial areas where it would be appropriate to intensifi and allow mitigation. But when it comes to strip centers, residential, I don't want to see you lower the standards. We need our green space. It's very important. And I don't think you can even distinguish between the urban area and the rural area, okay. One of the other things I wanted to mention was, right here, this is the beach and Delnor-Wiggins and Barefoot. Many years ago, and several times over the years, I have mentioned that the county should consider an NRPA in this area, okay; Cocohatchee River. Conservation Collier - you'll hear the environmentalists stand up and say, we need to, you know, take this money and prioritize, and let's pick the NRPAs, which I believe is appropriate. But we have an area that really needs to be established as a NRPA. And if youle going to deviate, allow the deviation and have the money come in, you have an area in the urban area that you could spend these dollars and preserve and not necessarily send it out east. While I'm for green space and preserving and all that, you have an area that, over the years, is going to have pressure. Ard my point is only that ifyou're going to go forward with any ofthis language - I've talked to Alex - there should be identified lands in the areas that we're allowing the mitigation that can be bought with those funds that benefit that area that's giving up the green space, okay. Much like impact fees, you collect them in that area. You spend them in that area. It's supposed to benefit the area that is having the development. So I guess what I would say is if you're going to have this language, ifthere's any way to allocate the money in the general area - you might even pick the dishict - keep the money, spend the money in that area because, certainly, there is going to be lands that can be presewed wholly, you know, in the big picture. And so I hope that helps you in your planning. And I appreciate each one ofyou taking the time. And, of course, you know, we want to make srue Naples, Collier County stays above the standards that they Page 20 of35 Jdy 20,2017 have in other counties. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike, are there any other registered speakers? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question for Mr. Fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I agree with the points you made about, basically, spending the money locally. My question to you, though, sir, you mentioned that exotic vegetation seemed to be taking over in some areas owned by the county. Have you been able to bring this to the attention of anyone at stafl MR. FEE: The county doesn't have immense funds, I'll just put it to you that way. There's a lot of programs that need funds. And while I do support and I know it's necessary, there must be reasons why those 13 acres, the utility -- the other thing about it is is somebody has mentioned that if it's not developed land and there's no homeowner associations, no PIJD, that there may not be an exotic removal requirement. I don't know if that's the case or not. If the county owns land that hasn't been developed but it's just holding it, does it have that requirement on itself to maintain it? I don't know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, fll ask the same question. MR. BOSI: And I1l defer to environmental staff. But if it's undeveloped property, there's no DOs. There's no local DOs. There's no requirement to remove exotic vegetation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But if a parcel is developed, you have to remove the exotic vegetation, right? MR. BOSI: Once again, I'll defer to my environmental staffwho applies this, but - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And my next question was going to be, isn't the Lely Outfall Canal considered a development? And why is it lined with exotic vegetation on both sides? And if I tell you that, will you send somebody out to remove it? MS. ARAQUE: SummerAraque, forthe record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. We're getting into a rabbit hole here, but this is interesting. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Never mind. I take that back. I want to get home today. MS. ARAQUE: I can give you -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I'm serious. I take it back. I don't want to know. MS. ARAQUE: I can give you the number to Code Enforcement. That's all you need to do is file a complaint with Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, don't do that to Code Enforcement. Don't do that to Code Enforcement. MS. ARAQUE: My staffwill assist Code Enforcement in the investigation. Thanks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm just going to give you some projects that were not developed, and they are big; the old Mirasol, kind of in that area GL has built behind it the different ones now. If that had not started development, is that correct that they do not need to do anything? You can be a landowner? And, I mean, that's hundreds of acres. But as long as they just let it sit there - MS. ARAQUE: Correct. Until you develop, you're not required to remove the exotics unless we receive a complaint, and then they have to remove so many feet into the property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Like 75 feet or something like that? MS. ARAQUE: I think it's 200 feet. I would have to clariff that, but I think that's what it is. But they have to receive a complaint from the adjacent property owner that's being impacted. Not anybody can just make the complaint. It has to be an impacted property owner. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Very good. Thankyou. Page 21 of35 July 20,2017 MS. ARAQUE: While I'm up here, Mr. Fryer, would you mind emailing me those revisions, and then I can have the board office print those out so we can take a look at those? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Certainly. You bet. MS. NL{QUE: I sent you an email, so you should have my email address. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thark you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did say earlier, Summer, you wanted to talk about his revisions. Is that something you want to do now, or what would you - MS. AR{QUE: I'm fine unless the murt reporter and other people need to take a break. CTIAIRMAN STRAN: I was - that's why I'm asking. If you're going to speak - MS. ARAQUE: We can wait till after the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other members of the public here today that would like to speak on this issue? (No rcsponse.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've finished with public speakers. When we get back from brealg you will be the first up, and we'Il hear whatever you've got to say, and then we can finish talking about it. MS. AIL{QUE: Maybe over t}e break I can give some copies to others to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Copies ofwhat? MS. ARAQUE: Of his proposed revisions. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: If theyte available. MS. ARAQUE: Because some of our stakeholders dont have a copy ofthat. I'm going to have the board office print that out. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that we'll take a break for - we'll come back at 10:40. (A briefrecess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Mike. Okay. Welcome back from our break. We're going to resume the meeting. We left offwith the ending ofthe public comments, and we'll move into Summer's discussion about the handout supplied by Ned earlier this moming. Summer, are you -- yeah, Summer's coming. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I say one sentence before? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just to clarifi, what I endeavored to do here was just that, to clarifu, without indicating suppon or opposition to either option or the language, although I do have some evolving and becoming rather strong opinions, and they're aligned, I think, with yours on what to do going forward. So this is not an indication that I was in support ofeither ofthese. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. I think everybody's taking it that way. The clarifications - and I like it that you focus on this because these -- every clarification we can have is much, much welcomed, because our code is real confusing. And ifwe can make it easier to read - COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I changed the substance of any of this, I erred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what staff is - when they get time to study it, that's what they'll hopefi.rlly dwell on. Summer? MS. AITAQUE: Okay. So we'll start at *re top with the off-site vegetation and pupose and intent; that look fine. But I think - let me gra.b the mike here. I think that this should stay as applicability there. And I think what you're doing here is you?e saying preserve requirement one acre or less and then preserve requirement greater than one acre. I think there's, like, a little misunderstanding of, like, how this is written. This is actually applicability, and this is exception. So in this particular case with the exceptions, the preserve could be less than one acre. We're just Page 22 of 35 JdY 70,2017 saying in the case where the preserve is greater than one acre, the essential services and affordable housing may achrally be able to take that preserve requirement offsite wrthout getting a deviation even if it is more than one acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The reason I changed that or am proposing to do so is a rulc of draftsmanship. You've got Subsection 2 calling it applicability, but the stated subject in the major part, the superior part of that section, is that it applies to one acres or less - one acre or less and, therefore, the subsections also need only to apply to one acre or less just for the purpose of drafting logic. So I tried to preserve your intent which was that this - the language that I struch the preserve requirement shall be based on, is going to apply in both cases. But if you just put it up in 2, then it raised a logic qucstion and creates an ambiguity Etether it also then applies to the greater than one. MS. ARAQUE: Does anybody e lse have anything on that? CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, you dug your hole on this one. I'll let you argue it. MS. ARAQUE: No, because I think that this is applicability of when you can take something off site. These are exceptions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, except your first sentence says one acre or less. So you've defined the subject in the first sentence. Youve got to keep limited to that in your subsections. MS. ARAQUE: You're talking about this right here? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm talking about the onginal No. 2, which you called applicability. It said the on-site preserve requirement may be met off site when the preserve requirement is one acre or less for only the following situations, then you list A, B, and C. YouVe defined the subject matter of2 to one acre or less. And all I tried to do was accomplish what I thought was your objective which was to mak€ that struck language apply whether it's one acre or less or more than one acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your added language that she's questioning, though, is redundant language to what she has in the sentence after yours. So if we were to provide her with her comfort level leaving applicability in and leaving out that first double i that you added prior to the first sentence, is that going to really make any - cause any problem? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think the problem it causes is then the language, "the preserve requirement," is going to apply only to one acre or less because it is part of that same subsection, and it's not going to apply in the case of geater than one acre. Theway- I mean, it's just a matter of structure. Itellyou what I'll do is I'll defer to the County Attomey, who's going to have to, you know, enforce these things or conshue them for enforcement if it comes to that, your superior exposure and experience ofthis stuff. I'm just offering you guys what has been, you know, the essence ofmy training over 45 years ofdrafting documents. But ifit's - ifthe understanding is different down here, certainly, I mean, I defer to you guys. MR. FRANTZ: I would suggest that it sounds like whatever the recommendation is going to be today that we'll probably be coming back to you with some revised language. So we could take some more time to look at these sections and come back with language that's a little - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welt, originally, that's what we had suggested is what -- staffwould need some time with this, becausejust dropping it on the agenda today would not probably give you time to cover it, and then - but I think Summer indicated she wanted to talk about it. So, you want - you can have further discussion, or you can wait, get together with Ned on the side after the meeting, and then try to understand better what he's suggesting, and then come back with better language. It's whatever you prefer, Summer. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. If we're able to work on this further, then I think that's the best option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think after we get done today, it's probably going to need to have further clarification at the next meeting that we have so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: When it comes down to it, Mr. Chairman, for my vote at least, I'm probably going to be voting against all ofthis. I was just trying to clarifr it, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So just so everybody knows. MS. ARAQUE: I thinlq actually, I really only had two things. I thinl most all of your other recommendations were very good and very valid including the beginning where we didn't even have a -- where we struck out the title of the section. So, no, I think the bulk of these are good suggestions. Thank Page 23 of35 JttJy 20,2017 you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other comments from staffor yorL Mike, do you have anything else you want to add? MR. BOSI: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we don't have any other public speakers. This is going to have to be -- we're going to have to provide direction to staff and let them come back with revised language at the next meeting, and hopefully we'll end it there. So we've had plenty ofdiscussion. I know some ofyou have already indicated your preferences. I just need someone to articulate it so we can agree on the direction that we would give to staff. Ifyou're in ageement with that we drop back and not propose this deviation section and leave it as prohibited to go off site with the exception of, I would strongly suggest, industrial areas, let that remain as it - I think wc can go up to two acres in industrial areas, is it, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: If there is a preserve requirement of two acres or less in industrial, then there's no -- or I guess there's no requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: fught. And I think industrial ousht to be left alone. But as far as the rest of it goes, we can close this door and let it go forward that way. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I agree. And, again, just looking at the reactions and the feedback fiom the people here, I mean, to me I don't want people wasting their time going back making revisions ifit sounds like the consensus ofthis -- ofthese commissioners is that - not to do it at all and leave it prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the downside to that piece is if it goes to the Board urithout this language being, let's say, redone and then corrected to the best of our ability because we feel it shouldnt even be there in the first place, now, the Board still may, by policy, feel it should be, and then they're not going to have corrective language to deal with. I don't know what -- the issue on that. Mike, maybe you've got a better feel for that, or somebody, but -- MR. BOSI: Well, the Board's going to have - the way that it would be brought is we would bring the recommendation of DSAC, we'd bring the recommendation of CCLAC, and we'd - COMMISSIONER EBERT: Speak up. MR. BOSI: We'd bring the recommendation of DSAC, the recommendation of CCLAC, and then we'd make the recommendation of Planning Commission. You have two recommendations for various components for the endowment related to the off-site preservation with the language that's being proposed, and then the altemative from the Planning Commission would be, I think what I'm hearing is, just to disallow the off-site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Righr. And I think -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's where I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: : wete looking at that with the exception of the industrial component that - or there: I mean, the indushial parks, nothing's going to survive there anyway, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: The only other exception that maybe was worft consideration is for affordable housing. Ifthis is going to dampen the enthusiasm of developers to develop that kind ofproperty, then maybe we ought to at least think or talk about it. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think anything that they find as an excuse will bc used. This will just be another one. I'm not sure, though, that -if affordable housing doesnt take on a befter way to fit in with existing neighborhoods, it'sjust going to be harder and harder for neighbors to accept affordable housing, and every meeting will be attended by multitudes of people who are opposing it because it's not compatible. So I - and this is a huge compatibility issue. Preservations are a natural buffer. They have all kinds of benehts for both the people living in the affordable homes as well as those around it. And I also think that ifyou live in an affordable house, you should have the same benefits ifyou're in this community. So I'd just as soon see that elimrnated as well. Page 24 of 35 JuJy 20,2017 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Agree. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I mean, the one -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm with you, but I'm not sure where the BCC is. But that's up to them to decide where they are. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You know, I - what you're sayrng is if they can take it offsite because it's affordable housing, then they live on barren land, and that, to me, is much worse. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - and the landscaping, generally, in the affordable projects that I've seen and driven through, is not up to standards of some of the gated communities, which I don't expect it to be. But this only further erodes it, so I'm not stre that's really helping anybody. So I think the only exception we ought to consider for where the CCME requires the ability for the Board to consider deviations, they may provide deviations, fine. Let that be met by the industrial park deviations being kept intact and eliminate the rest of it for preserve. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I'll second that. COMMISSIONERFRYER: I'd go withthat, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else okay with that? Okay. Then that's the direction that we're giving to staffto come back at our next meeting, which will be the second meeting in August, to finalize this, hopetully, MR. FRANTZ: And just to clariff, that recommendation is to completely strike out Section F, the off-site vegetation? CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Just get the off-site and deviation section out of there. Then we won't have this constant turmoil with applicants. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Marh did this not originally come up because it was industrial? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I honestly don't know. I would have to go back and research to tell you. It's been a long time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because I remember Commissioner Henning having a problem with something commercial, and they needed it to do their building. So that's kind of what I'm referring to. MR. FRANTZ: For industrial projects, there just is no preserve requirement, so they don't use the off-site vegetation altemative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So for clarification, the Land Development Code, outside of this section of the code, allows that for industrial-zoned properties. If your preserve requirement is two acres or less, you're not required to have a preserve. You don't even have to use the off-site provision; however, there is a possibility that you could have an industrial property -- we don't see it too often, but -- that has, like, a three-acre requirement for preserve. Then they would have to have some preserve on site, so that's where you could consider possibly including deviations in the off-site preserve section for maybe only industrial, so I would - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why 6h't we just leave industrial the way it is. If they have a big enough piece ofproperty where they need a three-acre preserve, let them leave it on site then. MS. ARAQUE: That sounds -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's just -- you're looking at a large piece of industrial tract,I mean, in business parks and stufflike that. So, okay, leave it there. MS. ARAQUE: But I just want to clariff that LDC requirement. But I'm still not understanding your direction. You're saying remove the deviations altogether? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prohibit deviations for off-site preserves - for off-site application of preserves. It's done. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. And include that in this section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then from there going forward, it's not going to -- we're not going to have deviations coming in asking for it anymore. It's over with. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that will take away the need to be concemed about land Page 25 of35 luly 20, 2017 donations - CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's - COMMISSIONER FRYER: .. 4-1 and valuation and all that; gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, all that goes away. MS. ARAQUE: So are we getting rid of the off-site preserve altogether? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't think we need an F. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. The entire F - CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There's not going to be in this section. MS. ASIITON-CICKO: - would be deleted and replaced with PUD deviations, and we'll say PUD deviations are prohibited from thc section. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's always one of the biggest complaints from the public. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Every time. And every time it's a game being played because - COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nobody likes it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's just - this will stop all that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We can put this in File 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: File 13? Whatever you want. Okay. Staff got enough understanding of what to do at this point? MR. FRANTZ: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll move into the rest of the items on our agenda. ***That takes us to new business. The fust item up today on 10A under new business will be Stan Chrzanowski's discussion on salt -- sea level rise, right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Stan, it's all yous. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: About in March, I think, of last year, 2016, a couple of scientists namcd DeConto and Pollard published an article in Nature Magazine. The article said that tleir study of the Artarctic ice shelf indicated that there's a good probability that the shelf could melt enough by the year 2 1 00 to raise sea levels around the world six foot. Now, that article caught a lot of people's attentions. I sent copies of the article to the Board of County Commissioners when it came out. I got a couple of responses from Commissioner Fiala. Not too many questions after that. But it kind of caught my attention, and I started going - ifyou go into Google News and ask it to alert you any time there's an article on sea level rise, it will send you all the articles, and it's incredible thg-amount of articles coming out on sea level nsc. Well, it hrmed out that the U.S. Naly was starting to take it seriously because, for some strange reasoq they built all their naval bases at sea level. That was supposed to be funny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. It's kind of degssing, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Well, I think the Nary thought it was kind of depressing, too. I started seeing all these articles, and that was just Antarctica. Then they realized that Greenland is losing its ice cap and that that could contribute two feet to sea level rise. The islands that you see in Northem Canada up in the Arctic Circle, that's all ice above sea level now. There's a misconception. When you have floating ice, like in the Arctic, when it melts, it's like ice cubes in a glass; nothing happens. But when you have glaciers above sea level and they melt like Antarctica, Canada, or Greenlan4 then you start getting a rise in the sea level. The numbers started out - now, the IPCC, thc Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change, their numbers are, Iike, three yean old before any of this hit the fan, and they were talking eight inches. And the Corps of Engineers accepted that, and I think most people accepted that, and then they started looking at all the science that was coming out. Page 26 of35 J.uly 20,2017 And the worst numbers, I think came out ofa guy name Hansen who said 15 feet by summing everybody's worst-case scenario together. Now they're starting to talk about it's going to b€ tkee feet, and the 6-foot number, when you total them all together, Antarctic4 Greenland, Canadq and the thermal expansion ofthe ocean itself, you have two miles of ocean, and cvcry,thing expands when it's heated. Water expands when it's heated. When you heat two miles ofocean, it might come up a foot per every degree centigrade maybe. So, you know, if you raise the entire temperature of the ocean one or two degrees it's going to come up. So whcn you sum all these together, I think the number that they've come up with as a median right now is pretty well accepted, is li ke maybe around 6-foot. But nobody can tell you exactly how fast it's going to rise by 2 I 00, and thafs what I was pushing to try to find out. There's a scientist named Ben Skauss with a website called climatecentral.org, and they publish a lot of climate data. And I contacted Rob DeConto, the guy that wrcte the article, and he sent me to Ben Strauss. And the county appointed Amy Patterson as being in charge ofthis, and she's been in contact with Ben Strauss. You also had Harvard coming in trying to tell us how we should redo our architectural standards or the City ofNaples how they should prepare for sea level rise. But the thing about sea level rise is, you know, you get storm surge, the surge comes in, causes its damage, and leaves. With sea lcvel rise you get two high tides a day every day for the rest of your life, and if those high tides come in and flood your roads twice a day, you dont - there's nothing you can do about that. You just leave. Well, that's about what we're looking at. In areas like Goodland and Chokoloskee you have to start wondcring, ifthey're right, ifit rises three feet by the year 2050 or 2060, you're going to be removing Chokoloskee. Well, how do you do that? You know, do youjust abandon it and leave it out there as an artificial reef, or do you achrally go out there and tell people, I'm going to pull up your house and charge you for it, or do you tell them you're going to have to pull up your house and pay for it yourselfl And - you know, thcre's a whole lot of things to consider that I don't think anybody's really looking at at the county. I mean, we have an emergency management department. Ifthey'rc right, if it's six foot, we're going to lose the Everglades. Average elevation of the Everglades is six; mean high, high water around there is thrce. It will flood to Elevation 9 twice a day every day, and we're going to lose the Everglades. We're going to lose Rookery Bay. I'll be long dead, 50 years dead when it happens, but probably only a couple years dead when we lose Rookery Bay because it's right on the coast ifthe science is right. So what .. the first thing you have to find out is, who is right about how fast it's going to rise, then you have to look at what we have out there. I mean, everybody looks at the civilized areas, you know, Naples itself. The sea walls are maybe, like, Elevation 5.5, so you lose those within 20 years. But Collier Seminole State Park Rookery Bay, 10,000 Istands, all that, that's totally gone by the time my grandchildren are adults if it's right. I think somebody should look at that. I think somebody should make a presentation to us. Maybe get Amy Patterson to get Ben Strauss in here to tcll us what the best science is, what's going to happen right now. I think this is a serious issue. I mean, I don't care about climate change. I don't care about antkopogenic warming, anlhing like that. But the sea level is rising. There's no doubt in anybody's mind, and look it up. If there's any doubt in your mind, just go into Google and type in "sea level risc" and look. And that's why I wanted somebody to come up here and give us a presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one ofthe things this board can do is request those kinds of sh.rdies and planning considerations as part of our duties. So if the Board feels like we agree with you and we want that to happen, we can ask staffto put together, over a period of time, for a convenient time in the fuhrre, how - say it will be in the next 60 or 90 days, whatever it would take, for you all to come back with your best-case status on where we're at today with considerations ofsea level rise. Is that - if we were to want that as a group, is that something you could do, Mike? MR. BOSI: You're discussing policy issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We just want to understand what you see as more planning aspects. Page 27 of35 luly 20, 2017 We dont - we're not trying to set policy. That's the Board's job. We could recommend that they consider policies, but - COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Because we spend money -- like, we're talking about Florida is spending a lot ofmoney on Everglades restoration. Well, ifthe Everglades is going to be gone by the year 2 I 00, what are we spending the money for? Things like that. You know, yeah, that's policy, but I think that's a planning issue, too. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we're asking - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Mike, beforc you go take this too strong, is someone in the county looking at sea level rise? Isn't that - we have -- that was brought up by the Board before. MR. BOSI: As Stan has mentioned, Amy Patterson's group -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: tught. MR. BOSI: - is currently working through the Board's direction rn terms of addressing and providing a framework for that issue to be presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then why doesn't she just come to us and explain to us what her task is and how far along she is with it andjust give us a status report? That's all I think we're looking for. MR. BOSI: Okay. I didn't - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's keep it simple. We know that we're not scientists. We just need to get the simple here's -- we've realized some things. Stan's right, or wrong, whatever she wants to say. I don't think she's going to say you're -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How high and how fast, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: YeaI. This is what we expect, and this is how we're looking at it. And we're preparing this for the Board, and that'sjust a status report to us. That would give us what we need. MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would that work? COMMISSIONER CHMANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else satisfied? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: One ice cap just broke off. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: *+*The next item up is l0B, which was a discussion based on a handout flom Ned conceming NIMs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank yor.L Mr. Chairman. As every knows, I havent been on this commission for very long, but one thing that struck me early on and repeatedly was the absence in the NIM transcripts of, at least in myjudgnent, adequate attribution to who was talking. Now, we want to, ofcourse, preserve the right ofpnvate citizens and neighbors to speak without forcing them to ideotiry themselves, and I think I've addressed that. But it's important for us as we assess the sihration and decide how wete going to exercise the discretion, it helps to know what the grassroots, ifyou will, what the people at the very granular level on the ground are thinking and saying and feeling about these developments. And in addition, I think it's also very important for us and for staffto get a clear handle on rcpresentations, ifyou will, assr[ances that are made in the course of t]rose NIMs by developers with regard to what they plan to do to remediate or address some ofthe concems that are expressed. The material I handed out, at *re back of it you will see just a couple ofpages, and I printed on both sides here, just for illustrative purposes. And it's not the court reporter's fault, because the coud reporter's not therc. The court reporter does the best that he or she can with the tape recording that's provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If I'm not mistakeD" the coult reporter - first of all, they're not required to court report it. They're simply required to record it and make notes. The few -- there's a couple engineering firms that have taken it upon themselves to have a court reporter here who actually types - actually does verbatim notes ofthe meeting, minutes ofthe meeting. Now, the rules that they go by are theirs because they're not required to have a court reporter there. Theyhe not required to provide any of this. You know, that's probably a - Page 28 of35 JluJY 20,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm looking for a lowrost solution to what at least I perceive to be a real problem. And so I'm not suggesting that the developer should pay to have a court reporter present, but I am suggesting in an earlier iteration ofthis - and I had some very helpful conversations -- electronic conversations with Heidi about how to deal with this and how to put it in front of this group In an earlier iteration I made it clear that there would be a requircment on the part ofthe developer to have it transcribed after the fact and that the transcription would become part ofthe official record. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But, see, after the fact wouldnt help because the recordings don't identifr the speakers either. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well - but that takes me to my suggestion, and my suggcstion is that - now, of course, in addition to the proponents, there's going to be a facilitator there from staff, and the facilitator and the proponent should, number one, assure that people don't talk over one another because I think that gets to be a free-for-all and makes it impossible for a court reporter to transcribe even after the fact, but also if we require the applicants, the advocates to identifo themselves each time they spealq we'll know who is making the representations, that it comes from the developer, an agent or developer, and then people who are not required to identiry themselves, we can assume that they are interested neighbors. Now, I've offered a solution just because I feet like I should if I'm going to express a problem, but the essence of what I'm wanting to do today is express a problem. And I'm not asking for an adoption of this - either this exact language or the location or placement ofa proposed solution, but what I am asking for is that we, as a Planning Commission, ask staffto give consideration to this problem, ard that is to say if the members of this commission agree with me that there's a problern to begin with. If they dont, then I don't want to waste people's time. But ifpeople think there's a problem, lefs try to identiff a solutiorL and that work should start with staff work. COMMISSIONER EBERT: May I respond, Ned? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, You can. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ned, that is one ofthe biggest problems. ldid speak with one of the agent's people that do this. And ifyou take, Iike, your cell phone, theyjust have that sitting up there where the room has a lot ofpeople, and you don't hear anlthing. You don't even hear the questions. I said, can you get something where we can hear you, where you take it around, you know? Because wete missing everflhing, and these NIMs are very important. COMMISSIONER FRYER: AbsolutelY. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have either of you ever asked for the recordings fiom the NIMS and listened to them? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Should we be required to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think if - it's a geat way to understand how the NIMs transpre. I listen to just about all ofthem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are you able - well, you probably know Mr. Amold's voice, for instance, but - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't really care who the voices are. I put cverybody -- everybody that speaks, they carry weight. So I listen to what their concems are, whether they're pro or against, and out of that I decidc, okay, this project had certain concems over it expressed by individuals - it doesn't matter what side they're on - then I take those concems, especially ifI hear a commitment made by the developer, and those are -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But how do you know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Theyle summarized. Every one of the - COMMISSIONER FRYER: By the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAN: By the developer. That's why I listen to the - that's why I listen to the tape, because if I hear something on the tape that isn't on the summary, then I have a problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, any,vay, it's just something to consider. Page 29 of 35 Ju'ly 20, 2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you're -- you've got way more experience than I have and I'm sure are more facile at sorting this shrffout, but - and maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I do not fcel like I can gain a sufficient understanding of what happened from that NIM by the way that it is fanscribed now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then this is probably going to take a code change, if I'm not mistaken. MR. BOSI: And, Mr. Fryer, this is - this would be the beginning of a potential Land Development Code amendment process. And how that would work COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, Heidi guided me otherwise. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. All the details of the NIM is in the Code of Laws so, achrally, an amendment could be done to Code of Laws for - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Code ofl-aws? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The Administrative Code can be amended by resolution. Yeah, the LDC only requires the NIM. The details of the NIM is in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the Admin Code? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Admin, procedures. MS. ASIIION-CICKO: Yeah, the admin - our Administrative Code is in the Collier County Code ofLaws, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I actually started with a draft ordinance - MS. ASIIION-CICKO: So it's not an LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: - and Heidi guided me away from that, whrch made sense because why take it to a higher level than you need to? But I have proposed ordinance language, if that's the direction that people want to go in. MS. ASIITON-CICKO: Yeah. He has distributed the correct section of the Administrative Code, and Mr. Fryer had spoken to me about getting a hanscript. That's the last that I knew, that you were going ro recommend that. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you see this then working its way tkough processes to become language? Simply going to the Board, having them amend the Admin Code? MS. ASIITON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to going to the Board to have them amend the Admin Code, is there any other meetings that the Adrrun Code level would take it to? I mean, DSAC, stakeholdcrs, anything like that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. Not - it's not required. Now, whether they want that information, that's another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this would impact every single project n regards to NIMs, plus a lor ofother NIMs that are held for projects that are not to the level ofPUDs. MR. BOSI: And, just for farness, the MMs are not meetrngs that are run by staff. Those are the apphcant's meeting. So I would thint in faimess, we would at least want to provide any potential modifications to the process for how a NIM is supposed to be with at least the DSAC. And, speaking with Jeremy, that would be our normal process for any Administrative Code changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that if -- I think that's the route to go, but absolutely to include the concems that Ned has expressed that I think the rest ofus probably are on the same page. I would love to see a transcript instead ofhaving to listen to those obnoxious tapes. If therc's a way to make this better, I'm all for it. So I think if DSAC were to understand the frustrations, maybe by what they've seen as examples here, and their support was added to the admin recommendation to change to the Board -- because those don't come to us; they go straight to the Board - that would be helpful. Anybody else have any concems over? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we move in that direction, then, Mike, as a request from this board to consider the added language. MR. FEE: Can I say something? Page 30 of35 lnly 2O,2Ol7 COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, certainly, if it needs to go through other groups, that's fine as well. The more input the better. Ijust - from my perspective, Ijust dont feel like I can do myjob properly with what's being supplied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have a disagreement with you. I just - I dont have a problem with it as it is, but I understand your concern. Mike, did you want anlthing else to add? MR. BOSI: I think -- and it would be - simply, would it be the requirement for a court reporter for transcripts to be provided at each individual NIM? That's what the - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not necessarily the court reporter be present. But if the advocates, if the developers identifu themselves, that's what I want to know, and then I can assume that the people who are listed as unidentified are neighbors. And what I'm going at here is wanting to know if a developer makes a commitment or a representation with respect to what they're proposing to do to ameliorate a problem raised by a neighbor. MR. BOSI: And that's the sole purpose of why staff attends the neighborhood information meetings, to record it - COMMISSIONER FRYER: I undentand. MR. BOSI: - to record any commitments that arc provided for. So I'm still a little -- the clarification would be, simply, that each speaker has to - the requirement that each speaker identiff themselves before that - COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's the same thing that happens here. In fact, you're here all the time. Every time you spea[<, you say, "for the record, I'm Mike Bosi," so it's not - it's not something that is going to, I think, create an unreasonable burden on the people. All I'm asking is when the proponents stand up they say, for the record, I'm Mr. Amold for the developer, and then say what theyre going to say; that's all. ln fact, maybe to help clariff what I'm driving at, let me also circulate through staff the draft ordinance that I had prepared, which is more detailed than this. I took Heidi's good suggestion to boil it down and put it in an administrative procedure, but some ofthat was lost in my effort. And pcrhaps whcn you see that, you'll gain a better understanding ofwhat I'm concemed about and what my proposed solution is. MS. ASTIION-CICKO: So if I'm hearing you correctly and to clarifu, if I may, Mrs. Ebert. Mike's question, the speaker that's identifring themself is the applicant or the applicant's agents, not the public. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. MS. ASH|ON-CICKO: And the second thing is, I'm heanng you say you want a trans - you want the transcript of the tape ofthe meeting, recorded meeting or - COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I understand - MS. ASmON-CICKO: - you want a court reporter there to transcribe? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I don't want a court reporter there because that adds cost, and I'm not trying to do that. I realize it's still going to be a cost to have a court reporter, but I'm assuming it's less expensive if they don't have to be on site. And it would be easier for them to transcribe if at least they have the benefit ofthe developer's -- or the proponent's agent saying, you know, I'm Mr. Smith representing the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, right now they're not required to transcribe it. So now we are requiring them to transcribe it, so that means you would need a cout reporter. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: That is added cost. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's going to be an added cost in some cases, but in some cases, for instance, in Addie's Comer they did it an),\ ay. [n other cases I know they do a summary. I find the summary inadequate, and I'm not willing to rely on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which is why we have the audio. But if you don't want to use the audio -- so what we would be inhoducing is an audio hanscribed by a coud reporter to provide to us; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Essentially, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you had said you didn't want to increase the cost. That will Page 3l of35 Jtly 20,2017 change thc cost. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It will change the cost for those developers who have not transcribed it. But some do. For instance, in Addie's Comer, it was transcribed. So they won't notice a difference. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well - or they'll say ifs getting too complicated; we're just going to stick to what the code requires. That's the - it's nice that they were doing that, but - COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the code doesn't : the code doesn't prohibit the administrative procedures from extending the requirement. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but it will - if we put it in the administrative procedues, it will be a requirement, and that will increase the cost. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That is true, for somc, for those who aren't already doing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: What I have found going to some of these NIM mcctings is their recording equipment is very poor. That's why you're not hearing this sh,rff. It's unidentified, unidentified. And I dont care who's speaking, whether it's the developer or whatever; when we get it, there's too much of this unidentified. So to me, it's poor equipment. If they had a microphone that you could hear, that would be easy to transcribe. It's just - that's what I'm finding is they put these little thrngs out there like a phone, and that's what captues whatever they can caphfe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Mike, I think the best thing to do is take a look at how this could work into a better system, whether it be done by the staff, done by a court reporter afterwards, and just see what - just take it to DSAC as a walk-on item or a discussion item for thenr, if you could, and get some feedback. I think that would be the first step, and then we can decide - well, it's not our discussion. Then it goes - it's an Admrn Code issue, so that would go to the Board. We could certainly recommend to the Board something after we get some feedback. MR. BOSI: So I'm just tryrng to understand. What I'm going to ask the DSAC that there's - the Planning Commission would like to explore further measures to more accuately caphrrc the conversation such as transcribing the ach:al recordings at the NIM? Because that's not required now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That about sums it up. MR. BOSI: Just want to make sure -- I wanted to carry the same message. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're exploring the request. So I donrt think we've got enough information to say absolutely we need to do it. I'd like to see what the industry think as far as practicability of it. MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So - and that's all I can think of at this point. Anybody else? Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I think it also requires, beyond just the transcript, it's an identification of those that are there on behalfofthe developer and then identiffing when those folks speak. So, you know, I guess Ned's not asking to chase down the citizen who might stand up and, you know, say something and no one knows who that guy in the back with the green shirt was or whatever, but those who are running the meeting and required to do the meeting, they actually will have to be identified. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's exactly what I'm driving at. MR. BOSI: So every time a member of the development team speaks, they have to identifu themselves as a representative. MR. EASTMAN: No, not necessarily - they don't have to say it over and over again. They just - when the transcript is finalized, it indicates when and where they speak. MR. BOSI: But there's no requirement for a transcript now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's so - there would have to be a transcript is what -. the transcript, then, would have to reflect those people that spoke by them identifoing themselves on the recording to if they're associated with the developer. MR. EASTMAN: Correct. And I don't want to speak for Ned, but I think Ned's moving toward making a transcription a requirement ofthe NIM saying that he doesn't want to rely upon the executive sunmary. And having sat on this board for years, I've seen you, Chairman Strain, utilize the NIM and the statements made at the NIM to keep people honest over and over and over again. Page 32 of35 July 20,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I was going to continue doing that. MR. EASTMAN: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I suppose I would resort to that if needs be, but I'd rather not have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll just have to see. I'd like to get some input fiom at least DSAC at this point. Anybody else on the panel? (No response.) CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, I'll see r:r'hat you've got to say if you want to take a few minutes. MR. FEE: For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I wasn't sure that was on the agenda, or it was added before the meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: lt was added as an add-on, walk-on. MR. FEE: Got it. I appreciate that you've brought this up. Many years ago, I can remember when we did not have a neighborhood information meeting, and I think it is very valuable from both sides, from the development side as well as the neighborhood side, so - support it. As far as reviewing it, I definitely feel that there should be - I don't know how long it's been since there's been any Administrative Code or Land Development Code review ofthe neighborhood information meeting. I believe it needs to be reviewed. When it's in the Admin Code, I understand it only really goes to the Board. It always used to be with land use matters that there were several bites at the apple for the public to review these. And what I would say to you, while I undelstand the ability to do it quicker - and, you know, I would say on land use matters with the Admin Code, it would be important that yoq as planners, at least get to have that opportuity at one meeting. How you go about requiring that, that's up to the lawyers here. And so I think it would be difficult to bring it to the Board because they may rely on you to make some recommendations, review it, and bring it - you know, theyre just going to hear the public' They're not going to hear the planners. So I dcfinitely feel that it's ripe for review, specifically. With notice requirements, does the NIM require that the landowner - I think there's, like, a 500-foot radius. But my understanding is if you draw the circle and you have three buildings in a PUD, it's those three buildings ofthat PUD that get notified, but you may have affected parties that are outside ofthat but are still in the neighboring PUD. Arc they required to give notice? If I live in a neighbor, and my neighborhood - my neighbor says, oh, I received this card in the mail, and they're one building over but we live in the same neighborhood, he may go to the meeting and I may not. So I think there may be a reason to review that 500-foot. If it touches a PUD, then it should be all the homeowners in that Pf.lD and not select buildings. The other thing that I will say is typically you'll get applications in CityView for PIJD amendments or PIDI, whatever you call thenr, and then you'll have Site Development Plans. And with neighborhood information meetings, there's the requirement for them to hold the meeting but, typically, it's before staffhas even reviewed the application, and things will change in what gets submitt€d, and then the neighborhood won't actually hear the negotiations or whatever comes about. So I think it's a timing issue, too, that it - maybe not to be early on or, if it's early on and it goes a length oftime, they defrnitely should have to come back and say what the changes are. So, anyways, ifthat helps. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike said that staff attends all NIMs, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So sometimes you attend the NIM before you get the application? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: NO. MR. BOSI: No. The NIM, as required, can only be held after the first review from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And they've got to be held within one year of ow me€ting. Tom was next, by the way. MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Fee suggested that if one member of a community gets a notice and then the Page 33 of35 htly 20,2017 other person dtat's, say, 50 1 feet away, the whole remainder of the community should get the notice. Perhaps a better and more efficient way to do that was to keep it at the 500 feet, but when you involve a commmity, send it to that HOA or the chairman ofthat HOA or that group, because that could become onerous when you nip the tip ofthe iceberg on a huge community with the 500 feet, and thea you have literdlly thousands of people that, in some cases, could be a mile away, and that could be particularly onerous if we follow that suggestion. MR. BOSI: And our code does require that. The HOAs are notified, and it's only the structues within the 500 feet. So that scenario is provided for by the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already in the code. MR. FEE: I recently went to a NM within the last two months, and the planner, Eric Johnson, who's not here, sat in the audience. And I knew - I know who Eric is, but 99 percent of the people would not know, and there was no -- there's no ability for thern to know who to speak to on the county's part. It was a NIM by the developer, but the county staffmore or less was in the audience. So I think it's importatrt that they also be identifuing themselves. And I would go for the transcrip! because if therc's $100 fee for an hour or two meeting - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: lt would be more than that, but - MR. FEE: - staffputs a - when it goes to the Board, staffputs a staffsummary. So why not have the transcript, which is, in essence, what the developer's putting in as well. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And that takes us to the end of new business. And there's no old business. Any other public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjoum? COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. All in favor, sigri! by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. ***ttt{. There being no firther business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjoumed by order of the Chair at ll'.27 a.m. COLLIER COL]NTY PLANNING COMMISSION Page 34 of35 July 20,2017 ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK /' These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented l/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 35 of35