Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/06/20215/6/2021 Page 1 of 99 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida Thursday, May 6, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Joe Schmitt Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Christopher T. Vernon ABSENT: Karl Fry Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5/6/2021 Page 2 of 99 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the May 6th, 2020 [sic] meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison, and the proceedings continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Secretary Fry has a business necessity that has taken him away from us this morning. It's an excused absence, and so I will call the roll. Mr. Eastman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Present. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fry is excused. Mr. Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm here. Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It looks like we have a quorum of six all physically present. That's a good thing. Addenda to the agenda. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Agenda Item 11A, which is the town plan informational item, that is going to be moved to first on your agenda today; and then the second change is 9B, which is the excavation permit for Stewart Materials, and this is to be presented to the EAC. This type of excavation permit requires the EAC review. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Is there any objection to the change in agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity, it's strictly EAC only, because it's already -- we already had a conditional use on this three or four months ago. Okay. MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. So without objection, our agenda has been amended as noted by Mr. Bellows. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on May 20. Anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend that meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: May 20? Was that the special meeting we have? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, this is the second regular. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If I go fishing, will that be an excused absence? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: As long as you tell me something else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will miss the May 20. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm afraid I'm going to miss it, too. MR. KLATZKOW: Da, da, da. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Uh-oh. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that will put us down to five, which is enough to conduct business, as long as we have four in the room. 5/6/2021 Page 3 of 99 And let's see. Okay. So that covers that one. And then there's a special meeting that we have set up for May 26th, and that one is going to begin at 9:00 a.m. with certain items to be heard not earlier than 5:05 p.m. Does anyone know if he or she won't be able to attend that meeting, including the early evening portion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can you explain that? So we're going to hear regular petitions in the morning? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And then in the evening. This is on a Wednesday? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. I thought it was only just going to be evening LDC. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. It's going to be a full day for us, and the evening will be LDC amendments, and then the daytime will be rezones and the like. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you think it will be a full day, take us all way to the evening, or do you think we ought to start maybe a little bit later in the morning so -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a thought. Mr. Bellows, what's your read on the agenda for the 20th -- 26th? MR. BELLOWS: I have handed out a packet of all the items that are coming up on your next meetings, and on May 26th you have three items: The two LDC amendments, and then there's the conditional use for the Immokalee Solar Farm, and there's, I believe, a companion variance with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we could -- I guess what we ought to do is wait and see how far we get today. If we're able to complete our agenda today, then we'll remain at those three items, and we could consider, before we adjourn today, maybe coming in a little later, if that's the wish of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Noon. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just only because if we finish at 1:00 and then have to come back again at 5:00. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 5:05, I guess, would be it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. It's a sensible proposal, and let's see how far we get today. So remind me if anyone said they're not going to be able to be here on the 26th. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I should be here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Very good. Thank you. All right. Approval of minutes. We have two sets. The first is for our March 18 meeting. Any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Some places I'm "Commissioner Homiak" and some places I'm "Ms. Homiak." So I think I should be just one; probably Commissioner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Probably so. All right. We'll -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: With that, I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded that we approve those minutes as so amended by the Vice Chair. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. 5/6/2021 Page 4 of 99 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. They stand approved. Then we have our minutes of April 1st, 2021. Any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: They passed unanimously. Thank you. All right. Chairman's report. I have a couple of items here that I want to mention. And I'm having iPad trouble, so bear with me one second. Here we go. All right. First of all, I want to acknowledge with enthusiasm and report to you an item that was made public yesterday in the Board of County Commissioners' agenda packet that was posted yesterday afternoon, and I'll read from it. It says -- this excerpt says, Ordinance 2013-40 requires that the Board confirm the County Manager's appointment of assistant county administrators and department heads. Mr. Isackson, who as you know is our new County Manager, is making the following appointments to the agency executive leadership team that require confirmation: Sean Callahan, Deputy County Manager; Amy Patterson, Deputy County Manager; Daniel Rodriguez, Public Services department head; James French, Growth Management deputy department head; and, Trinity Scott, Growth Management deputy department head. So congratulations and welcome, and God speed to Amy as she goes onto her new venture. For further information, Mr. French and Ms. Scott will be reporting directly to the new Deputy County Manager, Sean Callahan, as Mr. Cohen is no longer with the county. So that's the first thing that I wanted to announce, and the second is I want to acknowledge with appreciation and admiration our colleague, Commissioner Vernon, because it shows up also on the county's BCC's May 2021 agenda item coming up for next Tuesday that his law firm, the Vernon Litigation Group, has been chosen to be Business of the Month. So warm congratulations to you, sir. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, congratulations. With that, does he get a pay raise on the Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It doubles. You know, we're going to triple it, actually. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Why not? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do we need a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So moved. 5/6/2021 Page 5 of 99 CHAIRMAN FRYER: But whatever you're doing for our county, in addition to what we see you do, thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for your service. All right. So based upon the revised -- let's see. Have I covered everything? Yes. Oh, no, I haven't. Consent agenda, we have none today. Now -- and I guess I skipped the BCC report. I'm sorry, Mr. Bellows. Do you have anything? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On April 27th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rezone for the NC Square and its companion Growth Management Plan amendment, and that was approved on their summary agenda. They also heard the BCHD Commercial Planned Unit Development and its companion rezone, and that was approved unanimously subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. ***All right. Without further ado, then, we will go to our new first agenda item, which concerns the Rivergrass/Longwater/Bellmar Villages, the aggregation proposal to convert them to a town, and for this item we will hear from Ms. Patterson and Ms. Scott, whom the Chair recognizes. MS. SCOTT: Good morning. For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager, till Tuesday. I have a presentation. Let me see if I can pull it up here. Oh, there it is. So I'm here before you today with multiple staff members who will be able to answer any questions that you may have on the different facets of the town agreement that has been on our agenda and continued multiple times over the past few months. The current status of the three villages of -- as many of you are -- as all of you are very well aware of is the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area was approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and the Longwater SRA and Bellmar SRA are pending Board action. So why are we here talking about a potential town plan? The applicant can certainly move forward to the Board for approval with the remaining two villages, as is proposed, meeting their requirements of the Growth Management Plan, as we have discussed over the past several meetings. Those three villages would result in approval of 7,800 dwelling units, 265,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 78,500 square feet of civic and institutional uses. Villages are communities with diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village and are comprised of residential neighborhoods, where a village, conversely, is the largest and most diverse form of an SRA with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. Towns are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character, and that comes straight from 4.71 of your RLSA amendments that are in front of you. So today we have three villages; one approved, two proposed; however, with the addition of some additional acreage, these villages can be connected to provide for a town which, per the policy, would provide a balance of land uses to reduce the automobile trips and increase livability as indicated in Policy 4.71. So these discussion with Collier Enterprises started a while ago and was intended to be in front of the Board prior to the adoption of the RLSA amendments, which is why many of the items that you see within the town plan are consistent with the RLSA amendments that you will be hearing later. So they were reflective of those amendments, and the applicant wanted to make sure that -- and we'll go through each of the points. The affordable housing was addressed in line with the new RLSA amendments as well as credits, et cetera. The landowner wants to work with the county to set forth a framework to come forward with a town conversion providing for that additional land required for the towns and provide the 5/6/2021 Page 6 of 99 opportunity to link and connect villages with the town core. This is the proposed master plan that has been identified in the -- within the agreement. The specific proposal is within 12 months of the approval of the pending Longwater and Bellmar SRA applications the landowner will file an amendment to the Longwater SRA adding the acreage that would make up the town core to create the town SRA. With that, Bellmar Village would not be eligible for any certificates of occupancy until the town SRA was scheduled for public hearing. So the landowner is obviously committed to coming forward with this town. No timing restrictions would be placed on the development of the town core, which would be based -- which would be developed based on market conditions. The lack of timing restrictions is not something that is new. Typically, we don't have timing restrictions within our developments, and they come forward as market demands. Areas set aside as nonresidential uses would not be eligible for conversion to residential uses, and by applying for the town, the existing three villages would not be subject to downzoning, intensity reduction, or unit density reductions. On the right, you have the proposed land uses and the approximate acreage. Comprehensive Planning staff has done a cursory review to ensure that the amounts noted are in compliance with the current and proposed RLSA provisions, which you will be acting on later. Other specifics within the agreement itself -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you just repeat that last point, because I was trying to -- MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- comprehend it, and I didn't. MS. SCOTT: Comprehensive Planning staff has done a cursory review of the amounts, the square footages, acreages, et cetera, to ensure that the amounts noted are in compliance with the current and proposed RLSA provisions, which you will be acting on later. So with regard to fiscal analysis, the agreement states that the landowner will analyze the entire town inclusive of Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar Villages at the horizon year per the RLSA rules utilizing the same methodology, which includes, you know, the adopted levels of service, the adopted impact fee rates, and millage rates, et cetera. In addition, when reviewing the need for capital infrastructure, particularly those for governmental buildings, et cetera, the landowner and county will cooperate on timing of needed interim facilities. In addition, the agreement discusses several incentives. And what I want to stress to the Planning Commission is these incentives are incentives that are available today. These are not new incentives that we're creating for this specific application. If the incentives are used, they should assist with the economic viability of the town concept while supporting the economic diversification goals of the county. Possible incentives could be innovation zones, reduced impact fees for reduced demand, and other economic development incentives for targeted business, business expansion, and job creation. So as I stated, these are tools that the county already has in its toolbox to support the county goals of economic diversification. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you just clarify, why are you mentioning these incentives now? They're optional. They're not necessarily what's being proposed, but they might end up being incorporated? MS. SCOTT: They would be items that county staff would work with the applicant as they would with any other applicant, but when we were putting together the town plan, we wanted this agreement -- this is kind of the memorandum of understanding, if you will, of -- that county staff would work with them on various incentives should they be applicable to what they're proposing in the end. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So -- and all you're saying is that they're possible but nobody has a -- 5/6/2021 Page 7 of 99 MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: There's no expectation that it has to granted? MS. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And can I just understand, reduced impact fees for reduced demand, that's just saying if the market goes south, then you go ahead and delay or -- MS. SCOTT: No. What that means is that if the applicant can achieve a higher level of -- I'm going to give an example -- a higher level of internal capture than a typical road impact fee, they can request that we analyze that, and that based on that reduced demand because -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Reduced demand on the infrastructure? MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Sorry. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I should have asked your permission to ask, so I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not a problem. Thank you. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: With regard to affordable housing, if the landowner desires to change the location as shown on the master plan, it must be near school and/or business uses. It shall not be less desirable than the market-rate sites or other parcels and shall be no less accessible to common open spaces, public facilities, public transportation, and commercial goods and services. The commitment by the applicant is 497 units -- two different parcels; 497 units on 49.7 acres and 385 units on 38.5 acres. This is consistent with Policy 4.75 of the RLSA amendments that you will be acting on later. Community parks. Acreage would be reserved to be conveyed to the county upon request. The applicant would receive impact fee credits based on $22,500 per acre. This acreage value is based on the pre-SRA value that was negotiated as part of a prior developer agreement related to utility and roadway easements. So it is -- as a very low value for property, we would not be paying based on post-SRA values. The park would be open to the public. Collier County Parks and Recreation would have full discretion on the park design, phasing, and schedule, and the landowner would pay their current impact fees. With regard to transportation, the current Traffic Impact Statement guidelines allow for either the use of the travel demand model or a manual trip distribution. There is nothing that requires one way or another. When we talked with the landowner, county staff would like and, as part of this agreement, would require the use of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization's travel demand model for the evaluation for the transportation impacts. The analysis would be based on the three villages plus the additional town acreage. Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar would not be calculated as background traffic. We had a lot of conversations before about background traffic. Background traffic is approved -- developments that were approved previously. So while these would have been approved before the town plan came in, the applicant has agreed to do their analysis not having those as background traffic. The analysis would be both with and without the town all together. The land-use datasets and roadway network would be submitted to the county and approved prior to beginning the analysis. Those traffic projections, as I discussed, would be derived from the MPO's travel demand model developed in five-year increments which would allow us to look -- allows us for timing of improvements as we're trying to phase improvements in. So that five-year analysis is very helpful. Intersections would be agreed upon after the internal capture rates are set and initial model runs are made so that we can look to determine how far those intersection improvements need to be reviewed. And the application would not be found complete, which would mean it could not progress to public hearing until the network and intersection analysis is received and accepted by Collier County. Additional landowner commitments include increasing the utilization of SSA credits from 5/6/2021 Page 8 of 99 eight units per acre to 10 for the three villages as well as the additional acreage. Once again, this is consistent with your RLSA amendments that you'll be acting on later. Bear-proof trash cans in Longwater Village, Bellmar Village, and the town area; Dark Sky lighting in Bellmar Village, and three wildlife crossings inclusive of necessary fencing. The dimensions in the agreement are correct. There is an exhibit that does have incorrect dimensions on it. The wildlife crossings are shown here. One is up on Oil Well Road, one would be between Rivergrass and Longwater, and then another one a little bit further south within the Longwater development. So just some final thoughts. The application will go through the same process that any other town application would go through and show consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. There's no shortcuts. It still must come to the CCPC and the BCC. The next steps are that this agreement will be presented as a companion item to the Longwater SRA and the Bellmar Village SRA anticipated to go before the Board of County Commissioners on May 25th. There are scrivener's errors in spacing and minor modifications to the language as well as that exhibit correction that will need to be made prior to the Board agenda. And with that, I thank you for your attention today. And as I stated, I have several staff members here in the audience who can assist with the various items within the agreement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Scott. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a quick question. I thought I read in there that when you do the Traffic Impact Statement for the town you exclude the affordable housing units. MS. SCOTT: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why is that? MS. SCOTT: That is part of your new RLSA amendments that are coming forward that show that to incentivize affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So how do you analyze -- how do you crank in that impact of those housing into the development plan of the highway systems? MS. SCOTT: Overall, they would -- they are going to be such a small amount they would be de minimis in the overall traffic impacts. You're talking less than a thousand units when you're looking at a town. And with their placement closer to businesses, schools, et cetera, with multi-modal transportation, that's what we're hopeful of is that you would have that -- your workers living close to where they work instead of traveling several miles. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Same question. And I just want to reiterate, we spent two-and-a-half months over three villages in regards -- and I'll take Bellmar as the last one. What was that, 1,200 units, somewhere approximately? CHAIRMAN FRYER: 2,750. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What was the Bellmar? CHAIRMAN FRYER: 2,750. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 2,750. Well, this is almost 800 and -- what is it, eight hundred and -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Eighty-two. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 892? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Eighty-two. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 882. Eight hundred eighty-two units that we're saying are de minimus. I'm not going to argue the point. I just want to make sure that my colleagues up here understand as well as the public that we spent a lot of energy talking about the fiscal and transportation impacts of all the developments in the RLSA, and now we're establishing a policy to 5/6/2021 Page 9 of 99 basically waive any of the commitments for almost 900 units with the premise that it's of a public benefit, but that cost is passed off to the taxpayer. We're going to have to pay whatever transportation impacts. I don't consider that de minimus. I mean, I think it's significant, but it's got to be clear that -- to the Board of County Commissioners and, of course, the public that we are accepting -- we're going to accept the impact, and we're going to pay for that. Because we got in a lot of debate, certainly, from other folks who participated in the public hearings about the fiscal impact and the transportation impact. MS. SCOTT: Absolutely, you did, but what I will -- what I will state to you is 4.75 of the SRA amendments, the RLSA amendments that have been transmitted and coming back to you for adoption -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. SCOTT: -- clearly state that affordable housing units shall be excluded from the TIS or trip cap for the SRA in which they are located. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'm not arguing the point. I'm just making it a fact that if folks have an issue about the impact that, again, is a significant impact. But it's a policy decision, and it's a decision we made many years ago in regard to affordable housing as well, that we are accepting the impact, and you as the transportation planners are going to still have to consider that in your transportation plan and the impacts that that may have, and many of these homes may have up to two cars per home; typically may have. So it is an impact. MS. SCOTT: The value of a town or value of affordable housing in close proximity to the uses where they would work, that's the whole point of trying to get them in close proximity to the schools, the businesses, et cetera, as well as public transportation that would allow for that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Just as long as folks understand. That's all I'm asking. Because it is -- it is an impact. And I guess it could be de minimus when you count all three villages -- MS. SCOTT: As the town itself. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- as the entire town, yes, but it's still an impact. And it's still water -- it's still water/sewer connection. It's all the other infrastructure that's required. But it is a policy decision of the Board of County Commissioners in regards to accepting the fact that we recognize the need for affordable housing. We are giving the developer an incentive, but it still has to be accounted for in your planning. MS. SCOTT: It will be accounted for in our planning, but it will not be included as part of the trip cap in the SRA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I think that Commissioner Schmitt brings up a good point. It's -- this is -- seems to be 100 percent an incentive that -- you know, it's a policy decision whether to incentivize it this way and, you know, it has been -- this policy has been transmitted and do we feel the incentive is appropriate for this, you know, particular petition -- petitioner, you know, if this comes through as a town. And I think describing it as de minimus doesn't help it, because in the end, it -- you know, if that -- if a de minimus vehicle is in front of you, you know, blocking traffic, then, it's -- you know, and I know it seems like we're nit-picking. It just seems for clarity we should be very clear: Someone has to pay for this effect of these 900 homes, and it's going to be the county that's bearing this particular portion of it, because we've chosen, as a county -- the leaders of the county have decided that this is an incentive. MS. SCOTT: If I may, we are not waiving the road impact fees, so they would still be paying the road impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. 5/6/2021 Page 10 of 99 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh. MS. SCOTT: It's just in the trip cap and in the analysis, the TIS, just in the trip cap, that would not be figured in. But we are not waiving the road impact fees for these. They would still pay their share towards their demand that they are creating. So we're not waiving money. We're just saying in the trip-cap analysis that their trips are not included within that trip cap. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess I'm not understanding it, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I -- I think that if there are going to be more vehicles on the road as a result of excluding these from the trip cap, then there is going to be an additional cost that -- you can't say that the impact fee is going to cover the full cost, but that's a policy decision that the Board of County Commissioners, I think, are making. But let's recognize that when you -- when you don't include something in a trip cap, you're going to burden the traffic -- road infrastructure more, and somebody's got to pay for that. MS. SCOTT: They're still paying their impact fees, so they would still be part of the overall network. So they're still contributing to the overall network improvements that are necessary for the capacity that they are utilizing. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What's the practical impact of discounting those homes according to this SRA amendment? That's -- you know, that's what I'm -- or RLSA amendment. I'm trying to figure out, so someone said this is a good idea to not include these homes for this particular slice of analysis. Why? You know, what does that mean, and how is it an incentive then? Because what I'm hearing from you is, well, there really -- there's no change in the amount of money that the petitioner would have to pay, you know, whether you included the homes or not. MS. SCOTT: Right. It's just for them to have an incentive to include them. And, actually, I'm going to kind of look to Comprehensive Planning staff who went through the RLSA, because this is consistent with the RLSA amendments -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MS. SCOTT: -- and perhaps they can give some feedback on some of the public input that was received through their process with regard to that and the white paper. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think Commissioner Schmitt and Klucik have identified a significant issue, but I think it's an issue that has been addressed completely by the Board of County Commissioners and, as a matter of public policy, in order to incent more affordable housing, I think, you know, we can certainly express our own opinions of it, but I think that bridge has been crossed, so to speak. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I would agree. We spent a lot of time from the public on the fiscal impact and the impacts of water/sewer district and all those things. And I fully support the initiative; I just want to make sure that it's clear that by policy we're almost negating the impact of these. And, yes, they do pay their impact fee. There's no question about it. As part of their building permit, they're going to pay the impact fee, but it still is an impact -- I'll call it an impact on transportation and infrastructure -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No doubt about it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that, by policy, we're agreeing that -- to incentivize affordable housing in this area so that folks don't have to come from the west coast and drive inland to provide services, that there will be affordable housing there, and I fully understand that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: As do I. And, in fact, I fully agree with the objective to be served because we need affordable housing in the county. And I'm, frankly, just as a matter of personal opinion, I guess, less concerned about county tax dollars being expended toward fulfillment of this policy as I would be if it were conferring an unreasonable benefit on a developer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I would agree. I prefer this method than having the county try and fund it itself -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- through another program. It's an acceptable incentive. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. 5/6/2021 Page 11 of 99 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to make sure we understand, and others who spoke against the last three villages and raised a lot of issues that were certainly pertinent issues, but we're now negating any of those issues for almost 900 units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you make a fair point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So pretty much what Paul said, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, thanks. And, Joe, that was real helpful, the clarification. But through all of it, I think I got myself a little confused. So is the amount of the impact fee different because of this affordable housing incentive? MS. SCOTT: At this time, no, it's not. There is -- they would pay the impact fees that -- for the type of unit that they would be building for the affordable housing units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's correct, but the impact fee will be the same, but the impact will be greater. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, I fully understand. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think they're looking more -- a town is more -- you're looking to develop internal capture there; the people that work there, there's going to be businesses and the people that take care of other people's homes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's true. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And transit. Things are going to change. People aren't going to afford two cars. They're going to be taking public transit somewhere if it's offered there. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I can weigh in. Just from my own experience, there's a lot of people who have their -- you know, their lives in a compact area -- most of their lives in the compact area of Ave Maria, for instance. I very rarely leave. I leave to come here. You see that -- and I don't even do that sometimes. No, but I think -- I think that explains these -- when you have a community that is comprehensive, it makes it so that the people can have their life almost complete in a small, compact area; not be using the roadways. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon, were you finished, sir? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I'm not following the discussion. I followed Trinity's logic, which to me means -- you're saying the impact fees don't cover their impact. If that -- if those homes were brought in as a separate unit, and they paid impact fees, unless we're saying the impact fees for transportation are not sufficient, they would be covering it. MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I'm not sure why -- I don't know if I agree with everybody. I agree with Trinity, as long as the impact fees cover their impact. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's an assumption that is probably incorrect. But we're operating within the confinement of the state statutes on how certain things are calculated. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why do you say it's probably incorrect? We've sat through hours of hearings where we defended our impact fees in the fiscal-neutrality discussion, and now we're saying it's probably not correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, what we hear with applications is that we can't extract more funds in order to make up for what are going to become deficient roadways, and particularly if they would have become deficient anyway. And I know the County Attorney has spent a lot of time over the years discussing with and I believe has reached an understanding with staff as to how far one can go in order to lay off deficiencies on an applicant, and it doesn't -- it doesn't pay for itself. But we believe that we're doing as much as we can given the limitations and the statute. And I'm going to ask the County Attorney to correct me if I've misstated it. MR. KLATZKOW: That's fine. 5/6/2021 Page 12 of 99 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, through all these hours of hearings, I've never heard that. I sat and listened to all the discussions about fiscal neutrality that, with the impact fees and whatever else comes in, that the rest of the residents are not paying for that growth, and you're saying on the transportation side they are. MR. KLATZKOW: You can't have fiscal neutrality with affordable housing. They don't pay enough in taxes for the services. They don't pay enough for the schools. They tend to have more children than others. It's -- affordable housing is necessary for your labor force, but the county loses money on affordable housing as long as you have it every year. So if you're worried about the up-front costs for it, they will be dwarfed by the future costs of it. It's -- I'm not sure where the discussion's going on this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we're collecting as much as we can. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I've come to that after being hit over the head a number of times, because I'm not happy with it, but I think that happens to be the case. Commissioner Schmitt, and then we'll ask Ms. Patterson. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just, as far as affordable housing -- Amy's up there, and I'll ask her. Will these units be eligible for impact fee deferrals, density bonuses, all the other incentives that are allowed through affordable housing initiatives? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record. Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: They are eligible for any of those programs that they qualify for. As this board knows, affordable housing and incentivization of affordable housing is complicated. It often requires multiple levels of incentivization both at the local and state level. So those are things that will be considered as these housing units come forward. Each one is different, and their needs are different. But I think we need to step back a second, if you don't mind to -- the balancing of the transportation program with its funding sources, we've absolutely spent hours and hours and hours discussing that. We use impact fees to the extent that we lawfully can, and then we use other funding sources to balance out that program, being gas tax primarily and now with a little bit of sales tax. So our impact fees are adopted at their maximum legal limit. That is the fully -- the full legal fee. We're charging those impact fees today. And then anything else that needs to come into the program, as Trinity has told you, we are not using tax dollars, General Fund, in the growth capital program for transportation. We aren't now, and there's no plan to in the future. So it is solely, basically, a gas tax and impact-fee-driven program. The issue with these affordable housing units comes down to whether these affordable housing units are going to drive the need for additional improvements on their own when they're included. And as Trinity is telling you, against the whole, these 800 -- 800 -- 900 units are not the driver for additional improvements. They're not -- they're de minimus against the whole. They will pay their impact fees. They will pay taxes potentially at a reduced rate. Potentially they have impact fees deferrals but, again, we have systems in place to address the financial ramifications of any type of deferral of impact fees. We don't waive impact fees. So on the planning side of the house, Trinity is now compelled by these requirements to look at these units a certain way. On the fiscal side of the house, we're looking at them for their fiscal impacts. The two are divided. And I understand that it is a little bit counterintuitive to say that we're pulling them out and that has no impact. But to Trinity's point again, the number of units we're talking about here against the whole and the whole of the improvements required to serve this population, these units are de minimus. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. 5/6/2021 Page 13 of 99 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So two questions not necessarily for you, Ms. Patterson. So the one is the requirements that were listed, I believe, in Trinity's presentation, or maybe it was in our notes here, it talked about the requirements -- the increased requirements per unit for civic and for business type. You know, so there's a huge increase, correct, per unit? And my question is, do -- these affordable housing units, are they treated the same as other units to increase the amount of goods and services acreage that's available? MS. SCOTT: That is my understanding, and if Comprehensive Planning staff would disagree with me, they're going to come up and yell at me. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And then the second question is -- and the only reason I say that is that seems to be, like a good -- in my view, that seems like a good thing, because that seems like there's more. MS. SCOTT: It would still be calculated toward the community needs, the other requirements. The only thing that we're talking about here is that in the trip cap, they would not be included. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then regarding the affordable housing as well, if this were to not go forward, the town idea, then the -- then we would -- we have -- in this town proposal, we're actually adding affordable housing, and these 900 units don't exist otherwise? MS. SCOTT: That is my understanding. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So are there no units already in the three villages? MS. SCOTT: No, the other villages have commitments within them that they made -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So this is additive? These 900 units are in addition to what has already been approved? MS. SCOTT: Yes. If I may confer -- because I wasn't included in all of the minor details of this if I could confer with -- oh, Cormac's coming up. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I'm almost embarrassed asking the question, because I also -- I mean, I know I heard the three petitions, and I don't remember. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you mind? I'm not sure what my role is today, so I registered to speak, if I have to register to speak, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: Three minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? And I just used two? COMMISSIONER VERNON: 2:15, now. MR. YOVANOVICH: The agreement that we're talking about, a couple of corrections and -- to help Trinity. The answer is, the units that we're adding for the affordable housing units we have not provided for additional commercial and the other. We have not -- the calculation of our requirements are based upon the non-affordable units for the project, and it's -- there's a retroactive application of that as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that number 65 square feet per dwelling unit? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe that's the right number. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The new one's 170. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is 170? It's based upon the new -- take a step back. We've trued up this town plan and all the numbers based upon your recently transmitted requirements for retail, civic, and the like. So we're using those calculations, and it's based upon the units that are not -- that are not affordable housing units, okay. So it's, for lack of a better term, regular units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so the town as a whole, there would be 170 square feet per dwelling unit of non-affordable? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then there was another question that -- what was the other question about? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I was wondering -- so right now we have affordable 5/6/2021 Page 14 of 99 housing in the other three villages? MR. YOVANOVICH: We do, but what we've done is we've also calculated the amount of acreages we need to apply. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So previously there was an either/or, either units or acreage? MR. YOVANOVICH: And that still exists in the town plan as well. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I guess my question is really basic. We're talking about these almost 900 units. And those are units, not acres; or are they either/or as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the units are based upon the total number of acres we have to set aside. We have to set aside 2.5 percent of the acreage of the village -- of the town, and we've done it based upon the villages as well. So we're providing more. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So is the 900 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- let me finish. And then we have to do -- 10 units per acre we have to assign to each of those acres. So when you see those numbers, it's based upon 2.5 percent of the total acreage times 10 units. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So the 900 is -- you know, regardless of what happened before regarding affordable housing, that's gone, and now it's just going to be these 900 acres [sic] -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be more. It's what's there plus. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So it's not gone. I don't want you -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So it's additional. It's additive. These 900 units are additive? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, it's not -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Or it's higher than it was -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's higher as a town than it would be as the sum of the three villages -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- but they're not additive. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So there's an additional amount, but it's not the 900? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The 900 is the total -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- throughout the whole project once it turns into a town, assuming it does? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's an either/or. We can either provide it ourselves, or the county can provide it by acquiring the property at the reduced acreage price. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, while you're up here, I've got a question I want to ask you, a broad one. I'm not sure whether you'll be back up or not, so I'll ask it now. When you look at that aggregation agreement and its terms, is it your opinion that in any respect the county is relaxing any of the regulations, rules, and laws that would be applied applicable to a town if you had done the straight town application? MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, I think it's a misnomer to call it an aggregation agreement, because it's not an aggregation agreement. It's a town plan, and that's what we're -- that's what we're proposing to go through. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Move beyond my verbiage and give me an answer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I just want to make sure, you know, we use the right terminology. 5/6/2021 Page 15 of 99 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your preferred terminology may be one thing. To me it's an aggregation agreement. I'll call it whatever you want. I want a straight answer to the question, though. MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer is, other than what I understand is going to be a modification to the square feet required for community parks that you're going to hear as part of your amendments, we're consistent with your proposed regulations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So in every respect, when this does come back to us, except with regard to the public parks that you mentioned, we will be able to vet this under the probably new RLSA rules and Land Development Code that we could have had you come through beginning as a town; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, you're doing better. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And can I -- let me expand on that. It's because the town is Longwater plus the 515 acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm making -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're doing the eight -- we're doing the credits at 10 units per acre for everything. So right now you approved things at eight units per acre that are outside the town, so you're getting more credit spent and you're getting us to -- we're bringing up the numbers based upon parts of the area that are not part of the town. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. I'm trying to make a record for myself, and I'm going to ask you to be as straightforward as you can in your response because when these come back to us 12, 14, 15 months from now and I start asking you how this complies with the then current RLSA and however the LDC rules are written, you're going to say, well, thanks to the aggregation agreement or the town agreement, whatever you want to call it, we don't have to -- we don't have to meet those standards. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm trying to make sure that the record accurately reflects what we've agreed to. I don't know what's going to happen on your next agenda item when you talk about the RLSA. I can only tell you what you're going to hear today we're consistent with, and we're better than what you can normally require if we were coming in with a town at 1,500 acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let me give you that for the sake of discussion. Let's just assume for the sake of this discussion that the RLSA will be passed in, essentially, the same form that it will be presented today. Now, can you say that there are no relaxations of rules that would have been applicable to this developer had you gone the original town route? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can tell you that based upon the Growth Management Plan amendments that are in your agenda package today, other than the community parks, assuming you bring that down, we are consistent with what you're proposing on the Growth Management Plan. I can't testify to Land Development Code amendments that have not yet been adopted, but I'm telling you that we're consistent with what's being proposed to you today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So let's -- let's say that consistent -- and I'm going to harp on this, because you're going to hear it again if I don't believe that you've been faithful to it. That the Growth Management Plan RLSA amendments that are before us today, assuming that they are adopted that way, and assuming there are no changes to the Land Development Code, are you looking for or will you be arguing for any relaxation of those rules 12 or 14 months from now when you come before us with a rezone petition? MR. YOVANOVICH: From the Growth Management Plan requirements? CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the present LDC. I'm not asking you to predict what might happen to the LDC. MR. YOVANOVICH: My guess is you've seen some fairly standard deviations to Land Development Code requirements for SRAs, and I anticipate we will probably ask for some deviations. But as far as the Growth Management Plan amendment and deviations you've seen 5/6/2021 Page 16 of 99 through the three villages, we don't expect anything different. Do you know something I don't know? I mean, are you asking me a question because you think I somehow am not -- we're not meeting the requirements? Because -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can I jump in for just a second? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, of course. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Let me just switch the podium to staff, and just -- and maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was going to ask the same question of staff. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But I think the question is, because they're doing this in a different order than -- let's just say a different order, are they avoiding jumping through any significant or material hoops? I think -- MS. SCOTT: No. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think that's what you're -- go ahead. MS. SCOTT: No. What they're committing to as part of this town agreement is, should the two villages be approved, a timing factor of when they're going to come in for the town and that they will withhold certificates of occupancy in one of the villages until it's scheduled for a public hearing so that we have a commitment from the landowner that they're going to come forward with this process. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But they're not trying to get around, from your perspective, or any of the staff's perspective, by doing it in a different order rather than starting or coming into -- with a town? Are there any procedural or material hoops they're avoiding in your opinion? MS. SCOTT: We have required that they would do the analysis based on the aggregate including the -- I shouldn't use that word, right -- all three villages plus the town. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You can use whatever word you want. MS. SCOTT: So they're going to do their analysis based on the town itself. So you're going to get the benefit of having the new RLSA amendments in place versus, if it would have come in for just a town two years ago, you wouldn't have had those RLSA amendments in place. So you're getting the benefits of the improvements that you've made -- you've worked hard on the RLSA -- that now that will be applicable to them. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I think you're saying no to my question. MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That there's no -- so there's no -- so that's what I think we're trying to get at is whether there's some -- just some way they're trying to avoid something they would have to comply with, or procedure. I think you answered my question. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think that's what you're getting at. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You said it well, Commissioner. I'm going to ask Mr. Yovanovich if he disagrees in any respect with what Ms. Scott said. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: While Trinity's up there, Mr. Chairman, can I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just -- it's almost the opposite question. Was there anything about what Mr. Yovanovich said that you, you know, didn't generally think was accurate, or -- I mean, I realize you didn't want to answer the question because you felt ill informed. But based on what you heard, was there anything that -- you know, that you would have a question about from Mr. Yovanovich? MS. SCOTT: With regard to the calculation of public -- of the governmental uses and the civic uses and commercial and retail, I would defer to Comprehensive Planning staff with regard to those calculations. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You just -- you don't feel that you have enough information to answer? MS. SCOTT: Not myself, but other staff is here that -- 5/6/2021 Page 17 of 99 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I appreciate if someone could answer that question on behalf of the county. MS. SCOTT: We'll get to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: We are not trying to avoid any process that we would normally go through to convert Longwater Village to a town by adding 515 acres to it. We are going through the very process that's called for in your codes and your Growth Management Plan. We are not trying to avoid anything through this agreement. All we're simply trying to do -- if I may, is we received feedback that people really would like to see a town out here in addition to the three villages, and we're just trying to put together an agreement that shows the framework of how that process will follow, and it's the exact process that already exists. We have just provided greater level of detail so everybody knows what we -- the lands that will be involved in this conversion. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me just, if I may. My question -- Mr. Yovanovich, my question was, do you disagree in any respect with what Ms. Scott said? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, how about that? Trinity was right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So you agree with what she said? MR. YOVANOVICH: Trinity was right as far as how we calculate the square-footage requirements. We did provide it for the affordable housing. I thought we did not, but we did. So we're actually doing more -- to answer your question, Mr. -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're not answering my question. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm asking [sic] Mr. Vernon's question. We are doing more than we would legally be required to do through this town plan. If we were simply converting Longwater and adding 500 acres to it, we would provide far less affordable housing. We would provide far less office, retail, and civic. So we're doing more than what would be required if we were simply doing a town plan of 1,500 acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you have the capability, sir, of answering yes or no to a question? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Dr. Fryer, I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for the promotion. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have the capability of calling the question. I answered the question: We're doing more. I agree that we're doing more. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that wasn't my question. My question was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Rephrase your question, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you disagree in any respect with what Ms. Scott said in any of her testimony? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think Trinity Scott testified accurately. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That was just exciting, and I kind of forgot what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll be having office hours later. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What's very interesting is up until this point, I wouldn't have described -- I would have described you as anything but exciting in the best meaning of that. And so that's very exciting that you got my adrenaline going. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, my point was -- it was actually a really good question, but -- I'll interrupt when -- as you know, when it comes back to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. No one else is signaling at this point, so we'll return to staff. 5/6/2021 Page 18 of 99 MS. SCOTT: Can we make sure that the record reflects that Rich said that I was right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Believe me, it will. MS. SCOTT: I think I'm going to frame that for my office. MR. YOVANOVICH: You were right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I remember my point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And it's actually -- it's just -- you know, everybody knows what I'm going to say already, all right. But I will say that I believe the landowner who's put forward all these petitions actually, you know, put a petition forward for a town. That's what they wanted to do. The county, you know, and the bodies, you know, put them in a situation, you know, through the procedure that was there, put them in a situation where they came back and said, you know, we can't do that, I guess, and, you know, we're going to do these villages, because we can do those, and we didn't like what was being asked of us when we put our first petition forward for a town. Now, I might be incorrect about that. That's how I have perceived it, and that was all before I got on -- you know, was appointed to this commission. And all I will say is, it seems like now -- they went through all of that, they came back and tried to put it back together again, everyone seems to think it's a good idea, and it seems like, then, we're looking for a way -- and I'm the same way. You know, Mr. Yovanovich can, you know, attest to you that I'm very skeptical of developers. I don't think there's anything wrong with developers, or these particular developers, but I see how they work, and they do exactly what you're worried about. They push and they get what they want, and then they come back and they say, oh, we can ask for an amendment or, you know, we have a right to this and a right to that. So I'm very aware of exactly the concerns you have. And I have been a thorn in the side of Barron Collier Company out in Ave Maria. I'm the guy who's always poking them and making sure, you know, they have transparency, at least what I think, you know, they're more transparent. My point being that I think now, though, we're kind of poking them when they're -- you know, they're trying to come back and put together something and salvage what I think everybody sees as a good idea. And so I just wanted to make that point. I think the questions we're asking are good, but I just wanted to remind everyone the genesis of where we're at today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Ms. Scott. MS. SCOTT: And, Mr. Klucik, you had asked if staff would look at it. And just to reiterate that Rich said I was right, but that, you know, we don't have an application. We have the proposal with the acreages and the square footage. And Comprehensive Planning staff, they did that cursory review, they did the math, and they -- based on what's here, it's in compliance with the current and the proposed RLSA provisions that will be before you later. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: So just to clarify that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from staff? MS. SCOTT: That is all that I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich, did you want to speak on behalf of the developer? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'd like to speak on behalf of the landowner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I saw you change that word. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because he's the landowner. He's not a developer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But, you know, I just want to make sure the record's accurate. So what I want to say is, yes, I did say Trinity was right. I'll say that again. But I also 5/6/2021 Page 19 of 99 want to emphasize that we're doing more than what would be required under the current town conversion process. So I want -- I just want to make sure we're clear, you would not have to provide affordable housing related to Rivergrass. You would not have -- or increase the provisions of retail and office based upon the new Comprehensive Plan language based upon Rivergrass or Bellmar. We've agreed to apply that to those villages even though they're not part of the town plan. So when I was trying to get on the record we're doing more than what is required under the Comprehensive Plan, that's what I was trying to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I acknowledge that that's the case. In some respects you are proposing to do more, and thank you, and thank you to your client. I just want to be sure that when this comes back 14 months from now, there are areas where you are doing less than is required by then applicable law, that we will be able to apply applicable law, and you won't say, no, this agreement trumps it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have not said that, and I've said, depending upon -- again, I can't predict the future. I don't know what the Land Development Code's going to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I said -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm going to have to wait to see what that is, because we may very well say we can't live -- and I'm just guessing, because I don't know what they are. There could be a provision in there that we say, we didn't see that coming. It's going to blow up the town plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I wouldn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just saying. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I wouldn't object to your saying that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would object to your saying -- well, just for the sake of our being sure that we understand one another, I'm saying you should assume that the LDC will be the same. It may not be, and if it's not, obviously, you can raise that point. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a legitimate point. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. That's all I'm asking is, don't ask me to predict the future and don't say I agreed that I'm bound by everything that I didn't know was happening. So the answer -- I hope I've answered your question at that point. We think that -- this is one of those examples where I feel like a good -- no good deed goes unpunished. We are truly trying to come in and do what people would like us to do, which is to convert and make a town out there. I think what you're going to find with what Mr. Klucik said is the impacts of Ave Maria on the urban area and the west coast is minimal, and they probably have been overpaying on impact fees for roads and maybe some other infrastructure. I think you're going to find that now that there's a critical mass, that people are staying home, as Mr. Klucik said. And I think when we build our town, you're going to see the same experience. So I hope you'll support the town plan that's moving forward. You will see all of the details through the normal process and will continue to be able to weigh in on that process. So we're taking a leap of faith in moving forward with a town plan. We hope you'll support the moving forward with the town plan, because I do think that's what most people would like to see happen out east is to see another town. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else from Collier Enterprises? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else from staff? No. Do we have public speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have six registration speakers. Mr. Yovanovich is one of them, if he would like to continue. 5/6/2021 Page 20 of 99 MR. YOVANOVICH: I think I'll waive my three minutes. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Otherwise, we will move along to April Olson, followed by Judith Hushon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And, Ms. Olson, you're speaking on behalf of an organization, correct? MS. OLSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. How much time do you think you'll need? MS. OLSON: Oh, between five and 10, somewhere in there, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I just clarify, April? This has to do -- are you going to talk both with the LDC amendment and the town plan, or will this -- is this focused to the town plan? MS. OLSON: These comments are the town agreement. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MS. OLSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, April Olson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our 6,400 supporting families. As brochures announcing the new Town of Big Cypress confirms, the three villages of Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar were never intended to be stand-alone villages; rather it appears that in an attempt to avoid the up-front nonresidential commitments required of a town, the applicant is backing into a town by first creating villages. We don't think that the RLSA was intended to create after-the-fact towns. Nevertheless, it is irrefutable that the aggregated impacts of the villages are town-sized. According to the applicant's economic assessments, over 16,000 residents will reside in the three villages, which equate to town-size needs for infrastructure, employment, and goods and services. The villages will also have town-size traffic impacts. We stated previously to this board at the Longwater and Bellmar hearings that because Collier Enterprises failed to provide plans for self-sufficient villages as required under the overlay, traffic from the village residents will overwhelm Collier County's existing road network and urban communities, as village residents will be compelled to travel west to find work and to obtain essential goods and services. So the Conservancy recognizes county staff's efforts towards increasing the self-sufficiency of the villages through a town agreement; however, we have concerns and numerous unanswered questions stemming from the proposed town agreement that we hope the county and this board will consider before making any decisions. As an environmental organization, we first and foremost want to point out that the town addition is, like Longwater and Bellmar, entirely within Florida Panther Primary Habitat and will destroy yet another 515 acres of Primary Panther Habitat. That, in and of itself, is sufficient for us to oppose the location of the town addition. Beyond the concern over the town addition's location, the other most significant issue has to do with timing of the town core. Paragraph 5 states that, quote, there should be no timing conditions placed on timing of the development of the town core, which will be developed based on market conditions, end quote. It is unclear when a town core will be sufficiently marketable for the applicant to actually build. It is certain a town core will not be marketable until the county taxpayers fund construction of Big Cypress Parkway. In addition, a town core may not be marketing until the taxpayers fund a new interchange at I-75. Regardless, the timing of the purported town benefits in the form of commercial and other construction are solely at the discretion of the applicant. It appears that Paragraph 3 is an attempt to remedy the situation, but it falls woefully flat. The stipulation provided in Paragraph 3 states that Bellmar Village will not be eligible for any certificates of occupancy until the town SRA is scheduled for a hearing, but this still does not hold the applicant accountable for providing the town core. The applicant could simply check that box by holding the hearing, then build out all 2,750 of Bellmar's homes and still continue to wait until 5/6/2021 Page 21 of 99 the town core is marketable. A town core timing mechanism must be included before any agreement is signed. Beyond that, we have other questions that we hope are clarified before an agreement is signed, and Trinity answered a few of them. Paragraph 10 states that the developer will provide a fiscal analysis. And the language was unclear as to whether it was going to be for the 515 acres or all of the villages, and it sounds like it's going to be for the town and all of the villages, so I think that language should be clarified in that paragraph. Also, in Paragraph 10 it states that the developer and the county shall cooperate for timing and location of interim facilities. What are the interim facilities, and what does that mean for taxpayers? Paragraph 11C provided confusing statements regarding the "with projects" and "without projects," which, again, Trinity clarified. So thank you, Trinity. But she also mentioned that the villages -- the background traffic from the villages will not be counted. But the Long-Range Transportation Plan, ever since the 2040 plan has been planned, they've been doing transportation improvements based on background traffic starting with Rural Lands West with 8,000 of the 10,000 homes. So a lot of the road improvements have been planned in the LRTP, including the 2045 LRTP, because of background traffic from the villages. In fact, in those TAZs, all of the homes of Longwater and Rivergrass were included and half of Bellmar. And so there -- what does this mean for impact fees? Are they going to be reduced because the village background traffic is not included? What about Big Cypress Parkway, which is a needed facility for the villages? Another question we have is Paragraph 23 states that the town agreement supersedes and takes the place of all previous agreements. Does this include individual DCAs for the villages, or developer contribution agreements? Finally, what are the ramifications of only amending Longwater's application and not including the other two villages in the town application? While we appreciate staff is trying to remedy some of the deficiencies of the village applications, we are concerned that this draft agreement is insufficient as written. The town agreement leaves the public and numerous -- leaves the public and us with numerous unanswered questions. More details should be provided throughout the agreement before any vote is taken. Furthermore, since Paragraph 5 does not commit the developer to an actual date to provide additional commercial, civic, or industrial uses, the villages' combined impacts, as mentioned in the staff memo, will not be addressed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, and I'm going to ask you to stay up here. MS. OLSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm going to ask Ms. Scott to come up again, please. And this -- some of the questions I'm going to be asking have to do with the subject matter of what I discussed in my regular staff meeting last Thursday but I think are worth having also in a public forum. With respect to Paragraph 5 where it says, there shall be no timing conditions, will you please confirm for me what I think I heard you and other staff members say on Tuesday is that there -- right now there are no timing conditions in current law. MS. SCOTT: That is what we discussed on Tuesday, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that true? MS. SCOTT: That is what our Land Development Code -- our Planning and Zoning staff indicated, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So it's interpretation. MS. SCOTT: That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Now, Ms. Olson mentioned a clarification that might be in order in Paragraph 10. Did 5/6/2021 Page 22 of 99 you hear what she said about that? MS. SCOTT: Yes. So No. 6 addresses what she was -- I believe what she was indicating, which is No. 6 says the town application will analyze the fiscal impacts of the entire town, inclusive of uses that would have previously been approved with Rivergrass, Longwater Village, and Bellmar Village. I think that that's pretty clear. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Olson, do you think that further clarification is in order and, if so, could you tell us how? MS. OLSON: The question was about the interim facilities; what are they and what does that mean for the taxpayers? MS. SCOTT: So interim facilities. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What paragraph are we on? MS. OLSON: Ten. MS. SCOTT: Interim facilities are things like a sheriff's substation. So as we are analyzing the impacts, I'm going to use that as an example. Perhaps we're working with the landowner and the developers to provide a storefront-type situation in lieu of a building that will ultimately be necessary, but say partway through that development we need that interim facility, something that's not a permanent structure. So we will work with them with the facility managers as they're coming in through the town application process as we would if they came in and this agreement didn't exist. But we will work with them on interim-type facilities that might be necessary in lieu of having a full sheriff's substation partway through. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think that sufficiently clarifies. What does your organization feel about that? MS. OLSON: Well, the second part of this is what does this mean for taxpayers. I mean, who are going to be paying for these interim facilities? MS. SCOTT: So -- MS. OLSON: And will they be included in the -- I'm sorry -- the economic assessments, the cost? MS. SCOTT: We don't have an application in place. That will be analyzed as an application comes in based on the RLSA guidelines that are in place. There is nothing in here that tells them that they don't have to follow the fiscal-neutrality requirements of the RLSA amendments that are getting ready to be adopted. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: On this particular item, I think it would be important to note how some of this played out in Ave Maria. So for the SRA for Ave Maria, or the agreements surrounding that, I'm not exactly sure, there was language that required the developer to provide acreage for emergency services or sheriff, fire, but then it was presumed by -- there were all of the people and the county, it seemed, presumed that that acreage -- you know, that would be a donation, and it became contentious as to whether that was going to be purchased or a donation. I don't know. I'm not assigning blame to anybody, but it seems as though for this particular item, obviously we don't have a petition before us, but I think it's relevant to just keep that in mind that that became a very contentious point, and it took a long time to hammer out a solution as to, you know, what land was going to -- where was it going to be and who was going to pay for it, or was it going to be donated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I don't know if this should be amended to factor that in or just -- I'm only bringing it up to make sure that everybody involved keeps that in mind for when the petition comes through. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to excuse Ms. Olson and ask Ms. Scott or Ms. Patterson to respond. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, again, for the record. 5/6/2021 Page 23 of 99 The issue with the Ave Maria land that Commissioner Klucik is referring to was part of a developer agreement. There were lots of things in that developer agreement but specifically parcels related to emergency services as well as governmental services. And it was complicated timing; a lot of different parties involved. What we're proposing here and so I get to the -- sort of to the crux of the issue here is ultimately, as the town comes in and we're looking at the facilities, there may be a long-term need for something like a sheriff's substation or an EMS station, but it may be far out in the future. When we talk about interim facilities, it's basically an operational piece to be able to bridge that gap, because you may not be ready for the full substation or full EMS station where we would be working a developer agreement, we would be dealing with impact fee credits. There is a whole process involved with that, ultimately, and the landowner involved. But we place assets out to serve the public and oftentimes those assets need a place to park or a place to work. That's what we're talking about here. It's to bridge that timing. We're not quite to the place where we need a fully functional facility, but we need something, and that's what we were asking for the landowner to agree to is that they would work with us and the facility managers to be sure that we can place resources where they need to be in advance of needing a permanent, full term -- full-time improvement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner, does that satisfy your concerns? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, no, not -- I mean, I think that's useful information. I'm just saying down the road as this goes forward, there should be clarity on things like that. And I'm not assuming there won't be. I'm just saying, it seems as though there was some confusion in the other big town -- you know, the only town that's out there that's under this RLSA program, and I'm -- I think if that gets addressed up front -- again, maybe it's too early now. Maybe that's something that happens, you know, during the petition process. But the point is, you know, you also had -- you know, this is Immokalee fire district. I'm assuming this is not -- Ave Maria is Immokalee fire district. This would be a different one. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But we also had what seems to be for, like, you know, even today, we have a substandard temporary trailer in Ave Maria, you know, that seems to be, you know -- you know, that's still the emergency services hub out there. Now, we have a beautiful building that's coming online soon that we'll have a groundbreaking for, you know, in the next few months. But the whole point of it is is it seems as though we have had inadequate facilities for a long time. Some of that was because, you know, there was a slow -- you know, slow growth in Ave Maria, but all I'm saying is, I don't know what the solution is. I'm just saying this has been a real issue in Ave Maria, and I hope that it's not an issue for this particular town. And it seems as though there's ways that we can make sure it isn't. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. No one is signaling, so I'm going to ask a few questions, if I may. First of all, with respect to Paragraph 9, and we talked about this on Tuesday, and I had asked just for clarification that in the sentence that begins "upon conveyance" about halfway down that we would add "to the county." MS. PATTERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's agreeable with staff? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. And then on 11D -- and I'm not sure what exactly is intended, how it would vary from existing law, but it reads awkwardly to me. It says, internal capture must be agreed upon between the county and the applicant. I'm not -- would you explain exactly what is meant by that? MS. SCOTT: So this happens today when we are dealing with larger developments where there is an internal capture rate. It is a discussion that is had during the transportation 5/6/2021 Page 24 of 99 methodology meeting. So, essentially, the transportation portion that you have within here are things that typically happen with staff and the applicant after they've come in for their pre-application meeting, and we meet to go through the Traffic Impact Statement guidelines and come up with agreements to the methodologies that will be used. So -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: So this is consistent with your practice? MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And what -- if you don't -- or you're unable to get an agreement from the applicant? MS. SCOTT: Then the applicant wouldn't proceed forward, and they wouldn't get their COs for Bellmar Villages. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I just wanted to be sure that was the case. Thank you very much. Then on Section 14, we also -- we talked about this on Tuesday. The exemption from downzoning, intensity reduction, or unit density reduction, and there's a standard of proof, I guess, in here. Substantial changes in conditions and substantially inaccurate information. Is that a standard that you would customarily apply in a similar situation? MS. SCOTT: This language, I believe, came straight out of State Statute 163 with regard to developer agreements, if I'm not mistaken. And in plain speak, my understanding of this is that we would not downzone, do any intensity reduction or unit density reduction for those villages as part of this town application. That is my plain-speak language on it. I would defer to Mr. Yovanovich, as he worked through this language and may be able to provide some additional information with regard to it if that's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me ask the County Attorney, if I may. Are you okay with that language, sir? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That's all I needed to know, and I believe I don't have any further questions. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Judith Hushon. She has been yielded time by Gary Bromley, and after Judith, we will have Gaylene Vasaturo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Please proceed, Ms. Hushon. MS. HUSHON: Thank you. Good morning, gentlemen and ladies. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thanks. MS. HUSHON: The League of Women Voters of Collier County recently learned that a proposed town agreement to add 515 acres to Longwater Village to create the Longwater Village town Stewardship Receiving Area is included in your information packet just for information purposes. This is not a decision item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I respectfully interrupt? I think -- and I'm just going to look for a consensus. We're going to do whatever we want with this regardless of what conditions were attempted to be put on us by, frankly, a previous administration. MS. HUSHON: Okay. I'm just saying what -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we may or may not decide to vote, but we're going to be in control of that part of our agenda. MS. HUSHON: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. HUSHON: The CCPC is not being asked to make any recommendations on this proposal. I hope you will. Collier Enterprises plans to ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this town agreement on the same day they consider the Longwater and Bellmar Village application. This approach circumvents normal public process. By including the town agreement in the CCPC agenda packet, Collier Enterprises, in 5/6/2021 Page 25 of 99 effect, asked the planning commissioners to recommend approval of Longwater and Bellmar Villages with an assumption that Collier Enterprises will create a town. But Collier Enterprises has not submitted a town application or provided supporting information and data, and there has been no staff analysis of the town proposal. What the town agreement proposes is extremely inconsistent with the RLSA overlay. The agreement also contains conditions such as requiring the county to pay completely for a community park. This is precedent. We haven't done that before. And restrictions, such as what can be considered for the economic assessment and traffic impact analysis, this agreement would shift many costs of the town to the county. The agreement makes no promises; 515 acres added by the town agreement will be primarily a commercial town. It's a commercial area. It's a town core. It's spread along Big Cypress Parkway; not central. And there's also some on the far side of Oil Well Road; however, the county -- town agreement states that there shall be no timing conditions placed on the development of the town core. The town core is supposed to be the center of the town. Without a town core, a town isn't a town. Timing on building a commercial area is key to self-sufficiency. Collier Enterprises may not build the proposed town core for 50 years, or maybe market conditions will never support such a proposal; however, the developer's supposed commitments are completely discretionary and will not represent a legal obligation to implement the town proposal. Finally, if the applicant and the county are to proceed with the town agreement and then the applicant should first come forward with a formal town SRA application, one would expect them to aggregate the three villages into a town that can be fully vetted and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Thank you for these -- listening to these matters. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Hushon. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Gaylene Vasaturo followed by Rae Ann Burton. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Vasaturo, are you speaking on behalf of an organization? MS. VASATURO: No, on behalf -- just myself, as a citizen of Collier County. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Five minutes, please. MS. VASATURO: Thank you. Actually -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, did you have some time ceded to you? MS. VASATURO: No. No, I didn't. That's fine. I'm happy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay. MS. VASATURO: Gaylene Vasaturo, for the record. If this town agreement is approved, it will be binding on the county. When the actual town application comes in a year, it will be too late to raise inconsistencies with the RLSA program. That's why Planning Commission review is important now. This town agreement is inconsistent with the RLSA program and the Land Development Code in ways. In fact, the proposal pretty much throws out -- part of the RLSA program out the window and sets some of its own rules. And you have to think that this will be a precedent for the future 36,000 acres of SRA development in the RLSA. Some of the inconsistencies include sprawl. This agreement proposes sprawling development along Big Cypress Parkway contrary to the goal of the RLSA program to avoid sprawl. The county pays for the community park. Under the RLSA program, the town applicant is responsible for the park. The town -- what you have is a town that is not walkable, bikeable, innovative, has no grain of density, and appears to have no connection to Rivergrass or Bellmar, a town center that is not a focal point of the community but designed for drive-by traffic. The county and the taxpayer will be paying for this town, not just the park, permitting, and 5/6/2021 Page 26 of 99 affordable housing, but also for roads and other infrastructure, because the town agreement restricts what can be considered in the traffic impact analysis and the economic assessment. I consider this a relaxing of the rules. For example, the agreement restricts what can be considered as background traffic which, in turn, will reduce the applicant's responsibility for its adverse impact on the roads. As we learned earlier, background traffic will not include the traffic from the other three villages, but in this agreement it also will not include traffic from Ave Maria or any other town that is approved before this town application comes through. And as for fiscal analysis, it's just -- Paragraph 6 is not clear. It says the town application will analyze fiscal impacts of the entire town inclusive of uses that would have previously been approved with Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar. Well, it says "of uses." Is that all that's included? That's not clear. I think that needs to be clarified. What about dwelling units? Acreage? Population? These things can impact the fiscal-neutrality analysis, for example, for the water/sewer system. And in response to -- or on Chairman [sic] Klucik's question, as I understand, the impact of excluding affordable housing from the Traffic Impact Statement will reduce the applicant's responsibility for its adverse impact on roads. Separate from impact fees is the responsibility of the applicant to address its impacts -- adverse impacts that cause roads to become deficient. So while the new residents might cause some of these roads to become deficient, the applicant won't have to pay for the adverse impact, such as pay to expand the road, and that is separate from the impact fees. And so there will be no staff analysis to evaluate how much this agreement is really costing the taxpayer and the county, because things will be left out of the analysis. And so we will -- for traffic, we will not know the true traffic impact. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It's 10:30. It's time for our mid-morning break, so we'll stand in recess for 10 minutes until 10:40. (A brief recess was had from 10:30 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's return to session, please. We're back in session, please. We have, I believe, three more public speakers. Mr. Youngblood, who's next? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Rae Ann Burton, followed by Susan Calkins, and then we will have one online speaker. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Ms. Burton? Five minutes, if you please, ma'am. MS. BURTON: Thank you. My name is Rae Ann Burton, rural Golden Gate Estates. While I've sat there, I've rewritten my speech I don't know how many times. The agenda stated that this was to be an information only, and I'm glad to hear it's not. But without sufficient public input, it sounds like it's a cut-and-dried issue done by the county and Collier Enterprises. This town depends on Bellmar being approved, which brings up another issue. Bellmar on Thursday, April 15th, Planning Commission agenda, was never presented. No quorum. Why? But it was presented the following Monday, April the 19th, without notification to the public nor listed on the calendar. It was in "events," a meeting listed as an event, not even listed on the Collier County Planning Commission general information site unless you clicked on calendar and events. Why could it not be at this meeting? The only reason I can fathom is public input's not wanted. Robert's Rules state the public has the right to hear the meetings with sufficient notice. The developer seemed to offer affordable housing to get what they want and then state it is in the project but also state it's not required. 5/6/2021 Page 27 of 99 We also are told because of Rivergrass, when it was brought forward, there's no panther habitat. So why are the developers providing wildlife corridors? There's a lot of upset and even angry Estate homeowners because of this excessive development happening in the Estates without sufficient public awareness or none at all. We live here. The developers don't. We know that we need -- what we need, and we only -- and they only want to make a profit. This is a ploy to get a town without the cost in the footprint of Rural Lands West. It will also need Big Cypress Parkway for access. As I said before, this board is the watchdog of what developers want to build versus the environment, wildlife habitat, and well-being and safety of the current residents living near these developments. The Estates is a refuge from city stress. If developments were so great, why do people go away for vacations? Those that live in the Estates can vacation in our backyard without city pollution and noise; at least we used to. And thank you for your service. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Ms. Burton. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Susan Calkins, followed by, online, Brad Cornell. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Calkins, you have the floor. MS. CALKINS: Thank you. Good morning. Susan Calkins, for the record. I noted that when the staff was presenting the landowner commitments that there was nothing about the smoke easement, and at the Bellmar hearing you might remember that Mr. Cornell reported three items that Collier Enterprises committed to: Wildlife crossings, bear-proof containers, and smoke easements. The revised town agreement contains the first two items but not the smoke easements. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife manager of the panther refuge told you that Bellmar will be directly in the path of the smoke from the prescribed burning, which must be done if the refuge will -- or it won't be usable by the panthers. So Fish and Wildlife has requested that future homeowners sign an acknowledgement notice in their deeds that recognizes and accepts the use of prescribed fire to manage the adjacent habitat. The current records only show the applicant will discuss prescribed burns in the HOA documents, which we know everyone reads religiously. It is important to have written comments by Collier Enterprises that are -- excuse me -- I'm just losing my place here. It's important to have the written comments by Collier Enterprises on the smoke easements and also a clarification of which lands will have the smoke easement. Each future homeowner needs to be informed of prescribed burning in the area, especially those with respiratory issues. I might also add, in reference to Mr. Klucik's comment earlier about Rural Lands West, it is, I think, worthy to remember that they did withdraw in large part because they did not want to pay for Big Cypress Parkway, as the county had demanded, but that problem has gone away because we are paying. We are now paying for Big Cypress Parkway. And one -- another point regarding what was put out by staff earlier. I noticed a lot of reference to town core, and I saw a nice red circle that made something look like a town core. I don't know how many people have seen the maps that Collier Enterprises is now putting out as they're advertising and selling the Town of Big Cypress, but if you look at that map, the Town of Big Cypress is up here, a little piece by Longwater, another little piece in the middle, another piece on the end, all called the Town of Big Cypress. There is no contiguous town core, and that is a requirement of the RLSA. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. 5/6/2021 Page 28 of 99 MS. CALKINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Bradley Cornell. Mr. Cornell, are you with us? MR. CORNELL: I am. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed, sir. Are you speaking on behalf of Audubon? MR. CORNELL: Yes -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. CORNELL: -- I am. This is Brad Cornell. Good morning, Mr. Chair and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: How much time would you like, sir, within reason? MR. CORNELL: Just three minutes or four minutes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine. Please proceed. MR. CORNELL: Thanks. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Audubon Western Everglades and Audubon Florida that owns and manages Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. And speaking about the town agreement before you that you've been discussing this morning, we generally support this direction of moving to create a town. It is unusual to do it retroactively. What we see is our collective understanding that there will be a full hearing and review when that application comes forward within a year, according to the commitments in the agreement. The good part of this is that a town generally is more sustainable, diverse, and functional as a, quote, smarter urban development form. It also includes, as has been discussed, more affordable housing incentives and requirements that complement the greater civic and commercial components. And it's important to remember, too, that its location adjacent to the Golden Gate Estates also will serve Golden Gate Estates' needs where that large, antiquated subdivision does not have sufficient commercial for its own needs. But I really want to focus our strongest support for the conservation improvements that have been identified in the agreement, and that's, of course, Audubon's most fundamental interest is the conservation outcome here, and that includes the increased requirement for stewardship credits from the current eight to 10 credits per acre; the wildlife movement linkage which is enhanced, and that also includes three underpasses including a large 20-foot-long underpass on Oil Well Road, 858; the commitment to the Stewardship Sending Areas and the restoration of 2,600 acres. So that's 12,200-some acres with 2,600 acres of wetland and panther habitat restoration within the Camp Keais Strand, which is a unit of the Florida Forever project, the CREW project. And, you know, that's been a CREW project for a really long time, and the state has just never been able to buy or do anything with that, so this is a really, really important step in preservation direction. And the Dark Sky's lighting standards commitment. Also the requirement for bear-resistant trash containers, by the way, which should be a requirement in every rural area of Collier County. We should -- we should be requiring bear-resistant trash containers in Golden Gate Estates, Immokalee Rural Village, and Hyde Park. All those places should have bear-resistant trash containers. It just should be the way we do things. And, finally, I just -- I want to agree with the question that was just raised about the smoke easements. Our understanding is that Collier Enterprises is committing to those not only for the panther refuge burning, which is important, absolutely important and needed, but also for their own Stewardship Sending Areas which also need to be burned. That's -- burning is just the way we manage natural lands. And so I would concur with that question, why aren't smoke easements addressed in this agreement as well? So thank you for considering our comments. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Any further registered speakers? 5/6/2021 Page 29 of 99 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anybody who is present who is not registered but wishes to speak, now would be the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, without objection, then, we'll close the public comment portion. Mr. Yovanovich, did you want to be heard? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can just respond to some of the comments. This is unusual. It's a new process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, I just wanted to note that we have agreed and we are committed to requiring each resident -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Point of order. I do believe we should close the comments. Mr. Yovanovich, would he still be able to speak if we did that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, sorry. No, but -- we close the public comments, but if we want to hear from somebody else in the course of our deliberations, we can always reopen it. Go ahead, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have -- just to answer Mr. Cornell and a previous speaker's comment about this, quote, smoke easement, what we have committed to doing is have each resident sign a separate sheet of paper that discloses to them the prescribed burning that happens not only in the panther refuge but also the adjacent SSA. So we are addressing that. It's not buried in a document. It's a separate sheet of paper. I drafted it. It is very clear, so every resident will be on notice about those prescribed burns that are occurring. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If I could weigh in, I certainly think that's appropriate, and that addresses the concerns. I have the same concern that -- you know, that the two public speakers had; that makes sense. What I will just say as a practical matter as someone who does real estate closings for half of my business as an attorney, the people who sign all those disclosures have no idea what they're signing because there are so many. And so I understand there's nothing we can do about that. It's not your problem to solve, and it's certainly not a criticism of this particular petition. But it -- you know, it does address the legal issue to make sure that, you know, there can't be a -- you know, if you have a notice signed by all the homeowners, then it seems as though it's difficult for there to be a legal halt to what needs to be done as far as controlled burns. So I totally understand that. I just want to weigh in as to the -- as someone who deals with all these disclosures all the time, I just find -- I find it very frustrating, because I don't think they're meaningful. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree. I think it falls under the heading of "knew or should have known." Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I guess maybe I was confused. I thought that the public speakers were seeking some type of mitigation as to the smoke problem rather than simply disclosure. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. They wanted residents to know so nobody would complain in the future. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So there's no -- there was no discussion at any point in time regarding somehow mitigating that danger? Because they'd talked about health risk and 5/6/2021 Page 30 of 99 things like that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think this goes back to something we got from someone from Fish and Wildlife, and there was a question of whether they really were speaking on behalf of Fish and Wildlife, but that's when I first heard the issue. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. And I definitely want to hear from staff on that point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Just -- and I know you all are aware of this. The Bellmar hearing was continued to a date-certain. There was proper notice for that hearing to go forward; a public speaker brought something up questioning that. I'm only going to address a couple of things related to the conversation we had with Ave Maria because it's going to be a while before we get back in front of you, and I want to address those ahead of time before we get to the County Commission, namely the temporary facility issue and, quote, confusion about the land. The land was, in fact, provided to the county for free. The question became, under the agreement, there was not an obligation to provide improved lands to the county, so there was some discussion back and forth about the value of those improvements. So just related -- we will continue to deal with temporary facilities as necessary, if necessary, through the review. The community park comment, we met with staff because, as you know, there's a community park impact fee. So staff either had to forgive the impact fee -- you can't double charge for a community park. We could provide the community park ourselves and be exempted from community park impact fees, or we could pay the impact fees, and staff could have control over the facilities that would be at the community park. Staff elected to have control over the facilities at the community park, and we will be paying our impact fees. We're not getting out of any obligations regarding the impact fees. I just bring that up because I don't want that to sit and fester. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just real quick. And you just may not know this, Rich, but what are roughly the impact fees, and what is roughly the cost of the park? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do not know the impact numbers. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do you know which one's higher? MR. YOVANOVICH: Do we pay more? I honestly don't know. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So that's another question I just have for staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we will pay our impact. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I understand. I was just wondering which one was more expensive, so I'll ask staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: And just so you know, it will be a park open to everybody, not just the residents of the town, which is a little bit different from a different town that's been built so far. I don't recall ever -- someone accused -- or it's alleged that we said that the approval of the villages was contingent upon the town. I think I fought pretty hard to make sure that those were separately considered and that each village was reviewed on their own without an assumption as to whether or not the town would occur or not. And I just want to make sure that there was no -- there was no approval of the villages with the assumption that there ultimately would be a town in the future. It's certainly not represented by us. And the last thing with this, quote, timing of providing commercial. The only town we have as an example is the Town of Ave Maria. There is no timing requirement in the Town of Ave Maria that says you will provide X commercial by Y date or Y number of units. That's not a requirement. The developer, obviously, for very important reasons, did provide commercial ahead of time, but there was no legal requirement that that occur. So when speakers are saying we're somehow not consistent with the RLSA program because we don't have a specific time by which 5/6/2021 Page 31 of 99 commercial will be provided, that is a factually incorrect statement based upon the town that has already been approved, so I just want to get all that on the record. We hope that whatever action you take -- I don't know what action you will be taking -- that you will see that this is a good-intentioned town agreement for a framework to come back through the public hearing process for you to get into all the level of detail you would want to at a formal town application. And with that, we're available to answer any other questions, and I will stand aside for Trinity, because I know she wanted to say a few things. COMMISSIONER VERNON: One more quick question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon, then Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do you have a better picture of the footprint of the proposed town than that elongated purple circle? One of the speakers brought it up. Oh. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's in the package. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's page -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So if I can. You can see -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: This and this gets added to Longwater is the -- is the town in context with Bellmar Village to the south and Rivergrass to the -- I guess it would be to the west, north and west of what will be the Town of Big Cypress. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, and then Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, it was just on that point. That's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So I guess what I wanted to say is that I -- you know, we heard, you know, someone mention sprawl, and I don't see how using a road that's going to be built anyways in between two of the villages and locating your commercial, you know, so it's very convenient to those two villages, I think that's the very definition of, you know, having it centrally located, and it also makes it compact, and it makes it so it eats up less habitat that people are concerned about. And, you know, it seems like it's anything but sprawling. It would be sprawling if it extended down below -- in my view, it would be sprawl if it was below the village on the bottom, which is Bellmar -- is that the one on the south? And so if we put the town center below or south of Bellmar, then I would think, yeah, that's sprawl, but I don't see how this is sprawl. And we certainly have heard from county officials and the staff, and I also just know from my own experience with the RLSA as a resident of Ave Maria, who's been paying attention to the RLSA, you know, for over 10 years, and the details of it, that that town core doesn't mean it's at the center of concentric circles. It means it's a location within -- that's somewhat centrally located so there's convenient access to the people that live there. And I think where this commercial zone is going to be seems like it's exactly that, and including that little elbow of additional housing. Is that where the affordable housing is that -- that's compact development with a town core, in my view. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So this I'm not sure who the question's for. Maybe it's for ourselves trying to understand this agreement. So we're going to amend Longwater application, and it's going to really be -- the town is only going to apply to Longwater, and Rivergrass and Bellmar are still going to be villages? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's a step process, but ultimately it's going to be a town, correct -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to be -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- composed of the three villages? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It will be a town. The town application will be Longwater plus the 515 acres. 5/6/2021 Page 32 of 99 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The town will provide services to Rivergrass Village as well as Bellmar Village, just like your -- if you look at the Comp Plan, and you'll see those provisions again, it says it could take several -- several villages may get their services from another town. So it's -- the town is just Longwater -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and Rivergrass and Bellmar. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's a different town than Ave Maria, which every -- all of the villages are part of Ave Maria. MR. YOVANOVICH: A part of the town, right, correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's only going to be the Town of Longwater with some nearby villages. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, the name's Big Cypress. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So what does that mean -- in terms of we approved Rivergrass and we approved Bellmar, what changes in their application now from -- they're still the same? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Those are going to go forward exactly as we approved them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: On that particular point -- maybe I misunderstood it up to now. So we have Longwater. Longwater is going to be the town. You have the 65 acres -- or what is the -- for commercial, the requirement 65 -- maybe, Trinity, can you help with that. What are the requirements, then, for these goods and services and civic? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's 170 now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So my question is, is that calculation based just on Longwater? Because I was assuming it was based on the three. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, based on all three. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It is. MS. SCOTT: Based on all three. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So it's per unit in Rivergrass and in Longwater and in Bellmar, that requirement for just Longwater? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MS. SCOTT: I'm sorry. Yes. I was trying to get to the acreages. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Great. Good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else? Ms. Scott, did you want to have a word? MS. SCOTT: I do. I have a few things that I wanted to just clarify -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. SCOTT: -- based on some of the feedback that we received today. We had talked on No. 9, upon conveyance to the county with regard to the community park site, we're going to look at that. As part of the testimony with regard to the background traffic, we're going to work on the language in there to make it very clear that the background traffic, what we are trying to do is that the villages of Rivergrass, Bellmar, and Longwater would not be deemed background traffic when we are looking at if a roadway fails or not and the calculation of the proportionate share. That will be looked at as the aggregate town. The applicant has agreed to that. That is in our favor because, as we discussed for many, many, many times as part of Bellmar and Longwater, those would technically be background traffic. The applicant has agreed they're not going to be calculated as background traffic; they're going to be calculated as the new town traffic. 5/6/2021 Page 33 of 99 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is Hyde Park background traffic? MS. SCOTT: Hyde Park would be background traffic because it's outside of their project area, the Big Cypress Stewardship District. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So I think what I'm hearing is that those who spoke out as saying that was a concern, it actually -- you know, I don't want to put words in their mouth, certainly, but it seems as though it's the exact opposite. It's actually taking the whole traffic analysis anew for the whole -- once you approve it, there will be a brand-new analysis that factors in all three rather than saying, oh, we don't have to do these villages because they were already done. MS. SCOTT: You are correct. And when the speakers were speaking, I was looking at this language on ways that I can refine that and make that more clear, so that will be what I will do before this goes to the Board. And with that, that concludes everything that I had. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further questions or comments before we close public comment? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just want to follow up real quick on the smoke easement, and it's for anybody in the staff. That's not an issue, right, from your perspective? You heard what the question was. MR. KLATZKOW: From my standpoint and -- one, I don't think we've ever done a smoke easement, because I'm very unfamiliar with what they are. But the easement would be for the benefit of the state, and if anybody's going to be asking for the easement, I would think it's the state should be asking or the feds should be asking for it. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not an easement. It's a notification. MR. KLATZKOW: No. We are talking about a smoke easement here, and I'm trying to tell you I'm not entirely sure that it's an appropriate thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is if the state who burns or the feds who burn wish to ask for an easement, that's on them, but the county is not burning. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. My only question -- I've already asked -- if you can have a seat; I've already asked you. I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything. I think it's a two-second answer. There's no smoke easement issue that you guys are concerned about from the staff point, right? MS. SCOTT: Not that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, that's it. Then the next question is, same question I asked Rich, is the impact fee, why did you decide -- and, again, it may be another staff member -- charge the impact fee for the park rather than have them donate the park? MS. SCOTT: I'm going to look to Amy. She knew I was going to look to her on that one. We have assigned roles. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson again, for the record. Your question's about why we feel that it's appropriate to have the county build the park versus the developer? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. The suggestion, at least I got from the public speakers, is that somehow they were getting a free park from us, and then, when Rich -- I asked Rich, the developer's attorney question, it was, well, you chose -- the staff chose to have the impact fee instead of having us donate the park. So I'm just putting the same question to you guys. MS. PATTERSON: Right. For us, there's a couple of things: The setup -- just to talk about the setup at Ave Maria a little bit. Ave Maria was required to have -- there's a few different ways this can happen in these villages or towns -- or in towns, I'm sorry. Ave Maria has their own park system, and then they were required to have a community park and they do, but the difference is is that their park is closed to the public, so we don't get the 5/6/2021 Page 34 of 99 benefit of the use of that park for level of service. We don't have it on our inventory. That was what went on then, and that was a decision made. So as the new towns have been coming in, the discussions have been ongoing -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I interrupt there? MS. PATTERSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just on a very important point. So how does that affect the impact fees -- the park impact fees that Ave Maria has paid going forward? MS. PATTERSON: So that is currently under review on how we are going to address those parks impact fees going forward because, Ave Maria satisfying a portion of the demand privately, there likely will be an adjustment to those impact fees at some point in the future, and that's currently in work. So we talked about whether or not this configuration was a good one, and it works well for Ave Maria. But as far as for the overall benefit of the park system, maybe not. Now, there's the chance or the opportunity that a developer could build a park on behalf of the county, but then we lose some element of control. So -- and we would also have to credit them for those -- for those improvements with the impact fees. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So -- okay. The primary driver is this is going to be a public park. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And you guys made the decision on the impact fee -- to charge the impact fee rather than close the park. MS. PATTERSON: Right. To give us -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: So it wasn't necessarily a fiscal decision. It was a community-benefit decision. MS. PATTERSON: It's a community benefit also because of the nature of parks development is changeable. This gives us greater control in the types of amenities that we provide, being able to balance those amenities with the amenities that are offered in nearby parks so that we're not having duplication. It's not to say that a private park isn't fine, and it is completely. But when we're trying to integrate that park and make it a public park in the public-park system, the county actually doing the -- just making those decisions and doing the construction makes more sense. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for clarity, we talked about an easement, but it is not an easement, Mr. Yovanovich. Wouldn't it be an agreement similar to if you were in the flight path, like in the Marco Island housing, you're just informing a homeowner of the legal requirements that, you know, you know you're building your house over a flight path, or you know that you're going to be purchasing a house where you're going to experience irritation for smoke burning. So it's really not an easement. It's just a legal notice, is it not? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It's not a normal property right that we're conveying. We're giving notice. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So is that, then -- I think the concern was right now the villages have some sort of requirement related to this, and same thing with what's already -- what's already been approved; it's not an easement in those situations either? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a notice. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a notice. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So there really is -- the net effect is nothing different than what's already been approved for the three villages? 5/6/2021 Page 35 of 99 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, we only did it for one village, Bellmar. It was only because of the vicinity of the village to the panther refuge. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So this will add that requirement to all -- all the properties? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Will it add it on all of them, then? That's a good question. MR. YOVANOVICH: We intend to let people know -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- in all three villages -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and the additional lands that they're probably going to get smoke or smell smoke or see smoke from the prescribed burns in the SSAs as well as the panther refuge. We don't see any harm in letting people know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just want to -- Rich, while you're up there. MR. YOVANOVICH: You told me to sit down. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That was in the other question. Now I want you to stand up. Why aren't all three villages part of -- going to be part of the town from your perspective? MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't -- for one, I will tell you I'm having an enjoyable experience litigating Rivergrass Village right now, so I don't see any reason to put myself through that process again by including it in the town. So that's a legal reason why Rivergrass is not part of this plan, and I didn't see a real benefit legally to including Bellmar in the town when you're going to get all of the review benefits as we've proposed them. So there didn't seem to be a good legal reason to put them in there as part of the review process, and there wasn't a good planning reason to put them in the town plan, call it the bigger town area. There did not seem to be any real need either legally or planning-wise to include that, and it was cleaner -- it's a cleaner application, in my opinion, to have Longwater plus the 515 acres versus a 3,515 acres-ish town. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I definitely appreciate that answer. With the two that aren't part of the town, is there any particular benefit or detriment to those residents that you see of being part of the town or not being part of the town? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, because as you can see from the plan, they're going to reap significant benefits through the town application with additional services to them. So they're -- there's no detriment to them at all, none whatsoever. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I just thought -- I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're not. COMMISSIONER VERNON: There's not some benefit? Detriment? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a significant benefit for us going with the town, but there's no detriment for them not being within the physical -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. They're helped by the town. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: These would be separately gated villages. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So they have entry from Big Cypress, but they don't have internal entry that they would if it were. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's not true. You have Longwater that's physically connected to Rivergrass, as you remember. So Rivergrass connects to Longwater and, therefore, there would be that internal ability from Rivergrass and Longwater to interconnect with each other, and we have -- we have the ability to connect to -- and there's no ability to physically connect those 5/6/2021 Page 36 of 99 other villages to Bellmar. We went through this discussion before. It's all surrounded by SSAs. And we have -- I believe we have -- we also have our frontage road right there. Well, I didn't know another way to describe it. But there's a road -- do you see that road -- I'll let Ms. Scott -- that's a connection. That's a physical connection to Bellmar and up to Longwater, so there's interconnectivity of these villages without having to get onto Big Cypress. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not blocked by gates? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't see that -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That road doesn't continue. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't see that connecting all the way down to Bellmar. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, it doesn't. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Certainly on the graphic that I have, which I think is the one up on the screen. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the school that we're providing, if that helps. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I know, so there's no connection. There's the purple road, which is the parkway or what -- MS. SCOTT: So this will -- as far as those internal connections, that will be discussed as part -- so we didn't commit to anything with the transportation other than they're going to do the analysis, and we're going to discuss it with them, and they'll come up with -- their improvements that are necessary. So as we progress through that process, I'm not going to stand up here today and tell you that they're going to have to do X, Y, and Z, because they haven't done the analysis yet, but there may be things that we will discuss as part of the town application, such as they may need to build a portion of the roadway to be able to provide that connection to their internal roadway that gets the rest of the way up depending upon environmental factors. All of those will be taken into consideration. And you have made no commitment today of what their requirements will be. We will vet this as we would any other town application. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. So are we at a point where we can close public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody object to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We're going to close public comment and start our deliberation. Who would like to begin? Commissioner Schmitt, you're signaled. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have one comment. Paragraph 8B, Ray. If you would look at Paragraph 8B. Just so you note, it's not Army Corp of Engineers. It's Army Corps, C-o-r-p-s. French word, Army Corps. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Near and dear to your heart. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Near and dear to my heart. Having spent 30 years wearing the castles. So, anyways, I just wanted to bring that up so we do make that correction. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I don't have a whole lot, just a couple of big-picture comments. It seems that even the people objecting, in some fashion or another, want a town. So there is some consensus there. I think there's also some consensus among the opposition, valid or not, that there's some concerns about the order in which this was done and that we're being snookered, for lack of a better word. I think there's some concern about that. But then I go back to what I know what Commissioner Schmitt raises and others have raised. I mean, the whole concept of this is to save 5/6/2021 Page 37 of 99 lands. So we're saving a whole bunch of lands. That's great for the environment. And the other is affordable housing, and I'm a big proponent, you've heard me, that -- one thing I think I said I loved was a project of affordable housing. So I think affordable housing is something that's probably a rising need with home prices. So you've got to -- to me, you gave a couple specifics, and then the overlay of the RLSA. So -- and final comment I'll make is I don't know whether we have the authority to vote or not, but if the chairman wants to vote, I'm fine voting. I think I'll vote in favor of it. And I've identified, you know, the only concern I have is that it was done in reverse order, but that's not going to stop me voting in favor of it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Subject to being challenged by our County Attorney, it would be my recommendation that we do vote on this, and I believe we have the right to do so, but we probably don't have to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What would be the motion we're voting on, though? That's what I'm kind of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: To recommend or not recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Or to express our support for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To express our -- yeah, to express our support for -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think it's however we craft it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I would say I support it. I don't think we can vote any other way, really. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, we're not approving it -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- per se; it's not coming to us as a petition, but we're just expressing our guidance to the Board of County Commissioners whether we are in support of it, I believe. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think it's important for the Board of County Commissioners to know how we feel. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think it matters terrifically exactly how we word it, recommend or express support. It certainly doesn't matter to me. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I would move -- if you're ready, I would move to -- or do you want to hear from everybody? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'd like -- we can -- we're going to have discussion after a motion and second anyway. But if you want to do a motion and get a second, we can put that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure, sure. I would move that we vote on whether -- I move that we vote to support this petition as presented to us and give that notice of our support or not to the County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd second. All right. Any -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: An agreement, not a petition. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, the agreement; sorry. It is not a -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'm going to have a quick word here. I've struggled with this, and continue to struggle with it. At the end of the day, though, I believe it's a better outcome than would be three separate villages, so I'm going to vote in favor of the motion, but it's not without serious misgivings. And I think Mr. Cornell used the right word, and Commissioner Vernon echoed it. It's an 5/6/2021 Page 38 of 99 unusual progression. And it's not the way, in my judgment at least, these things should come about, but here we are, and we can't -- we can't roll it back. So my vote will be in support. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. It's 12 after 11. We've got the EAC matter before us. I think there's a chance we could get that done before noon. What do -- what is the wish of the other members of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm fine to go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Keep going. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it should be relatively easy, so we could get it done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Does anybody object to our going right to that? Then we'll go to lunch after that. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then that's what we'll do. So -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What item number is that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***The next matter coming before us is PL2020002472. It's the Stewart Materials EXP excavation permit for 2315 Edwards Grove Road. We're sitting solely as the EAC. This is quasi-judicial, however, and all those wishing to testify in this matter please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Matters of public record and meetings with staff and other communications from the public. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich as well about this. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Mr. Yovanovich, please proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just by way of brief introduction, then I'm going to turn it over to Jeff Davidson. A few months ago we came through with a conditional-use application to expand an existing mining operation, that you can see on the visualizer, to the property adjacent to it. I told you at the time we would be coming back forward with an excavation permit to actually get the authorization to dig -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt. I did discuss this 5/6/2021 Page 39 of 99 very briefly, but not really with much substance, with the staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. Your correction is noted. Continue, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what we brought forward to you today is the excavation permit. You're sitting as the EAC. Your staff is recommending approval of the excavation permit. Mr. Shea, and I think a few others, raised concerns about the maintenance of the road and making sure that dust would not become an issue. Mr. Davidson will take you through the watering operations we're going to take. Just to bring you -- fast forward, after that hearing, we went out and realized that perhaps -- we're supposed to have millings on the road to reduce dust, but potholes were being -- not being properly filled, and we've gone out and filled those potholes; instead of using sand, use the proper material. So dust is -- should no longer be an issue, and Jeff will take you through how we're going to address those issues. But we can address anything, but that seemed to be the primary concern of the Planning Commission when we left after the conditional-use application. And with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Davidson, and then we have the operator and owner here if you have further questions. Nick Stewart is here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. DAVIDSON: Jeff Davidson with Davidson Engineering. And we were involved in the original permitting of the adjacent mine. That's the blue area on the map. And now we're looking to expand to the west. That area with the stripes through it, that's a FLUCFCS map. But that's an orange grove, an existing orange grove. And there's -- each one of those is a little over 200 acres. So it's over -- a little over -- it's close to 400 -- almost 450 acres total with both the existing and the proposed. Here's a map that shows -- here's a map that shows a little bit more of a regional blowup so you can get a feel for where this is. So that red area you see there, that's the expansion part of the mine property, and the road that goes to the north, that's the Edwards Grove Road. That's the road -- that's the haul route out to State Road 82. That's actually out of -- the trip generation out of the transportation study that was done for this property. And it shows the trips going toward Lee County to the west and then also south down to Immokalee. That's Immokalee down just south, that line down at the bottom of the drawing, and that's State Road 29. So there had been a question about how the entrance to the mine would be maintained, and I was speaking with -- excuse me -- with Nick Stewart, and he -- I'm having a hard time here -- with Nick Stewart, and he bought a new piece of equipment that's able to go in and keep that mine -- or the road -- the mine access road milled down, take the existing millings off, and then replace those, and then add new millings and compact it, so it's going to be a good setup there. And that will take care of the dust situation. He also has a water truck that keeps -- there's a -- let me put that up there; just a second. There's a dust control plan that's part of the approved plan set. And I'll put that up there. So this dust control plan is actually in the approved plan set. It's on the last sheet that shows the access to the mine. And it goes into detail about how that road will be maintained and then how it will be watered and resurfaced, and there's no -- they can't use sand, they can't do certain things, to keep the dust down. And I think it's a great plan, and I think it will work. It's inspected twice a day during operation, once in the morning, once in the afternoon, to make sure there are no potholes and to make sure that no truckers are dumping sand in the potholes to make things easier for themselves. They get fined if that happens. There's an enforcement section in this on the bottom. So I think that should work really well along with Nick's new equipment to keep it milled down. Nick Stewart. Mr. Stewart's here. And on the site itself he uses a water truck around the perimeter of the mine to keep the 5/6/2021 Page 40 of 99 dust down. And this has been in operation since about 2007/2006, same operator, same people. They've done a great job over the years. Like I said, I helped them with the original permitting, and they've done everything they said they would do from the beginning, and it's a first-class operation. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If I could get clarification. So the document that we're reading from now is new? MR. DAVIDSON: No. This is actually in the approved plan for the mine. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: From years ago? MR. DAVIDSON: No, from today. It's in the approved package. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What we approved recently? CHAIRMAN FRYER: In December. MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess my question -- and maybe this is -- MR. DAVIDSON: There was a -- go ahead. Excuse me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We didn't have that in December. CHAIRMAN FRYER: When did we first see this? MR. DAVIDSON: There was a conditional use that was approved a few months ago. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Was this part of that package? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. This is -- remember, we had the land-use petition a few months ago that said, yes, we can have this mine on the property, but we had to come back forward with the excavation permit. And you all were asking a whole lot of operations-related questions at the time we were doing the land-use approval. So, no, you didn't have this. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is this new? MR. YOVANOVICH: You didn't see it before, correct. So now we're -- we promised you we would come back and show you the details -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Then my question for you, based on what you were saying earlier -- and maybe for both of you. You had mentioned the millings, which I just, you know, realized is just ground-up asphalt, correct? MR. DAVIDSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So -- well, no, it's particular to what you might be knowledgeable of. So was there a requirement for millings at all up to now? MR. YOVANOVICH: To be honest with you, let me look in the back. Was there? Yes, there always was as part of the operations. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But not for the road to be made of millings but for the repairs to be done with millings? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: When this came before us, one of the major issues from a local landowner was the dust. We asked when he comes back to us for the excavation permit, which is what this is, that they address the dust control issue. That was in the, I believe -- I didn't look at the record, but my recollection is it was in the stipulation that they would come back with an explicit detail of the dust control. They already had dust control, but we asked for what I would call an enhanced dust control. Certainly, the millings will tamp the dust significantly. If you use just the millings and you do -- because one of the things we asked was scarifying, grading, compacting, those kind of things. But if you have millings out there and -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, the problem, though, is from what -- not the problem, but what I see is the millings are only going to be in the areas that have the potholes. It's not -- you're not going to put millings down the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, it's the entire roadway. MR. DAVIDSON: No, the entire roadway is covered with millings. 5/6/2021 Page 41 of 99 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Well, good. That -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We need to be considerate -- excuse me. We need to be considerate of the court reporter and speak one at a time, please. Go ahead, Mr. Davidson. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you for clarifying. MR. DAVIDSON: That's pretty much it from my point of view, and if you have any questions about the engineering part of this, I'm here if you need clarification. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a question on -- when you say millings, are they going to -- are they going to be just cold applied so it's more like an aggregate as opposed to a mix that's warm and becomes paved? MR. DAVIDSON: That's right. And the best thing about the millings, it keeps the dust down, but it's also semi-pervious instead of asphalt. That's why it's not asphalt. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which means that there won't be -- I mean, it's less likely to, what, get muddy, or it's more likely to get muddy or -- MR. DAVIDSON: I would say it's about the same as far as asphalt or millings as far as muddy goes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It won't create a lot of runoff. MR. DAVIDSON: That's the main reason. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It moves off the road into the -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. DAVIDSON: That's right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further questions for Mr. Davidson? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further, sir? MR. DAVIDSON: That's about it for me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think I have anything to add. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Staff? Ms. Cook. Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: Good morning, Commissioners, Jaime Cook, principal environmental specialist with Development Review. I'm here on behalf of staff to discuss the Stewart Materials excavation permit. So the reason that you guys are all hearing this is the Collier County Code of Laws requires that all applications for commercial excavation permits be reviewed and a recommendation be provided to the Board of County Commissioners by the Environmental Advisory Committee. You, as the Planning Commission sitting as the EAC, one of your primary functions is to advise on the preservation, conservation, protection, management, and beneficial use of the physical and biological natural resources including atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic, and hydrologic resources of the county with regards to safety, health, and general well-being of the public. So, therefore, for this petition you are only looking at it in terms of the environmental impacts of the project, not all of the other considerations that you take into account when you're sitting as the Planning Commission. So Stewart Materials mine is located west of Immokalee, west of State Route 29, and south of State Road 82. The current zoning is agricultural, and it is within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area inlands designated as open lands. According to the site plan, approximately 206 acres within this expansion area that you can see on the screen is proposed to become the mine. Some brief history of this site, the original conditional-use and excavation permit were -- the original conditional use was approved in 2003 by the Board of County Commissioners and the original excavation permit in 2006. In December of 5/6/2021 Page 42 of 99 2020 you heard the conditional use for the expansion property, and it was subsequently approved by the Board in January of this year. During your December 3rd meeting, concerns were expressed by the commissioners regarding the maintenance of Edwards Grove Road and the dust and sediment control plan. You ultimately voted unanimously to approve the conditional use with several conditions of approval. Some of those stipulations of approval included the days and hours of operation; water management considerations, including a berm; and obtaining South Florida Water Management District permits; transportation trip limitations, including p.m. peak-hour traffic; and panther signage; road right-of-way reservation for the future expansion of Little League Road; road maintenance of Edwards Grove Road, and including the dust and sediment control plan; and obtaining all environmental permits and the required littoral plantings being done at the reclamation phase of the mine. The site plan provided as part of the excavation permit addresses the concerns that you had back in December as well as the stipulations of approval, including showing the locations of the panther signage, the littoral areas, the reservation along the western property boundary for Little League Road expansion, and the berm. A dust control plan was included within the plans and includes commitments such as asphalt millings for the entire Edwards Grove Road; repairing potholes with asphalt millings; any application of water to Edwards Grove Road may not create runoff; the truckloads must be secured to avoid spillage; and reduced speeds during windy conditions, reduced speed limits. Additionally, the dust control plan, as Jeff previously showed you guys, provides that inspections will be done twice daily, and the company management is responsible for correcting any noncompliance. In addition, I know this was also a question at the last meeting: County staff does monthly inspections of the mining operation for the duration that the operation is in existence. So staff reviewed the commercial excavation permit pursuant to our Growth Management Plan, the Code of Laws, and the Land Development Code, and specifically there are eight criteria within the staff report on which staff relies to conduct our review. These include that the project may not interfere with sanitary storm and drainage systems or cause flooding; that they have dust and noise control; that the project may not impact groundwater levels, water quality or surface water flowways; the project may not cause safety hazards to persons or property; the project must be in compliance with the LDC and the GMP; and the project may not impact wetlands or flow through wetlands. So staff ultimately recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the Environmental Advisory Council, forward the petition for Stewart Materials mine to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval including all of the previously approved excavation permit conditions and the stipulations of approval from the conditional use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Cook? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I assume staff has nothing further at this point. MS. COOK: Nothing further -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. COOK: -- unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Mr. Youngblood, are there public speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No, sir, there are no public speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Without objection, shall we close public comment? (No response.) 5/6/2021 Page 43 of 99 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public comment is closed. Let's deliberate. Who would like to speak first? Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I'm going to propose and recommend approval of 20200002472. Sitting as the EAC I recommend approval based on the staff report and stipulations as noted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, staff. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I just make a comment is that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- I do like the plan, and I like the fact that the county is going to make a trip once a month, is what I thought I heard Jaime say, because a plan is no good if it's not monitored and maintained, but it's a big difference from when we first saw it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And thanks back to you, Commissioner Shea, because you flagged this, and you saw it through and educated us along the way. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we've always had on staff in the engineering department somebody that went out and checked these on a monthly basis. But we have to make sure they do it. That's -- I think that's the key here that the staff has to make sure -- I'm looking at Mr. French. Where is he at? Call him up once a month, and he's going to testify that they did. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There he is, right there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, it's 11:40. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: We do have one item that shouldn't take very long. It's the 7-Eleven PUD. The applicant is here and might have some problem staying much later. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not a problem. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll hear it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it's Jeff Wright. We're just going to make him stay still after lunch. I can't -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've got to find my notes here, Mr. Wright, and then we'll -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did you say that 7-Eleven is going to be providing lunch? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We can't take a lunch. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can't do it. ***All right. Now we're coming to PL2020 three zeros -- three zeros? -- four zeros 756, the Immokalee area 7-Eleven PUDZ. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. 5/6/2021 Page 44 of 99 MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a preliminary comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. MR. WRIGHT: The bulk of our team is in another building, and I imagine there's a lot of scrambling going on right now to get over here, and they will also be needing to be sworn in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, we'll swear them in as they -- are they aware that we're doing this now? MR. WRIGHT: I sure hope they are, yeah. Yeah, they're in a satellite -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, would you rather lay this over? MR. WRIGHT: If I had my way, I'd say, gosh, if we had two minutes just to get them to hustle over here. I trust that they're on the way. I was told that they're in the HR building. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, that's overflow. They were in the overflow area? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, they'll be over shortly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We'll -- let's go ahead and start then. MR. WRIGHT: Thanks so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So have witnesses been sworn in yet? No. Let's swear the witnesses in, and then the people who need to be sworn in when they get over here, we'll do that. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In my case, matters of public record, discussions with staff and the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to the applicant. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Discussions with staff and whatever is in our packet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Mr. Wright, you may proceed, sir. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to find our presentation on here. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That is hard to read. CHAIRMAN FRYER: While you're doing that, let's take a two-minute recess, please. (A brief recess was had from 11:43 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Let's loop back and swear in witnesses who were not yet sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea, I have you lit up. Are you still -- did I neglect to clear it? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Wright, go ahead. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin law firm here on behalf of the applicant today. With me is our project team who just rolled in. We have Lauren Evans, our project manager with Creighton Development; Al Quattrone with Quattrone & Associates, our engineer; Fred Drovdlic with Waldrop, our planner; and Yurie Fikow (phonetic) with TR Transportation Consultants, our transportation consultant. We're here seeking your recommendation of approval of an application to rezone property from C-4 zoning to CPUD to allow the construction of a convenience store with fueling positions and a car wash in Immokalee. The property's located at the corner of -- the northwest corner of West Main Street which is 5/6/2021 Page 45 of 99 SR29, and North Ninth Street, about a half mile west of Immokalee and Main Street. We've reviewed the staff report. We agree with the recommendation of approval. They've -- they're recommending four conditions of approval. We're in agreement with those. We're requesting one deviation from the Land Development Code to allow parking in front of the building that faces Main Street. We have Fred here. He's going to give the bulk of the presentation, mainly relating to planning concerns. I don't intend to call the others, but they are here if any questions come up. And with that, I'll turn it over to Fred. Thanks so much for getting us in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. DROVDLIC: Good morning and, again, I agree with Jeff; thank you very much for fitting us in. The request before you -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I just ask before you start, on the image there, is the curved road Main Street? Is that -- that's 29? MR. DROVDLIC: That's State Route 29, yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, great. I'm just getting the bigger picture on Google Map; sorry. MR. DROVDLIC: Yeah. So as Jeff mentioned, the request before you today is from C-4 to a Commercial Planned Unit Development to allow a maximum of 5,650 square feet of gross commercial floor area divided into a 4,650-square-foot convenience store and thousand-square-foot car wash. The property is just over three acres, and the site plan also includes 20 fueling positions, which would be 16 gas -- unleaded gas station traditional retail, and a four-fueling position diesel canopy for larger vehicles. The use was permitted in the C-4 zoning district as a conditional use, but because of the deviation, we came back and went through the CPUD process and -- due to the parking that Jeff mentioned in front of the building rather than in the back, which is a requirement of the Immokalee Main Street Overlay Subdistrict. We also are in need of an automobile service station separation waiver. There is a 500 -- or 500-foot limitation where you can't have gas stations beside each other within the 500 feet, and there's a Handy convenience store across North Ninth approximately 80 feet away property boundary to property boundary. So that will be heard in front of the Board of County Commissioners sitting as BZA. Right now our tentative date is June 8th for the automobile service station waiver. And we understand that this zoning approval is contingent on approval of that waiver. Site plan highlights. I'll run through these fairly quick. In the center of the property is the food store; that's the 4,650-square-foot convenience store. To the west of that is the car wash. Continuing west is the diesel canopy, and you'll see the one-way service with the four fueling positions for the diesel fuel canopy. And then parallel to Main Street is the 16 fueling positions for the gas stations, so a fairly traditional layout. In addition to the traditional layout piece, there's also -- we had a fair amount of feedback from the Immokalee area CRA and from the Chamber of Commerce, and so on the site plan some of those highlights are that we added extra indoor -- or extra outdoor seating in the front and in the rear. There's also indoor seating that is restaurant based inside that will be part -- some of the large square footage of the 4,650 square feet is dedicated to a restaurant-style seating inside. There will be two pedestrian interconnections, one on West Main, one on North Ninth. You see on the -- on the corner at Main and Ninth there's also a pedestrian amenity area. This is consistent with a lot of, you know, bench seating and other areas that are along Immokalee and Main Street, so we provided that similar pedestrian amenity there to try to tie into the downtown area a little bit better and to provide just a very excellent pedestrian access to the front part of the store. As many of us know, this is a very pedestrian-oriented part of town, and so we wanted to provide safe access for as many people as possible. 5/6/2021 Page 46 of 99 To the -- on the west end near the detention area or -- yeah, detention area is a dedicated site design for an interconnection to the property to the west. So this original piece of property was seven acres. It's been platted and subdivided by Creighton Development. And the gas station's on three acres. There's four acres left, and so we have a dedicated interconnection, and we're very willing to have that be as a condition of the site plan approval. The architectural styling, we had feedback, too. There's an architectural picture relief, and there's a lot of pictures, I believe, in your package. But we had feedback from the CRA and from local architects to try to design the building in a little bit of a different way and tried to tie in a few elements that would be more consistent with the downtown area. Of course, this is still 7-Eleven. And it's still a design building and it's new, so maybe it won't fit in exactly, but we did try to tie in several elements that would give some architectural relief and some different textures that would tie in better and not be such as -- well, yeah, just tie in better. I'm not an architect, so I won't try to say any more about that. Land use and zoning, as we said, it's in the C-4 district. It's in the commercial mixed-use urban subdistrict and urban infill redevelopment area and in the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict. I put this slide in here just to show you that as part of the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict there is an area along Main Street that doesn't allow new gas stations and service stations. We are just outside of that on the other side, and as staff notes, this is a transition area that really starts to go from the downtown area to more of a highway-oriented area as State Route 29 leaves the downtown area of Immokalee. We held the required neighborhood information meeting. We met at the Lozano's Restaurant on October 22nd. We had probably a few more than a dozen people attend there in person, and it was also hybrid, and we had a couple people online, including the neighbor to the north who owns the house on the north side. She was online. She didn't have any objections. She did have a question about what the buffer was going to be between her and the gas station, and we clarified that there was going to be an 8-foot masonry wall as required and a 30-foot vegetative buffer. And then there will be some detention area and then the parking lot. And she seemed very satisfied with that answer. Otherwise, we didn't have any objections. We didn't have any negative input. In fact, most of the input that we had was the opposite. It was encouraging. They wanted to see something happen in downtown Immokalee, particularly something that provided some more convenient services and a nice, new development. They loved the seating. They loved the extra bike rack, and the amenity area were very important to them. We also had additional public meetings. We met with the CRA. We met with staff one on one and got some feedback. This was starting back in late 2019. We then made a presentation to the board of the CRA at their regular meeting. Received -- again, received feedback on architectural styling, preferences, answered a lot of questions. Came back to them again in August of 2020 and made another presentation, and at that time they decided to fully support us and offered us a letter of support that is on the next slide. In the meantime, just out of -- just to a good public outreach, we also have attended several of the Chamber of Commerce meetings, again, at Lozano's Restaurant, as Danny's taking good care of us. And met there on October 7th, made a brief presentation, handed out architectural renderings, drawings, and gave out my business card. People had questions. I received some e-mails and some questions of -- or support, but nothing negative, and then I attended again just yesterday, went down there and gave them an update on everything that was happening. We received a lot of support. There's the community support letter from the CRA. And then we do have one deviation request that we're asking you to support. The Main Street overlay requires that parking be behind or on the side of buildings. And based on just a -- there's really -- we tried several ways to try to realign this, but based on that requirement on the side or in the rear parking and the setbacks then 5/6/2021 Page 47 of 99 that are required because of gas stations, the two really fight against each other, and so there really wasn't much of a way to align that better without really pushing the impact more towards the north and towards the residential areas. So we asked for this deviation, and that's why -- a big piece of what we hope to have approved or recommend for approval from you today. This is the architectural rendering of the property. I do want to point out a couple things. A couple things that they asked us for was the metal roofing. Some of the, I guess, Spanish-like accents on the front, the overhang over the front of the building, and on the -- against North Ninth Street, we're going to save some areas on that wall that are going to be for local murals to be painted and have some -- we have a recommendation from the CRA of who to go through and how to -- and how to do that and maybe have a little contest of people and see if we can put some local murals on there to try to stay with the local flavor. So staff -- and we agree -- they found it consistent with the Growth Management Plan, they found us consistent with the Immokalee Main Street Overlay Subdistrict, and the deviation was recommended for approval by staff. We're supported by Immokalee CRA, and the Chamber of Commerce, and we've had no public opposition to date. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions for the gentleman? Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Quick question. It might have been buried somewhere in our package. Why'd you do so much hazardous waste sampling? MR. DROVDLIC: Yeah, probably Al -- Al would probably need to know that better, or Lauren. So, yeah, there was some remediation that needed to be done that -- in one of the environmental reports they found some -- I don't know what kind of chemicals, but -- why don't you come up and explain that. So we'll have Lauren Evans, she's a representative from -- she's a project management from Creighton, and she's been intimately involved in all those aspects. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. EVANS: So the Phase 1 found some -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: State your name for us, ma'am. MS. EVANS: Oh. Lauren Evans with Creighton. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. EVANS: Found some Dieldrin, which is a type of pesticide used for usually crops that were grown historically. Samples were tested over time, and we got an SRCO, which means no further action required from the state. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That answers my question. MS. EVANS: All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If you could, it's a really basic question. So it's L shaped, but then the subject property is somewhat of a square. I'm just trying to figure out the -- what's the difference between the L shape and the square? MR. WRIGHT: Well, that's a good question. I think it might relate to the plat, because the plat itself -- I may have a copy of it here. It basically created two lots. One of the lots is L shaped. That's the western -- to the west of this parcel, and the parcel at issue is Lot No. 1, and that's the more square shape. So it's a two-lot plat. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So is the PUD just for the 3.04 square? MR. WRIGHT: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. And then what is the designation? It will just remain the same for C-4? MR. WRIGHT: It's C-4, yes, and that's why you see partial repeal of the existing zoning 5/6/2021 Page 48 of 99 ordinance designating it C-4. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have that on Page 900 of the 3,000-page agenda packet, for anyone who wants to find it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Other questions or comments? Mr. Wright, I have a couple. In our telephone conversation of -- whenever it was, Tuesday? MR. WRIGHT: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That you indicated a willingness to accept as a condition of approval that there would be an interconnect to the west. Now, you've got it shown on the map as a potential interconnection. I don't think it matters to us exactly where that would be as long as there's some commitment for an interconnection to the west, and that's agreeable with you, and we could put that in as a condition of approval; is that correct? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir, it is agreeable to us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. And then there was a discrepancy between the peak p.m. trip cap. You were talking about 459, and staff was at 157. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it might have been a difference of how it was computed. Have you come to agreement with staff on that? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. Staff has proposed a condition that this relates to Exhibit F. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: And the discrepancy -- there's two numbers; 459 is -- I would call it the gross p.m. peak hour; 157 is the net p.m. peak hour. And the difference, the delta of 302 trips, is because this type of facility uses a lot of pass-by traffic; captures traffic rather than generates it. So we have our traffic consultant here. That's my layperson's version of it. But the bottom line is the 157 is the net number, and we're comfortable with it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And so when we hear from staff, they're going to be comfortable with it as well? MR. WRIGHT: I believe so. They're the ones that proposed it as a condition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anyone else have questions or comments of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, we'll hear from staff. And, Mr. Bellows, is that you? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. The applicant went into really good detail on what the project is about. This is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, the Immokalee CRA is supporting of it, and staff is recommending approval subject to some language similar to this, if the applicant concurs -- this is in regard to interconnection to the west -- and to the other staff stipulations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good, sir. Any questions or comments for staff? Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I know it sounds like we don't have any business asking this question, but why would we waive a 500-foot requirement to an adjacent station? I mean, somebody decided they needed to be 500 feet apart. Why would we waive that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that before us? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. It's an information question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I see. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm gathering, from what I heard, it gets approved by the commissioners. But why would we waive a criteria like that unless the criteria is not valid? 5/6/2021 Page 49 of 99 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The intent of these distance waivers -- and we have them for other uses, such as for bars there's a distance waiver. The idea is we didn't necessarily want a block of similar uses congregating at all the intersections of the same use. So if you have a distance-separation requirement it helps spread out those similar uses so you don't get the block of same uses. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's not a health-and-safety issue? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's just -- okay. MR. BELLOWS: It's an esthetic thing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions? Go ahead, Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you're changing -- there's already interconnection language in here. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Why would it change? MR. BELLOWS: And this helps clarify that interconnection to nail it down a little bit better. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's agreed upon by everyone? MR. BELLOWS: Well, we did send it, but I think I had a bad -- a wrong e-mail address, so I'm hoping they concur with it. MR. WRIGHT: We concur. For the record, Jeff Wright. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, public comment; do we have any of that? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: We have no public participation for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. No one in the room wishes to be heard on this, I take it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then without objection, we will close public comment and have deliberation up here on the dais. Who would like to start? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Entertain a motion then. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion to approve PL2020000 looks like -- yeah -- 756, Immokalee 7-Eleven service station as amended or as proposed by the applicant and amended by staff. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Vernon seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And would you -- the movant and the seconder accept the friendly amendment that the condition of approval on the interconnect be included? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The interconnect? CHAIRMAN FRYER: To the west. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It includes all the stipulations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It includes all the stipulations -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- by staff report. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. 5/6/2021 Page 50 of 99 COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was way too easy. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: When are we reconvening? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's talk about that. It's 12:04. Would anybody object if we cut it slightly lower than an hour and came back at 1:00 p.m.? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then without objection, we stand in lunch recess until 1:00 p.m. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:04 p.m. to 1:04 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. ***I believe the next item on the agenda is the RLSA Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA, which is legislative in nature. It's back to us for recommendation of approval, and it's PL20190002292. And with that, the Chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. I'll wait for someone to mute their phone. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's Joe. If I knew where it was, I would get it. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Good afternoon. Anita Jenkins, the Zoning director. Today we are here for the adoption of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. And just for the history of where we were and where we are now, in September of 2020, the Planning Commission heard the transmittal of the amendments over three hearings, I believe, a month and a half of full days and transmitted the amendments with no changes to the Board of County Commissioners 5-1. In November 2020, the Board heard the RLSA amendments and recommended approval for transmittal with no changes; a vote of 4-1. The amendments were then transmitted to the state agencies for review, and we have those review comments back. They are in your packet, and I'm going to go through those with you. So today we are at the adoption hearing. So the state agencies that provided comment, first of all, was the South Florida Water Management District. Their comments provided were no adverse impacts to water resources. Florida Fish and Wildlife provided comments on the amendments. Their letter indicated that they had no comments, recommendations, or objections related to the listed species and their habitat. FDOT provided comment, and they had no significant adverse impacts to transportation resources or facilities. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection provided correspondence that said no adverse impacts to air and water pollution, wetlands, and other surface water, federal and state lands, and interested lands. The final agency comments received were from the Department of Economic Opportunity. That is the department that provides community planning review and review of Growth Management Plan amendments. They provided three comments to us, and we would like the opportunity to address those comments. And their first comment was to update statutory references. Staff has updated all statutory references included in the ordinance that you have before you today. The second comment was on Policy 4.75, affordable housing, and they suggested as a 5/6/2021 Page 51 of 99 comment that we should establish a definition of proximal and alternative options as it relates to that policy. So staff recommends amending the policy to do just that. In Policy 4.75, to add to that policy that we should include a definition of proximal SRA and to provide guidelines and standards in the instances where alternative options may be available to an applicant. Those would be set forth in the Land Development Code. The final comment was on Policy 4.18, the fiscal impact analysis, and the comment was to revise the policy to define the time frame upon which the application must be fiscally neutral. And so staff is recommending an amendment to the Policy 4.18 to do just that with adding in there that the SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the SRA horizon year based on the public facilities impact assessment as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. And with that, I just would like to note that it was brought to our attention between the time of transmittal and when we came back to you that the Word document that we were working with did not have all of the amendments in there. We have corrected that. We are grateful for that catch and grateful to bring you back the ordinance that's accurate and correct. Staff consistency recommendations. It was pointed out to us after transmittal that in Policy 4.9 we had a discussion about how you can use Water Resource Areas. Water Resource Areas can be used for sending areas to generate credits. They can also be used for water management treatment with -- subject to an SRA or a receiving area. So we have tried to clarify that language in Policy 4.9 to say that the primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is prohibiting them from locating in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. So we're adding back in that WRA, but then we qualify that to say that unless the WRA is being used to provide water-quality treatment for the SRA. So the double underline is what is changing in this policy. We have received additional correspondence that is in your packet on this policy for further clarification, and that will be discussed by another speaker. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So right above where it says SRAs in FSAs, do you see that, locating SRAs and FSAs? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And then we have a dash that's being added. I'm just trying to figure out the grammar. So it's SRAs and FSAs, and then we have HSAs in there, but is that "and"? MS. JENKINS: No. So the double strikethrough is the update. So we had amended it to have an "and," but we're correcting that now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Why don't you read the sentence as it should be read. The primary -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah. So just starting from locating SRAs in FSAs and HSAs and WRAs unless the WRA is being used to provide water-quality treatment for the SRA in which case the WRA acreage shall be included in the SRA. So, again, it's -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We're getting rid of that "and" because there's an "and" that comes after the HSAs? MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Got it. Okay. Sorry about that. MS. JENKINS: That's all right. It's confusing. Last consistency recommendation here, it goes back to the topic we talked about earlier today and level of service for the parks. So we had suggested amendments for the -- or for the parks but in that amendment what we created was a park square footage that was above and beyond a community and regional park, and we were mixing the two. And we should not do that because 5/6/2021 Page 52 of 99 they're different impact fees. So we are removing that change and making them subject to the level-of-service requirement. So the community park requirement will be maintained at 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the town subject to level-of-service requirements. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So then if you could, you know, we have 5,000 acres from -- 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/nor neighborhoods. When we see the word "villages and/or neighborhoods," are those colloquial usages or defined usages of those -- the term "villages" and the term "neighborhoods"? MS. JENKINS: I think that unless you see SRA, a village could be associated with an SRA. So it could be -- it could be made of several villages, yes, similar to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I guess -- let me rephrase then. So Ave Maria, I guess you could say, has villages or neighborhoods, but it doesn't have anything that's legally defined as a village; whereas, you could -- you know, we've been talking about it earlier today, you could actually, I guess, have a bunch of villages that then were aggregated into a town. That's not what we were doing, of course, we heard, you know, because they didn't include the other two villages. It was just the one village changing or transitioning into a town. My question simply is, what does that mean, "comprised of several villages"? Because it's confusing. It's confusing to me, and I am steeped in this more than a lot of people just because I've, you know, been paying attention for a long time. MS. JENKINS: So, yes, that could be comprised of several SRA villages and/or neighborhoods. So you could come in with one -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It could just mean -- MS. JENKINS: It does not have to be, no. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It doesn't have to be an SRA village. It could just be within the SRA, a village. It doesn't have to be -- MS. JENKINS: If they want to call that, yeah, a village, yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, is the intent -- I guess, is the intent here to be referring to an SRA village? MS. JENKINS: I think you can interpret it that way, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Then I think we should be more clear about that, because otherwise it just -- it looks like a colloquial term that could mean anything, and if it's a legal term, then we should make it clear that it's a legal term, and I don't know how we do that, but -- and, you know, maybe the other commissioners don't agree with me, but I think that's pretty significant -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I, for one, take your point. MS. JENKINS: Yeah, and if it's your desire, we're happy to add "SRA" in front of "village" to clarify that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MS. JENKINS: So in Attachment C, we also refer to community parks, and we would make that adjustment so it is consistent with the amendments we just discussed in Policy 4.7.1. So staff recommends approval of the RLSA overlay amendments as they further the objectives of protecting and restoring natural habitat and flowways, retaining agricultural land, planning for future growth and economic diversification. So the next steps in the process will be for this to go to the Board of County Commissioners. It is scheduled currently for June 8th on their agenda, and then following the action of the Board, we would begin with the implementing LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Mr. Chair, what's your intent? Do you want to 5/6/2021 Page 53 of 99 walk through this page by page, or how do you want to -- each of us ask questions that we have? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think it's up to us how we want to proceed. I'm going to revisit pretty much all of the questions and concerns I had before because I -- well, I'll explain why in a moment. But whatever the -- whatever the wish of the -- well, I'm guessing that staff would prefer to be able to make their presentation, or perhaps you've reached the endpoint? MS. JENKINS: We have reached the endpoint. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. JENKINS: We would like to, you know, focus on what we're here today -- to look at the amendments that we have made since transmittal and, you know, the record stands from the CCPC meeting when everyone had three days of testimony. We would hope to focus this on the items at hand today. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me say one thing. With all due respect, I felt as though the first time around with this -- and I do not blame you, Ms. Jenkins, but at a level above you, we were very, very discouraged from making any changes. And when you referred to statutory updates, those weren't updates at all. Those were errors that I pointed out to Mr. Cohen, and they weren't changed because I strongly suspect staff was -- had been instructed that there will be no changes coming from the Planning Commission, not even to check the statutory references. And, again, I don't hold you responsible for that. You were doing your job. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to visit these points de novo because I think -- I think they're worthy of consideration and, as a result of the way this was presented last time around, I don't think they received adequate consideration. So having said that, I'm open to go page by page if that's the -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just curious. Are there any other presenters or objectors or anybody else? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sure there's going to be public speaking. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I just wanted to ask Ms. Jenkins a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what I got from your presentation, the ultimate conclusion was that what's back before us has been modified primarily for style, clarity, and accuracy and to incorporate the suggestions of the body that made some suggestions. The -- who was that body? MS. JENKINS: The Department of Economic Opportunity. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And other than that, what's before us is not substantively changed? MS. JENKINS: No. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And I guess you disagree with that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I do. I do not believe that when this was before us at the time of transmittal that we were given a fair opportunity and that senior -- most senior staff at that time was receptive even to changes having to do with erroneous citations that went up to Tallahassee and got corrected and sent back, which to me would have been embarrassing, particularly since I had raised them. So you may say that I still have this in my craw; I do. And I'm going to want to go through all of these and find out why we can't make these adjustments, and I think that the environment now is different, and I appreciate that. And I think Ms. Jenkins has indicated a willingness to at least hear our concerns, and we can have the kind of a discussion that I believe we need to have and I think we should have. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm very deferential to whatever my fellow board members want to do. But my druthers would be to hear from everybody before we go through line by line or anything of that nature. 5/6/2021 Page 54 of 99 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Other -- any others want to weigh in on how we proceed? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just two questions. The Eastern Property Owners Association and Barron Collier both sent in letters which were provided to us as well. Did you take into consideration their comments and make any changes based on the letters that they sent? MS. JENKINS: No. No changes were made to the ordinance itself with the exception of updating the statutory references. The recommendations are in the staff report. And the Eastern Collier Property Owners and Barron Collier that provided comment are here today to address those with you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So what's the will of Planning Commission? Do we want to hear everybody first and then go to our substantive points point by point, or do we want to go page by page? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's good to hear the public input, and then we can address based on the public input, make recommendations or changes, because it's going to bring up issues that came up, especially during the last three petitions we heard. I say it's somewhat unfortunate because we had transmittal, then we had the three petitions, and now there's language we know in some of these documents that certainly is in need of clarity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Indeed. Amen. Thank you. All right. Without objection, we'll proceed -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was being kind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Well, diplomatic. Thank you. So without objection from the Planning Commission, we'll hear everyone out first, and then we will have our full discussion. Obviously, if anybody needs clarification as we continue along, that will be -- that will be allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's no prohibition during -- between transmittal and adoption of making any other substantive changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. I mean, this is part of the process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It may not be as elegant as -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you're correct as you described it. All right. So, Ms. Jenkins, are we going to hear anything more from staff at this point, and do you recommend that we hear from another party or go to public speakers? MS. JENKINS: Public speakers now, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have eight public speakers who are with us today. Rich Yovanovich is first, followed by April Olson. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Yovanovich, you're recognized. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich here on behalf of the Barron Collier Companies. You should have received a letter from Mr. Genson requesting a modification to Policy 4.20 or 2-0, however you want to refer to it, with regard to the size of towns. And Ave Maria, obviously, is an approved town that occurred many years ago, and at that time you did not include public-benefit areas such as the university against the acreage for a town. So Ave Maria was approximately 4,000 acres, and then the university itself was another 1,000 acres. You're seeking to go to 5,000 acres for a town; however, now you're going to include or count the public benefit-areas against that 5,000-acre cap. So what we're asking you to do is to, for approved SRAs, specifically in my particular instance the Town of Ave Maria, not apply the 1,000 acres against the 5,000-acre cap. 5/6/2021 Page 55 of 99 Now, I recognize you're also limiting the acreage in the open area to 45,000 acres. The 1,000 acres of the university would still apply against that 45,000-acre cap, but we would be able to come in and add some adjacent parcels to the town to bring them into the town instead of doing two adjacent villages is our request. So our request is for this language to be added to the Comprehensive Plan for SRAs that have been approved prior to the adoption date of these changes. And with that, I'm available to answer any questions -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if you have any. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to begin by asking our County Attorney, is there a vested-rights issue here? MR. KLATZKOW: Rich, are you asking that the Town of Ave Maria be grandfathered in? In other words, whatever benefits there may be for these changes would not inure to the Town of Ave Maria as -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We would want -- MR. KLATZKOW: So you want the benefits but you don't want any of the downside to it. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're saying is, obviously -- MR. KLATZKOW: Because I'm happy to exclude the Town of Ave Maria from all of these changes. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. That's not what we're asking for. What we're asking is we would like to see the Town of Ave Maria itself be allowed to go to the 5,000 acres and not count the university acreage against that 5,000 acres. We know you can't affect what's already been approved but, obviously, there was some logic to be able to have towns larger than the 4,000 acres. I don't know that there was a discussion about the specifics of one town out there having a rather large university as part of that town. We could have, perhaps, structured it differently to have the town -- the university itself not be part of the town. But we would, obviously, go through the process of amending the town, and we could talk about the specifics of that as we bring that application forward. I'll put up on the visualizer, there's a couple of parcels that make sense to add to the Town of Ave Maria. I don't know how well you're going to be able to see the red line. Not at all. When you look at the town right here -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure you're being picked up by the mic. MR. YOVANOVICH: We used to have a portable one. The town outline is roughly right here, okay, and that includes the university. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oil Well Road is at the bottom. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this piece is not in the town, and these pieces right up here are not in the town. It might make some sense to bring those parcels into the town and not structure those as separate villages. And we would like the opportunity to bring those parcels in for consideration as a part of an amendment to the Ave Maria SRA. I know there was -- and, again, I just want to make sure we're clear. We're not trying to exclude the university from the 45,000-acre cap in the overlay, so that's not what we're trying to do. We're just trying to simply be able to bring in adjacent parcels into the town for consideration of adding those to the town. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Yovanovich? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Okay. So I know -- I happen to know just because I drive by it all the time, that in the lower right-hand corner adjacent to Oil Well -- on the corner of Oil Well and Camp Keais, that is a sod farm, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that would be the proper terminology -- reference, yes. 5/6/2021 Page 56 of 99 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So, I mean, it's -- basically it's just flat land that sod is growing on. That's been my observation. So it doesn't seem, you know, to be environmentally -- particularly environmentally sensitive or important as far as, you know, among the acreage that we'd want to preserve. And then what is in the other corner; what's there? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's also -- that's also farmland, and we would -- we'd have to meet all the requirements. We're just asking for the ability to bring those lands into the town instead of doing two separate SRA villages. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So then I guess I would have a question for staff, and maybe you have an opinion about this. But my question would be, what is -- what is the reason and the benefit to having the cap at, you know, an acreage so that -- you know, because I drive by that sod farm all the time and I say, some day that's going to be developed and part of this community. You know, however that looks, I don't know. You know, but it's just so obvious that this flat land at the entrance to Ave Maria is some day going to be part of the community, but right now they don't have -- you know, they haven't put that into the SRA program, and so it's not. My question simply is, what would be the reason policy-wise to be against just annexing that and, you know, including it in the existing SRA, other than this desire to have an acreage cap? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Because I think that's a really important thing. If there's a really good reason policy-wise, you know, that makes sense, but it also might make sense to have an exception. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: So staff is not objecting to this policy. I think that when you are trying to build in proximity where you have utilities there already, it's better than leapfrogging and going somewhere else. It's just a different application process. If you already have a town plan and annexing that in or amending that town plan to bring in those neighborhoods versus another village, we haven't done the analysis of exactly what the mix of uses would be, so there might be some differences there. But it's the same difference, just a different application process. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And what I'm -- I mean, I appreciate that answer. The reason I'm asking is because I'm just wondering if there's a benefit to having a village there versus having an annexation that has a lot of, you know, restrictions and conditions placed upon it that would give us similar benefit to, you know -- well, that would try to comply with the reasons that we have the whole RLSA program, not get out of that, but why have an extra village for that sod farm, you know, when it could possibly be next to what we have there but for this hard cap on the acreage that's in an SRA? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: So it's the same. It's just a different process. So I don't know what the differences will be if it was a village -- we haven't done that analysis -- versus bringing it into a town. It's going to depend on the number of units that they have, what they're proposing, and then how that relates back to the goods and services, and they will still have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but they will have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a town rather than a village, and I think that that's what -- what we're hearing more and more is we want towns out there. So by amending Ave Maria, they will have to be consistent with the town rather than the village if they did a separate application for a village. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which is actually more burdensome to the applicant? Is that fair to say that or no? MS. JENKINS: I couldn't say it's more burdensome. It's just different. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And our next public speaker, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just wanted to follow up on Jeff's comment. I know he made it sort of jokingly, but can you elaborate on -- 5/6/2021 Page 57 of 99 MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm not joking. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, tell me what you say; you want the benefits without the burdens. MR. KLATZKOW: If we're going to start talking about vested-rights analysis, I'm happy to carve Ave Maria out and say, okay, the rules that existed at the time, you know, you created all those rules, but you can't come in and cherry-pick, well, this new rule is good for me and this new rule is bad for me, so I don't want the bad rule, but I'll take the good rule. So if you want a vested right, okay, I will vest you the rights you had at the time that we approved you, all right, but when we're modifying the entire program, that does not mean I get to choose, like a Chinese menu, I'll take this, but I won't take that and that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: So this is not a vested -- from my standpoint this is not a vested-rights issue. Now, if the Board of County Commissioners wants to carve this out as an exception, that's fine. That's a legislative process. But if what we're asking for is vested rights, that's a different conversation. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Thank you. And then I just had a follow-up, because my concern, before he explained that, and it remains after he says that, even though a lot of what's being said by Anita and Rich -- and Robb -- sorry to call you Rich -- is that we seem to be dealing with this as -- we're talking about a big-picture rule, and we're talking about making an exception for one group, which I think is another way of saying what you're saying. And so I'm not -- we may want to do this, but I just don't like the concept of saying, I want -- we're talking about a really big-picture rule but we're going to make an adjustment because one of the players on the field wants this adjustment. That's my concern. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, is the issue here the university? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. The fact that we have a 1,000-acre university -- MR. KLATZKOW: There is not going to be another university out there -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- in all substantial probability. That we got a university out there is a miracle in itself. But, you know, if the language wants to be tweaked so that university is outside the scope, I don't have an issue with that, because they're the only ones. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're willing to be bound by all the burdens of the new application for the lands we're adding. It's just that it's an oddball situation that you have a 1,000-acre university that's part of the very first town that came through this process, and you're talking about you obviously want 5,000-acre towns now. We'd like to be able to do the natural expansion in that area, but we're hampered because of the university that started the program in the very beginning. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, and I understand the ying and yang of it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, that's why I -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's the conceptual more than a practical concern. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's why I asked the questions I did, because I see this -- you know, again, obviously, I have a very particular view as having lived out there and, you know, been part of this community but also paying attention to all the rules and the parameters, you know, and learning more and more about this as I'm more familiar with these things as a new planning commissioner. But the point being that if it makes sense for this community to grow, there's a way we could do it differently than the current rule would allow, and I -- you know, I've said earlier today, I generally am -- I push back a lot against our developer. I really do. That's what I'm known for in our community is always asking pesky questions, obnoxious questions sometimes, but -- because I always am wondering what's really going on, you know, and I really push hard. 5/6/2021 Page 58 of 99 In this particular case, you know, my -- I'm just looking at what makes the most sense to -- for growth in this area where we say we're going to have growth and without putting a lot of hamstring, you know, on it. We don't have this -- this university, which is a unique situation. By the way, I will make a plug for my son. Second child to be graduating on Saturday. But it's the -- it seems as though there's a way that we could give an exception in some way for this natural growth to happen without it being a village which, in my mind, there would be so much involved in that that wouldn't really be beneficial. We would be following the rule by having a village. We would be following the rule, and despite the fact of what would probably be most logical and best for that community, and I would like to avoid that. That's why I, you know, raised the issue, is that -- is there something that we can do here to not end up in that situation. And, you know, I think that -- looking at the university and saying that's unique and it probably will remain unique is a good way to -- you know, to frame it initially to see if an exception makes sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: When we finish hearing from the public and we're having a deliberative discussion about this, I think we should return to this, and all the other subjects are going to be raised, if that works for the Planning Commission. Without objection, are we ready to hear from the next speaker? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next public speaker is April Olson followed by Judith Hushon. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Olson. MS. OLSON: I've got my presentation here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we won't start the clock until you're ready to go. MS. OLSON: Good afternoon, again. April Olson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our over 6,400 supporting families. Collier County made a promise to its citizens that the RLSA amendments would not result in more than 45,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Areas and that no excess credits over 404,000 would be created. The promise was stated in numerous documents. A few of the sources are provided on this slide. The reason for this promise was because the proposed amendments will add thousands of additional stewardship credits. So if the credit count and the number of credits required per acre is wrong, then the RLSA has a potential to allow development far beyond the 45,000 acres. And no one wants a repeat of 2002 when the public, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Planning Commission were all told right up to and including adoption day that only 16,800 acres of the RLSA would be developed when, in reality, without anyone's knowledge at the time, the program could actually generate credits for 250 percent more development than anyone had realized. So folks were stunned when they found this out in 2007 during the first review five years after adoption. The Conservancy does not want a repeat of the 2002 debacle, but we are concerned that this is where we are heading. We provided the county with comments regarding numerous errors and omissions within the 2020 credit analysis demonstrating that there will be vastly more excess credits than anticipated. We even asked for a meeting, and we heard nothing back. And our intention is not to blame or point the finger. Our intention is to get the credit count right so that history does not repeat itself. While a cap on credits and acreage is a good start, the cap -- that cap can be opened with one simple policy amendment, and I'll show you later why this is likely to happen. The following is a list of just some of the reasons why there will be excess credits and why we asked for an independent credit analysis at the transmittal hearings. Number one, the recommended number of credits required per SRA acreage -- acre of development was reduced from 13 to 10, and we found no justification. For reference, it currently takes eight credits to allow for one acres of SRA development; two, we found simple math errors which underestimated 5/6/2021 Page 59 of 99 the credits; and, three, the county's credit analysis showed that over 44,000 credits [sic] are proposed to be in the system but are not accounted for in the total credit count because of mathematical rounding down or discounting without proper justification. But even though those credits were removed from staff's credit count, they didn't just simply go away. The proposed amendments will still generate those credits that can be used toward development, and 44,000 credits is a huge number. It equates to six-and-a-half 1,000-acre villages using the average number of credits that Longwater and Bellmar will consume. Here's an example of credits being significantly rounded down. Table 6 of the county's 2020 credit analysis shows that staff calculated the potential for 189,609 total restoration credits; however, the paragraph below the table states that the total restoration credits have been rounded to 170,000 credits because there are a lot of variables for restoration. But none of these variables were analyzed, by the way. Ultimately, this is a reduction of 19,609 credits. Here's another instance where an additional 21,000 credits were discounted. Staff stated that the amendments would result in a total of 425,000 credits; however, the credit analysis simply states, quote, the Board direction to cap the stewardship credits at 404,000, and 45,000 acres would result in the potential for approximately 2,000 excess credits, which is about .04 percent of the total, therefore, the credit system does not create an unreasonable amount of excess credits with a cap of 404,000 credits, end quote. In reality, this is a 5 percent reduction in excess credits, not .04 percent. Nonetheless, the 21,000 credits from their analysis do not just magically disappear simply because the county wants to get to 404,000 credits. What should have occurred with the excess credits is that the number of credits required for each acre of development was increased to absorb these excess credits, and this brings us to our next point. Excuse me. I get thirsty when I talk a lot. Because the proposed amendments will significantly add stewardship credits, it is important to determine the correct number of credits per acre. Even RLSA landowners agree that with amendments the number of credits required per acre must be increased from eight. The county's August credit analysis recommended that the SRA credit ratio should change from eight credits per acre to 13 to ensure that there would be, again, no excess credits. But contrary to what the credit analysis determined, staff's final recommendation was to reduce the number of credits per acre to 10 without providing justification. A reduction of stewardship credits from 13 to 10 is a multi-million-dollar decision that favors the landowners, because the three additional credits per acre allow 23 percent more development. We found no analysis in the county's documents supporting this change. We also found simple math errors. Here is just one example. Table 5 of the county's credit analysis shows that 1,900 credits could be restored as seasonal wetlands. The 1,900 -- I'm sorry, acres could be restored as seasonal wetlands. The 1,900 acres of seasonal wetland restoration would generate a total of 7,600 credits, and here's where the error is. The county's analysis provided four credits per acre for seasonal wetland restoration, but the actual policy amendment states that 10 credits per acre can be earned for seasonal wetland restoration; two for designating the lands and eight for the actual restoration work. When 1,900 acres is multiplied by 10 credits per acre, the total number of credits should be 19,000, not 7,600. This is an underestimation of 11,400 credits. And in our short presentation today, we demonstrated to you 52,000 unaccounted excess credits, but through our analysis we believe there are over 200,000 excess credits. The program is incredibly complex, so mistakes are understandable. But isn't the future of Collier County worth getting it right? I'm sure you all know that these amendments are strongly endorsed by a group called Eastern Collier Property Owners, or ECPO. Right now 12 members of ECPO have on the table plans to develop all 45,000 acres, leaving nothing for the rest, but there are other landowners. 5/6/2021 Page 60 of 99 Here's a quote from ECPO's plan -- development plan where they state that there are 20,000 acres of land that they do not own, but that these lands can later be added into their development plan. Those 20,000 acres are shown in solid peach or, actually, they're circled here. The 640-acre Hyde Park is an example of non-ECPO lands. So the question is, what will Collier County tell those other landowners when the 45,000-acre cap of development is reached by ECPO? Since we just showed you that there are a significant number of excess credits and we showed you that there are other landowners besides ECPO, it is only a matter of time when the county will feel pressure to open up that cap. In conclusion, an accurate credit analysis was not provided to ensure the public that there will be no excess credits as promised. Furthermore, because we know that there's significant excess credits, the number of proposed credits per acre of 10 is also inaccurate. We ask that you avoid another repeat of the 2002 credit blunder by recommending denial of Policies 1.22, 2.22, 3.11, and 4.19, as those policies significantly modify and increase the total number of stewardship credits. Development plans for Eastern Collier are moving at a fast pace. We have to get it right. John Wooden, one of the most successful basketball coaches in history says, if you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over? This pretty much sums up the situation in the RLSA. Please do not endorse those amendments; ensure Collier County keeps its promise to its current citizens of no excess credits. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Have you done -- the analysis you did was internal, right? The Conservancy did that? MS. OLSON: No. We provided a 32-page recommendations comment letter, and at the end of it was a credit analysis. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Independent? MS. OLSON: We sent it into staff. We sent it into staff. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, no. You said at the beginning of your presentation that an independent analysis should be done. MS. OLSON: Oh, yes, yes. Oh, we recommended an independent analysis -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: So you haven't done it? MS. OLSON: -- during the transmittal. Yes, we've internally looked at the credits, and we've made comments on that. Did I answer your question? COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. MS. OLSON: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I thought at the beginning you suggested an independent analysis be done as though it hadn't been done; is that correct? MS. OLSON: Oh, yes, correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Who do you suggest pay for that? MS. OLSON: Well, Collier County has been hiring third parties to review economic assessments, so -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Just asking. Collier County? MS. OLSON: Yes. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do you have an estimate on what it might cost? MS. OLSON: I do not, no, but this was also recommended by Mr. Van Lengen, the gentleman who wrote the original white paper, and during the five-year review by the county's outside legal counsel. So we're not the only ones that are recommending this. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And then my other question: The reduction of the 13 credits to 10 credits, when did that occur? 5/6/2021 Page 61 of 99 MS. OLSON: So the 13 credits was what was provided in the -- from the county, which was recommended by the county -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm just looking for a year. When did that occur? MS. HUSHON: 2020. MS. OLSON: 2020. That was in their August credit analysis, the 13. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. MS. OLSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, April, these are pretty significant issues that you uncovered. I mean, it certainly lends to the validity, and -- what do I want to call it -- kind of truth in lending here from the standpoint of -- but you've got no feedback at all from the county on this as regards -- because you're talking about credits and math errors and other types of issues. I'd be anxious to hear the county's rebuttal as to -- do they -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask Ms. Jenkins -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do they not believe what you stated, or you never got any feedback or -- MS. OLSON: We never got any feedback. We sent -- first -- the first time I tried to meet with Mr. Van Lengen, and he shortly resigned. We have subsequently tried to meet with staff after we sent in our comments a couple times, and staff told you that they never received our comments. But we did -- and I'm not trying to throw anyone under the bus. I just want to get the credit system right but, unfortunately, we were told -- you were told that they never received comments from us. But we do have e-mail confirmations. I've sent them to Mr. Klatzkow. So we have tried. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Of course, I don't care who did what to whom. MS. OLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's the matter of I want to have it corrected. And if something's going to be passed that's incorrect, I'm going to ask at some time, at staff rebuttal, if they're going to rebut, whether these issues need to be addressed and, frankly, whether we just should terminate until these issues are addressed and this is brought back and the corrections are made. MS. OLSON: Yeah. Now, the math error that we showed you at the end, we just found that one, but the other stuff was all in our comments before. And there are other issues -- we believe there's over 200,000 excess credits, and that's all in our report that we had sent to staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that's pretty significant. I mean, I guess I'm going to look at my colleagues here and say -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask Ms. Jenkins to come up next. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because, frankly, if it has to go back to staff and have corrections made and come back to us, then that's what we ought to do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I -- if I may, ma'am, I just want to preface it by saying, I realize you're in a difficult position. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I -- and not, in my belief at least, of your making. But you're here to defend a situation and a process. And I want to cite our colleague Karl Fry who, at the end of a recent meeting, observed that staff seems to be changing its position rather too frequently over the last year or two on major matters. And that was the very kind of thing -- I mean going back to Chris Van Lengen's work that worried me and was upsetting. And having said that -- and I'm not placing blame on you individually. I'd like to ask you for an explanation of how it went down from 13 to 10. MS. JENKINS: Sure. I'm glad to provide that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. 5/6/2021 Page 62 of 99 MS. JENKINS: And I would preface it as "it evolves." We're not changing; we are evolving. When the credit analysis was first done, what we were looking at is the Board had a policy, and the Board directed us to come back with a cap of 45,000 acres and 404,000 credits with no excess credits. So the first time we did the credit analysis, we said, what does it take to get to no excess credits, and that's where that balance and that ratio came in at around 13 per acre. So -- but if you go back to the Board's direction of 10 -- it also had 10 credits per acre. So it's a matter of following the Board's direction, and their policy direction to us was 45,000 acres, 404,000 credits, and 10 credits per acre. So that was the policy direction. In regards to the excess credits, credits are not approved unless the Board approves them with an SSA application. So it's the Board's prerogative to deny an SS [sic] application if it comes in over 404,000 credits. If they say, we have met the cap of 45,000 acres, we're not going to approve another credit, we're at the cap. There are no excess credits over 404,000 that can be generated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So if the Board, in your view, had not expressed this policy that led to arithmetic of reducing 13 to 10, would it be -- if the Board had not done that, would it be your view that the proper number is 13 or 10 or some other number? MS. JENKINS: It could -- you know, it could be any number. So we're following the Board's direction of that, and we were looking at what's that balance there. But we go to Board direction. And so the Board's direction to us, again, was 10 credits per acre. And in the excess credits that are being described here, it goes back to looking at the assumptions in any type of report. If you assume that every single acre in the RLSA can achieve restoration, then, of course, you're going to get a lot more credits. But as we know, there are a lot of area out there in flowway and habitat area that would not be viable for restoration. They just wouldn't meet that measure. So it's the assumptions that are important and any of the credit analysis and to assume that every acre can be eligible, and I think that that's where the difference in the language comes up is that it was interpreted by others as eligible meaning that it would be restored. It is eligible for restoration, but that doesn't make it make sense for restoration. They're only going to do restoration where it makes sense to do restoration and, again, those restoration plans are approved by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And thank you. And, I mean, that's a candid answer, and I get it, but I'm just trying to identify -- we've got two things going on. We've got policy, which the Board sets, that's its prerogative, but then we're -- also is the question of accuracy. And there may be a divergence there. In your view, knowing what you know and for a moment putting aside the policy that the Board has announced, would you say that Mr. Van Lengen got it wrong? MS. JENKINS: Got what wrong? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The 13. MS. JENKINS: I think Mr. Van Lengen was looking at what -- if you took the assumptions that we had, and assuming that we agree to the assumptions that we had that put some in restoration, not all of the area in restoration, but some of the area in restoration, if you use those assumptions, and you wanted to try to get to a net zero of 440 [sic] under those assumptions, you could change that ratio to 13. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe you've answered the question. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So I guess -- I want to look at Policy 1.22. It's on Page 230 in the 3,000-page agenda that I got off the website, the county website. So Policy 1.22 -- are you looking at it with me? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Are you looking at the same page, do you think? 5/6/2021 Page 63 of 99 MS. JENKINS: I'm looking at the policy. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. It's underlined. MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So am I right to say that that says that you can only develop 45,000 acres into -- you can only grant 45,000 acres the status of SRA? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That would be capped no matter what? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So even if there were 100,000 extra credits that magically appeared through, you know, however, because we had bad assumptions or bad, you know, otherwise, analysis, even if there were 200,000 extra credits, under Policy 1.22, could -- if we were going to follow that, could you grant SRA status to more than 45,000 acres? MS. JENKINS: Comprehensive Planning staff would find that inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. It would be noncompliant. MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you'd recommend disapproval. MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And in order to approve it, we would -- if we voted to approve something like that, we would be in gross contradiction to the written -- MS. JENKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- RLSA. MS. JENKINS: Uh-huh, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I'm kind of confused, then, as to why anyone would suggest that Policy 1.22 shouldn't be adopted, which is what I think I heard the Conservancy's advocate -- I don't want to address her because I'm going to just use her first name, and that's not fair. But when you were up here, I think that's what I heard you say. MS. JENKINS: Yes, it was -- I did write down 1.22. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I just -- I don't see how you could object to that if you were -- assuming all the other things that -- you know, you said about 200,000 extra acres [sic], I don't understand how you could still, then, object to Policy 1.22, because it seems to me that it mandates that you can't go over 45,000 acres. MS. JENKINS: Any further questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well -- and I guess I would ask, does anyone else, like, my fellow commissioners, see anything -- any way to read that otherwise? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I just -- personally, I think 45,000 is too high. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, right. Regardless of that, does this or does this not legally, as the language here, does it absolutely forbid 45,001 acres? Could you go over 45,000 acres if you followed this language if that was adopted? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not without changing the language, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I agree. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I'm not sure if I heard this right, but I thought April said there was a math error that was 19,000 credits. Do you agree with that? MS. JENKINS: Again, it would be based on the assumptions. I haven't read, you know -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, just numbers. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You grabbed this number, and you should have grabbed that 5/6/2021 Page 64 of 99 number. MS. JENKINS: So what we did in the analysis is we looked at the five-year analysis that was done, and then we did an analysis with the updated data, and we tried to -- for consistency, tried to look at those both together and average them to see where we would be because, again, it's all based on assumptions of what the landowners may or may not do, particularly as it relates to restoration. And what we did was we went back and looked at the types of restoration that have been applied for to date, and then we extracted that and pushed that forward. So if they've done so many acres of one type of flowway restoration, then we use that as a data point going forward for the other half of the flowways that there might be a potential to do the same. So we looked at the assumptions that were in the five-year and we updated that data to project that forward using the data that we had over this 20-year period as correct assumptions of what a landowner may or may not do. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. It just sounded a little more -- a little less complicated, like somebody just grabbed a wrong number. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I think that was -- yeah, that was because it was used for four acres instead of 8 or 10. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly; exactly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Or did you factor in the four because you kind of fudged -- not fudged that, but you kind of threw a number in there that would factor in that sum of acreage wouldn't actually be -- MS. JENKINS: I will look at that. Let me go -- let me look at that, because I need to read the restoration policy again on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll ask Ms. Olson to come back up, if we may. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just while I have Anita up here, so would you say under that Policy 1.22 that we're considering changed, Policy 1.22, that it would be first to ring the bell, so -- as far as the landowners? MS. JENKINS: What's your question again? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, that that policy then would say, whoever rings the bell first and gets to the 45,000 -- you know, the last acre that would be available for SRA designation, that's really how it would be determined. It's whoever's SRA gets approved up until we reach 45,000, and if you've sat on your right to petition to become an SRA, then your land would lose its rights once the 45,000th acre was designated as an SRA. MS. JENKINS: That's how this policy reads. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then is there -- I guess a legal question is that -- is there, you know -- are there rights, then, or is there some right that we're overlooking that the landowner who was -- who sat on his rights, you know, that they would have some right to come back and say, hey, wait a second, we didn't get to use our acreage and that's not fair. MS. JENKINS: Again, this is an overlay. You still have the underlying right of one unit per five acres. To get to the 45,000 acres, that assumes that you're doing agriculture production as well. So you're not just generating credits through habitat protection. But through these policies that we've introduced, we recognize the importance of agriculture as well. So we added agriculture credits into the program as well. And so that agriculture area that would be generating credits would otherwise -- could be an SRA, but the landowner is choosing to preserve that agriculture area and not develop it in an SRA, but preserve it in an SSA. So that's the difference. To get to 400 -- to 45,000 acres, these policies are incentivizing the protection of everything that's blue and green on the map, the habitat -- or the habitat areas, flowways areas, WRAs, and also the agriculture areas as well that will generate credits. That's how you get to the 45,000. 5/6/2021 Page 65 of 99 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. Olson, would you care to comment on that? MS. OLSON: Yeah. Well, I heard a couple questions. You mentioned 1.22 -- and I don't have the document in front of me, but I think that's the one that says max 45,000 acres and max 404,000 credits, right? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The total number of stewardship credit shall be capped at 404,000 -- MS. OLSON: Yeah. Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- to entitle no more than 45,000 acres of SRA. MS. OLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Generating stewardship credits does not presume approval of an SRA. MS. OLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it seems to address what, of course -- you know, I mean, you raise a good point. If there's all these credits out there and you have an absolute right to use them -- MS. OLSON: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- then if the math is wrong, then you could go over 45,000. I'm suggesting that what I see here actually addresses that, and even -- even explicitly states that just because you have the credits doesn't mean that you get your SRA. MS. OLSON: Yeah. So the reason why we oppose that policy is because, according to the county and to WilsonMiller or now Stantec, there are enough credits in the system for 43,300 acres, so that bumps it up to 45,000 acres. And we don't even have an accurate credit count, you know. So that's the reason for that. Back to that one -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're saying the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Hold on. But once we hit 45,000 SSAs -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: SRAs. MR. KLATZKOW: -- that ends it. MS. OLSON: Well -- but it -- my whole presentation was about how that policy can be amended easily and with -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, okay, but it's a piece of legislation. Dear God. Our next generation will come down here and do something different. But if your point is staff is calculating wrong, if I understand this, once we hit 45,000, that's the end of it absent future legislative changes. MS. OLSON: But it will -- there are 20,000 acres of other landowners. So with those excess credits, they're going to want to get access to them. That's our point. So the number of credits per acre should be recalibrated at a higher amount. First of all, calculate the correct number of acres and then recalibrate it so you have a correct number of credits per acre. The county's credit analysis said 13. Now it's been reduced to 10. We think it should be higher than 13 based on how many excess credits that are in the system. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it was at eight. It's currently at -- MS. OLSON: It's eight, but the amendments add a lot of credits, over 100 -- couple hundred thousand credits. So the recalibration needs -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Based on that. MS. OLSON: -- to be the correct number. Yeah, so you don't have -- you know, so you have that correct recalibration number. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So your concern is that because we're only saying 10 credits are necessary, that means less land is getting -- is being put into an SSA? MS. OLSON: That means you're going to have an additional -- if -- you know, staff's credit analysis says 13. Now we're at 10. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I understand. So what you're saying is if we went 5/6/2021 Page 66 of 99 with 13 instead of 10, then during the process of making 45,000 acres into a SRA land, you end up with less land that ends up being preserved because it's 10 per instead of 13 per. So your concern is that by using 10 instead of 13, you're not ascribing protection to as much land. MR. KLATZKOW: It's 13, not 10. I think what you want is less credits per acre? MS. OLSON: We want more credits per acre. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. OLSON: Yeah. To absorb those excess credits so that the development area doesn't balloon, you know, beyond -- really, we want -- we don't want it to balloon beyond that 43,000 acres, but beyond -- they're now saying 45-. But we believe -- we found many errors that there's way more excess credits. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, I don't understand how you're -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, I'm going to interrupt, if I may, respectfully, and ask everyone to try not to talk over everyone else, because the court reporter can only follow one person at a time. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. So for the 45,000 acres, let's just assume that that is a hard cap and no matter what, unless legislation changes, that that -- we can't go beyond that. There's no -- SRA acreage is capped at 45,000 no matter what, okay. So assuming that, if you -- if you -- and if you need 10 sending acres, which is less, then you're going to -- the sending acres are, in some form, preservation, correct, the sending area ends up being preserved in some way, correct? That's what a sending area is? MS. OLSON: I'm not understanding your question. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: An SSA is a preservation area, correct? MS. OLSON: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So we're saying 10 acres of SSA land per acre that gets developed. MS. OLSON: So that would be 100 credits according to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: A hundred credits, all right. Yeah, not acres. Ten credits for that acre? MS. OLSON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you think it should be 13 credits? MS. OLSON: Well, no. That's what staff's credit analysis said. We believe it should be higher because there are a lot more excess credits, and we want to ensure -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What's the net effect? How's this: What do you think is the net down -- you know, negative effect/impact of having 13 versus 10? So assuming that we can't go over 45,000 -- so don't tell me anything about that. We're capped at 45,000. Other than the SRA acreage, what's the downside of having 10 versus 13? MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Ms. Johnson, introduce yourself, and you're also a representative of the Conservancy. MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And the genesis of the idea of the 404,000 credits and the 45,000-acre cap came out of that initial five-year review, and the purpose was to ensure that the number of credits was really pinned down and the number of SRAs was really pinned down, because you didn't -- at the end of the program, at 45,000 acres, you didn't want to have any open lands still available for one unit per five acres. Really, the whole idea of this recalibration and adding credits was because right now we have 43,300 acres where SRAs could go. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Your concern is if we use 10 instead of 13, then there will be all this one -- MS. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- one house per five acres land still be -- 5/6/2021 Page 67 of 99 MS. JOHNSON: Correct, and that is what this whole credit recalibration was supposed to fix, and our concern is that if you don't actually properly estimate the number of credits that can be generated and then calibrate how many acres per credits of SRA, you're going to have 45,000 acres of SRAs, and you could have 20,000-plus acres available for one unit per five acres. MR. KLATZKOW: Which change are we making that that concerns you? Because this is an amendment to the RLSA. Which of these amendments? MS. OLSON: We listed them on our slide. MS. JOHNSON: That increase -- that increase the credits. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's 1.22, 2.2, 3.11, and 4.19. Those are the four you identified, which is a lot. I mean -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I would say that we keep 45,000 as a fixed number so it can't go higher, and so that's -- you know, that -- not allowing it to go higher, I would think, you know, especially if you're conservation, you would be -- you know, that would be something that's good, that it can't go higher than a certain number. So then you look at it -- and I think what I've heard staff say is that there's too many variables involved and unknowns involved in the 404,000 credits and -- you know, and the methodology to get there. And so I think what we're doing is we're saying, okay, well, at least we're capping the SRA, and as things evolve, what we'll -- you know, we'll learn more about how many credits, you know, are assigned. I mean, but do you agree that there's some uncertainty and there's an unknown? You know, we can't really know exactly what the calculation is for the 404,000 or the credits per acre of the sending area. MS. JOHNSON: No, I believe you can calculate the maximum number of credits that the program can generate, and the concern is that when that was done in 2002, it was stated that I think it was 134,000 credits; that would be the most at 100 percent participation the program could generate. And then we learned, because of the restoration credits that were added at the 11th hour prior to adoption, that you actually had more credits, and that credit number was bumped up to 315,000 credits, which equated to 43,300 acres worth of development. What the Conservancy wants is really a truth in advertising on this. If the county's wanting to cap SRAs at 45,000 acres and they're stating that they're wanting to do that in a manner that ensures we don't have the one per five, then you have to get those credit numbers and calculations right. I believe you can do that. We've certainly done a lot of credit calculations. It certainly can be done, and we're concerned that it has not been done properly, and we're asking that those portions of the amendments not go forward because we don't believe those numbers are right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, I forgot I was lit up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I -- I think, to boil it down even further, what you're trying to do as simple as possible, preserve as much land as you possibly can in exchange for developing the 45,000 acres; is that correct? MS. JOHNSON: With a caveat the Conservancy is concerned about the location of the 45,000 acres. We don't believe that 45,000 acres should be allowed. We think the number should be lower, but -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: But that's not -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- the discussion -- with respect to this discussion -- and it's super helpful to me if you just answer as directly as possible. MS. JOHNSON: Not a problem. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I know it's hard because you've got a lot invested in this. MS. JOHNSON: I've got to put the caveats in, but we'll try. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But it's more difficult for me to follow. It's easier. So you want to preserve as much as you can, within the context of this conversation, for -- in exchange 5/6/2021 Page 68 of 99 for developing 45,000 acres, you want to make sure that you preserve as much acreage as possible. MS. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think if I -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: And you're saying -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think there -- she's saying a little more than that. I think she's also talking about smart growth and moving away from one dwelling unit per five acres, which is not a smart growth scenario. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Right. But I think, indirectly, the more you preserve, the less chance of the one-per-five acres, correct? MS. JOHNSON: Ensuring that for 45,000 acres of SRAs all available credits will be used, which was the purpose, I believe, of this credit calculation and recalibration, yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Has that been the history? COMMISSIONER VERNON: And this is -- all sort of came about because you guys asserted that some of our -- some of the staff's numbers were incorrect. So I've got a little bit of frustration that we've got the staff's numbers; we've got your concerns about the staff numbers. I haven't heard from the staff that they've actually looked at your numbers and specifically determined which ones they may agree with or disagree with. But on the other side of the coin, you're suggesting there should be an independent analysis, but you didn't do one. So I'm kind of sitting here -- you know, the staff -- what's that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can't have people in the audience speaking, please. MS. JOHNSON: The recommendation for an independent analysis was not for the Conservancy to do that. That was a recommendation of staff at one point and staff's outside legal counsel back when this idea of adding credits was put in in the 2009 to '10 time frame, I believe. So the idea of the independent analysis was for the county to have done so that they could ensure that those credit numbers were correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And that was in 2010, that recommendation? MS. JOHNSON: I believe that, yes, Carlton Fields law firm, when the county first recommended credit changes, recommended an analysis be done of that. And I believe that in Mr. Van Lengen's white paper -- this might be outside of my area of direct knowledge -- but an independent credit analysis was recommended. We, too, were frustrated. We did submit a lot of concerns to staff. And we did not receive a response. We share the frustration. MS. OLSON: Yeah. And we -- yeah, we recommended that during the transmittal process, the independent analysis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are we ready to move on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: We have seven remaining speakers for this item. Judith Hushon is our next speaker. She has been ceded time from Gary Bromley. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And, Ms. Hushon, before you begin, I just want to observe it's quarter after 2:00. We would ordinarily take a break at 2:30. And so, you're speaking as an individual, so you'll be within that time. But I'm just looking forward to a 2:30 break, okay. Please proceed. MS. HUSHON: I want to address the Natural Resource Index scores. This has been a problem almost from the beginning. They need to be updated in these GMP amendments, and I'm not the first one saying this by any means. I'll kind of go down the list of who has said this. In 2002, WilsonMiller calculated scores for each one acre within the RLSA. These were NRI scores, and to this day staff is still using those old calculations. Most of the variables that go into the calculations are static, i.e., they don't change, only the land-use layer, because you could change a land use, and the threatened and endangered species present could change. Those are the 5/6/2021 Page 69 of 99 only two out of the eight numbers that go in to make up a Natural Resource Index score. When the Growth Management Plan was passed, the then County Attorney Nancy Linnan said she knew updates would be needed, and WilsonMiller agreed. At the time the Growth Management Plan was prepared, it was recognized that more needed to be known about Florida panthers and their required habitat. In 2002, there were only a few collared panthers, they had been collared in public lands like CREW and the panther reserve, and only daytime data at that time were available because that's the only time they were monitored. This has changed. County environmental staff recommended to the five-year review -- this is back in 2008/'09 -- committee, they recommended revisions to the RLSA program to better direct development away from listed species. In particular, the county staff pointed out that there were a number of panther deaths in open areas. These are these fields and -- roads and fields that the panthers were using, and the NRI needed to be revised to comport with the habitat matrix used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Their request was ignored. Since this time, several additional studies have been carried out with almost identical results. You've heard us mention the Kautz study for one. That's probably one that rings a bell. In 2010, Carlton Fields, a consultant hired to advise the county on what data and analysis were needed to support the amendments in the RLSA program -- you just heard that name -- told the county to use the best and most up-to-date data available. He particularly mentioned the recently completed panther study. Well, we now know that panthers use row crop -- row crop fields, range land, and citrus groves to hunt for prey, but they do this at night or at dusk. Each panther has a territory of about 200 square miles. Males can have up to 500. So the odds of seeing a panther, if you do an inspection on a site, are minuscule. But the panther could have been there last night or the week before. Primary and secondary panther habitats have been identified by expert panels in two studies listed in the document. I had sent you a document before. The experts also said that this land is required to maintain the species. Panther populations need to be connected, which means we need corridors set aside and protected. Recently, during the Rivergrass Village review, Ken Passarella said he didn't use the recent data -- recent collared panther data or more recent siting data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or FWCC. He only used the old 2002 data and plus what he gleaned from a series of inspections that were done during the dry season and during the day. We cannot continue to rely on the old data and science when more up-to-date information's available. This needs to be part of the Growth Management Plan amendments. We need to look at these NRI scores and update them with the latest science. We know the science now. We have a much better handle on it, and yet it's being denied completely. It's not included in any of the scoring system. Now, some of this goes in the Growth Management Plan; some of this goes into the Land Development Code. The real specifics end up in the Land Development Code. But unless the Growth Management Plan specifies that we are using the most current science, we don't have it. We don't have that update. We're relying on old 2002 data. And what is it now? 2021. That's 20-year-old data. We have a lot more data since that time. So thank you all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. -- Commissioner Schmitt, did you have a question for the witness? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Judy. MS. HUSHON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just puzzled, because we've been talking about this restudy for almost -- well, 10 years actually. If you recall, it was 2007. In 2009 when -- at that time I was on staff, went to the Board, and then, of course, there was an issue about funding and 5/6/2021 Page 70 of 99 who was going to study it. But, you know, we've been at this for 20 years, and we're within this close of now producing amendments that probably should have been done 10 years ago. MS. HUSHON: When it was asked for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If we're going to do a complete restudy -- now you said the data defends your position, but what data are you citing? MS. HUSHON: I can cite the 2008 data and be comfortable with that, because out of the 2008 data came the designations of primary and secondary panther habitat that were done by several scientists independently, and they came up with almost identical overlay maps. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But some of that data, that scientific data you're citing was actually from the '95/'96 data; 1995/1996 data that is still being cited today. MS. HUSHON: Well, the Kautz study is not. It's much more current than that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The point is, we can analyze this to death, and if we want to start with the NRI data again, then I would just suggest we just fold our tent right now and send it back to staff and let them bring it back to us two years from now because we're at the point now to basically say, let's relook at this and now let's redo the entire NRI. I would say, okay, then let the Board give staff direction, and that can be the next study. I don't know what you're asking. You're asking us to do this now. MS. HUSHON: I'm asking -- no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's no analysis. There's no data other than what you presented. But other than that, has staff done any analysis? Has -- have we hired a consultant to redo the NRI? MS. HUSHON: In 2008, two of your staff had done the analysis and recommended. You didn't listen to -- well, not you. But the Board didn't -- or did not listen to them to redo something. What I am recommending is that into this, these amendments, we put -- the most recent data be used. When we redo the Land Development Code -- which is the next phase, as you saw in there on the maps. It's the next thing the county's taking on -- then this should be updated in that Land Development Code, and that makes all the sense in the world. We have time to do that. We have time -- and, in fact, I have sent a markup of the Land Development Code that includes the latest science to the staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. Judy, thank you. I appreciate your frankness. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Rae Ann Burton, followed by Gaylene Vasaturo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Burton? MS. BURTON: Again, I had to change my speech. I had "good morning." It's afternoon. My name is Rae Ann Burton, rural Golden Gate Estates. Item 9A1 states that the RLSA wants to amend Growth Management Plan. Reason: Developers can build towns by combining several villages by increasing from 1,000 to greater than 1,500 acres and from 4,000 to 5,000 acres. Growth Plan was okay when created. Why change it now? This restructure will only benefit the developers. They already are manipulating credits, sending and receiving lands, to get the land for their developments. Now they want to rezone the properties as well. Developers failed to build Rural Lands West but will be doing so with combining villages with a town, increasing the acres and units per acre. Now there will be multiple towns at taxpayers' cost. 5/6/2021 Page 71 of 99 Infrastructures and services will have to be in place before any development. The developer's impact fees will not be paid until buildout. Taxpayers pick up the shortage. At the last GGEACA, that's Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association meeting, speakers were from the Sheriff's Department. We learned car break-ins and traffic accidents have increased 155 percent with 122 percent serious accidents since development began. Growth Plan was okay when created. Why change it now? Even the wetlands are being destroyed because water fowl are not seen there daily. Did you know they migrate? Do not approve this change. It only benefits developers, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag. What they are promising will not be in the first phase and maybe not for several years, if at all. While in the meantime, we, the residents of the Estates who live there 24/7, have to put up with speeding dump trucks and construction equipment stirring up who knows what from the soil that hasn't been disturbed for years. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Gaylene Vasaturo, who has had time ceded to her by Susan Calkins. MS. VASATURO: I'm not sure how much time that gives me. Can you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ten minutes. MS. VASATURO: Oh, I won't take that much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. VASATURO: Gaylene Vasaturo, for the records. I have comments presented, but based on the discussions, there's a couple things I wanted to address first in following up on Judy Hushon's comments. At the last Planning Commission meeting, in response to comments about Bellmar being sited on Primary Panther Habitat, Commissioner Fry referred to this RLSA amendment process as the time to address updating the program with this -- with the best available science for panthers, and so it has been raised numerous times in the past. But now we're bringing it forward, and all I think Judy is asking is that you all recommend that the RLSA -- to the Board of County Commissioners that the RLSA be amended to require that the NRI be updated. That doesn't have to be done now. That would be done afterwards. But that would be the amendment, and that would not be a delay. And I would say that the studies or the 2006 Kautz study, which Judy talked about which is -- everyone refers to that, the 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Panther Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted the Kautz study and put that in their plan. And there's been a 2015 study, I don't remember the title of the author, but that has done extensive work on primary panther -- on panther habitat breeding, whatever, in our area, and then also the 2010 panther review team report. That was a panel of experts put together by ECPO. And so all those -- you don't have to look at all those, but certainly there's that data there, and we're way behind in doing this. This is not a new issue during the -- this RLSA amendment process. Beginning with the RLSA restudy, the League of Women Voters and the Conservancy have asked the county staff, we've asked the Board of County Commissioners, and we've asked this Planning Commission to update the RLSA program to incorporate the best available science on panthers because the current program is not protecting them, and we've received silence. Yes, the 90,000 acres of open development was established shortly after the 2002 overlay was adopted. At that time there was limited data on panther habitat. In the 2002 Immokalee study, which is a foundational study for the RLSA overlay, WilsonMiller clearly stated the need to update the NRI with data from ongoing panther studies. At that time he was the consultant for the county. He created the NRI, he/it, and he said there was -- he said there was limited data on panther habitat, and the science on the panther and its habitat is continuing to evolve. So, yes, the NRI will need to be updated, and that has never been done despite many people pointing it out. 5/6/2021 Page 72 of 99 Secondly, I did have comments on the credit system. April Olson certainly covered a lot of it very thoroughly. I just will try to cover things she didn't cover. But I do want to say that, yes, in my review of the staff's August 2020 credit analysis report, they significantly underestimated potential credits, and they did have many errors and omissions. And that -- we could do a page -- two pages, three pages on that. But anyway, these amendments can create far more than 404,000 which, in turn, can result in far more than 45,000 acres of development despite what 112 says right now. It can happen. We've seen it in the past. But I just wanted to respond a little bit to two things on that. One is, the 2009 Board of County Commissioners, during that hearing, there was extensive comment and upset -- and a lot of upset people because the credits were greater than what anyone had been told. There was a lot of comment about that. And in response, the Board of County Commissioners, the head of the Board of County Commissioners directed, among other things, that there shall be no excess credits. He directed the staff to -- we said 45,000 acres, 404- credits. That's what coming to me. That's what we seem to have an agreement on. He directed his staff to go and look at the reports of the CCPC, the Environmental Advisory Committee, and the Five-Year Review Committee, and then look at the numbers, do the data and analysis and come up and make sure that there will be no excess credits. They did not direct the staff to do 10 credits per acre. The 10 credits per acre was in the five-year committee -- Five-Year Review Committee report, and that came from the landowners' proposal, which WilsonMiller put forward to the Board of County Commissioners at that time. So that's where the 10 credits per acre came for. That was done in 2008. Things have changed, and there was no ag credits at that time, I don't think -- well, I could be wrong. Anyway. To add to what's -- just on the credit system that leads to an unknown amount of excess credits. One problem is that the restoration credit system has the potential to create far more credits than the staff estimates. There are no science, data, or analysis in the record to support the different restoration categories, the number of credits assigned per acre for each category and, more importantly, the estimated number of potential credits that can result from this system. Contrary to the statement in the staff's credit analysis, there are no findings in the Five-Year Review Committee report to support this recommended restoration credit system. The Five-Year Review Committee proposal is based on assumptions and, for the most part, it put forward the landowners' proposal. The 2019 RLSA restudy white paper, which was done by Mr. Van Lengen -- and we spent two years doing this, involving the public -- noted the problem in the white paper with the existing program creating many more restoration credits than anticipated, and his paper recommended developing a careful estimation of needed restoration activity throughout the RLSA private lands and, through that work, create a balanced credit system that does not generate excess credits. To help, engage an independent third party to study that needed restoration activity and seek input from permitting agencies and land managers with expertise in each restoration category. None of this was done. And I know you say what's the problem -- well, let me finish this first. You can consider what we have, the restoration plan for SSA 15. It fails to address the most needed restoration activity for the Camp Keais Strand flowway and yet awards a tremendous number of credits for the limited restoration that is planned. The panther refuge manager sent you a letter in March imploring the county to require hydrological restoration of the Camp Keais Strand flowway, something critically important for downstream conservation lands such as the panther refuge. He pointed out that farm fields in SSA 15 restrict the flowway to a narrow point and that restoring these farm fields to wetlands will restore nearly a mile-wide flowway. He pointed out that the applicant's plans for Rural Lands West had included as part of SSA 15 restoring these farm fields, but when Rural Lands West was withdrawn, Collier Enterprises removed this activity from its plan. 5/6/2021 Page 73 of 99 Instead, Collier Enterprises' plan is restore 116 acres. It will remove exotic vegetation and a road, a gravel road, farm road, and for this effort, Collier Enterprises gets about 20,000 restoration credits. So Collier Enterprises is not doing the restoration that is critically needed, probably the highest priority for that area, but is getting enough credits from SSA 15 for five 1,000-acre villages. Okay. I just want to say one more thing on -- well, I just would say nothing in the amendments will change what would happen if we have the same circumstances in the future, but it would be different if we had followed the white paper recommendation, because then we would have known where the restoration activity important -- was needed to be done. But, anyway, that aside, I just want to say excess credits -- besides what Nicole told you, there -- landowners will get excess credits before they know the 45,000-acre cap is met, most likely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have one minute, ma'am. MS. VASATURO: But they will view credits as vested rights. Even if we don't think they're vested rights, they will view them, and they will come back to the county, and they will either want to develop land, open the cap, pay me for these credits because I was led to believe that I would -- if I did this, I would get the credits, or let me develop someplace else in the county. Any of those things could happen. And the other thing that will happen, when there's excess credits, once the cap of credits is reached when there's excess credits, what will happen is, because it's not a balanced system, that panther corridors and restoration will not get done because landowners leave that to the end. They do not -- they do the other things first. And, for instance, we have 55,000 acres of SSAs. We have 500 acres of restoration after this many years. So they're going to do it, but they're going to do it way down the line. And so it won't happen because the credits -- you know, there aren't enough credits without -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your time, ma'am. MS. VASATURO: Thanks. That's it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And before you go -- a quick question, and then we're going to get a break in. MS. VASATURO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And Commissioner Schmitt raised a question that I think we all would be concerned about if the -- as an eventuality to occur, that we tabled all this for two years and more restudies, and I don't think anybody wants that. But I believe what you and other speakers are suggesting is that what we need is an inclusion of some language that just calls for regular updating of the science. MS. VASATURO: On panthers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. VASATURO: They do for other things, but they don't do it for the partners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I don't believe there would be a need for us to do a restudy right now before we enact -- or before the Board of County Commissioners enacts. MS. VASATURO: That's right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's just adding some language in here that calls for regular updating of the data. MS. VASATURO: I would say if -- the language should say "require"; otherwise it wouldn't happen. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, I agree. Okay. I just wanted to make that point clear. MS. VASATURO: Yes, yes. That's what I was trying to say at the beginning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Okay. It is 2:37. Let's take a -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman, can I just ask you a follow-up question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, of course. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So to try to understand that concern, we have the RLSA 5/6/2021 Page 74 of 99 and then we have different data that feeds into it in this -- NRI, is that what it's called? CHAIRMAN FRYER: NRI. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The NRI. What does that actually affect? So when the -- if the NRI is wrong or the NRI is updated, what does that mean to how the RLSA program is administered? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm going to actually ask Ms. Vasaturo to come back, if she would. Is she still here? MS. VASATURO: Well, I can. I think April Olson would probably be the best person. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, NRI -- MS. VASATURO: The NRI, the Natural Resource Index, gives a score for every acre of land, and there's a matrix. It's attached as an appendix to the RLSA overlay, and one of those categories is listed species, and a score -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It gives a -- it gives a -- it assigns higher value, conservation value -- it's a better tool with which you can assign conservation value? MS. VASATURO: The NRI? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: An accurate NRI becomes a better tool to assign conservation value? MS. VASATURO: Well, right now the landowners are not scoring their land at all for panthers because the NRI is so limited that it won't allow -- it only listed certain land codes that can be considered. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Right. And so scoring the land, then, means that it -- they can determine whether there's a high incentive for them to participate and make that a sending area? MS. VASATURO: No, they can -- well, they can determine whether to make it a sending area. They can determine whether they should develop there or develop someplace else. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But the idea is if you have accurate NRI data that, then, the landowners can use and everybody else can use, it helps everybody understand which of the land within the RLSA is the most environmentally sensitive and precious and worthy of our special attention. MS. VASATURO: In this case the most important for the endangered species. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And so would it -- I guess what I'm -- by having inaccurate data or not the best most recent data, then people are making decisions about -- because they're incentivized or otherwise, they're just good-hearted and they want to use -- whether they're incentivized or not, they just -- they want to make sure they're picking the right land so that they preserve the best land that's worthy of preservation. They're making their decisions off of information that's not good, and there's a -- there's not an incentive to actually -- MS. VASATURO: Well, no, that's not -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- evaluate their land. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to exercise the prerogative of the Chair at this point. I'm not trying to cut anyone off, and we can continue this after the break. But it's 2:40, and we're going to be in recess until 2:50. (A brief recess was had from 2:40 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. Is Commissioner Klucik back? I want to check with Commissioner Klucik to see if he wants more on this. Okay. Well, we'll continue, then. We've got one, two, three, four, five. All right, good. Mr. Youngblood, who's our next speaker? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: We have four remaining speakers on this item. Our next speaker is Alan Reynolds, who is being ceded time by another speaker, followed by Mitch Hutchcraft. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Reynolds. MR. REYNOLDS: Well, good afternoon. Al Reynolds with Stantec Consulting, 5/6/2021 Page 75 of 99 formerly WilsonMiller. I'm a Fellow of the AICP, a certified planner. I've been involved in the program since 1999 representing the Eastern Collier Property Owners and have been working on these amendments along with the county for 14 years, since 2007. So it's good to be here at the -- at hopefully the adoption stage for these -- for these amendments. You know, we wind up dealing with a lot of detail and minutiae, and it's all important, but we lose sight of the big picture of what we're trying to do here. So ask yourself, we're trying to protect important natural resources, Goal No. 1 of the RLSA. So to date, under the current program, the Eastern Collier Property Owners have put one third of their land into Stewardship Sending Areas, 50,000 acres of land to date, okay. That protection has outpaced the demand for credits and probably always will. So we're getting front-loaded conservation and protection due to the incentives in the program. And, therefore, there are credits that are unused that have been banked in reliance upon the program. So it's really important that we make sure that we don't change the program to upset the balance of the incentives that drive the whole thing. We noted at the last hearing in the fall that the amount of land that's been protected to date is 10 times what has been protected under Conservation Collier. But let me give you another statistic, and that is if we adopt these amendments and we fully implement this program, we will have protected 10 times the amount of land that the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary has. Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary is 13,000 acres. With these amendments, we're going to be adding over 42,000 acres of additional land that's going to be protected from development, getting us up to about 130,000 acres. What does that cost the taxpayers of Collier County? Nothing. It's all based on incentives. It's all based on property owners continuing to use the Rural Lands Stewardship program to do the public benefit that comes with that program. So the other side, does it provide quality growth? So we've two decades of implementation of the RLSA. We have one town that's been developed. Ave Maria, I think, by everybody's account, it has been a success. It was a real adventure at the front end to think that you could create a new town in Eastern Collier County from scratch and have it be a success, and it's been wildly successful over the past 20 years. It's a $1 billion tax base in Collier County that's been created. Twenty-five hundred homes; over $8 million in annual tax revenues; 1,600 new high-wage jobs with Arthrex and others; 1,100 students at the university; and all of the on-site infrastructure was paid for not by the county but by the developers and the district, and they maintain it. So we're talking about amendments now. Do these amendments enhance what we've already gotten out of the Rural Lands Stewardship program? Well, for starters, we've got a new credit for agriculture that will protect, if it's fully utilized, 40,000 acres of land, okay, on top of the 90,000 of SSAs for natural resources. That's roughly the size of Golden Gate Estates. That's a pretty good add, and it's one that we probably would have benefited if we had done it 10 years ago, but let's do it now. So another credit. The new panther corridor credit. If that's fully utilized, we're going to be adding panther corridors equal to the size of Pelican Bay; 2,300 acres of panther corridors. Is that a good result? I think so. It takes more credits to do that. That's why the credits had to go up. To get the agricultural benefit, to get the panther corridors, we had to add credits to the system and thus the recalibration. But there's some other enhancements that we haven't talked about, I don't think ever. There's a new requirement that towns and villages have a mobility plan as part of their approval. It doesn't exist in the requirements today. That's a real benefit. It will encourage alternative modes of transportation, and the alternative modes from 20 years ago are not the same as we're going to be dealing with going forward, so that's a great add to the program. We've added a policy that is going to create for the first time a requirement for an affordable housing land set-aside. That's pioneering in Collier County. And I know because I 5/6/2021 Page 76 of 99 served on the very first affordable housing commission about 25 years ago, and we have talked and talked and talked, and now we're actually going to do something tangible to create sites for affordable housing. That's a pretty good thing. So did this review process work? Well, I would say other than the fact that it has taken us 14 years to get to this point, if you look at the DEO's review of the amendments that you transmitted to the state, not a single objection, not a single recommendation came back, not just from the DEO but the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the DEP, the Department of Transportation. All of them had nothing to say except these amendments do not create any adverse impacts to critical resources. I've been practicing planning for 41 years. I've never seen an ORC report that clean. What does that mean? That means you and your staff did an outstanding job of putting together a package that met 163, and to have a set of amendments this important come back with no objections and recommendations is unheard of. So you're to be commended -- your staff is to be commended for that. So we have asked for one clarification, and that is -- and, again, it's technical, but it has to do with the WRAs. We submitted a letter. It's a policy that your staff is already suggesting needs some fine-tuning, so I don't think we're introducing a new idea here. And it just has to do with if you have a water resource area which currently is serving for agricultural water quality and retention purposes, and you use some of that to serve your water management needs for a new town or village, you will now have to count whatever acreage of that WRA is being used for that purpose. And we're okay with that even though it's going to add, you know, another amount of acreage, but all we're asking for is clarification that it is the acreage that is being used to meet the regulatory requirements and not further enhancements, because we see the potential for WRAs to be re-purposed to go beyond what the regulations require, because there's vast areas of WRAs. So we do not want to de-incentivize the re-purposing of WRAs to provide supplemental water-quality benefits for the good of Collier County, and we just need to make sure that that policy is clear. So we suggested some language to include in the policies that address that, and certainly it will need to be addressed in the LDC as well. You know, so we're asking that you reinforce what you did this fall, which is to recommend approval of these changes. You know, it really is time to go on, and I will say -- I wasn't going to try to -- and I don't want to try to rebut all of the comments from the Conservancy and the League earlier. But I will say for those of you that were not here in 2009 when we went through two years of this to come up with the recommendations, at the final hearing, ECPO, my client, had consistently said a credit cap is not a good idea, and the reason we said that is because once you cap credits, you can potentially start limiting the beneficial types of uses that are created by credits, and the variable is restoration. So make no mistake, the base credits, which you get through the NRI system, those are within a very small tolerance, and always have been, of credits. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Reynolds, you're at 10 minutes. I don't mind giving you more time, though, because you're representing ECPO. How much more time do you need? MR. REYNOLDS: I appreciate it. One minute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. REYNOLDS: But when we start talking about tinkering, again, with an agreement that was reached in 2009, and even though ECPO objected, we ultimately agreed with the compromise, the grand compromise: 404,000 credits, 45,000-acre cap. We said, yep, we'll live with that, even though we didn't agree with the credit cap, and that's exactly what you're working with today. It's what the Board agreed with then. It's what the Board agreed with again this fall when we transmitted. So I'm just going to suggest that we don't spend another two years or even another two months, you know, revisiting things and decisions and analyses that were done. We've got a great program, it's one of the best in the United States, and we're going to make it a 5/6/2021 Page 77 of 99 whole lot better by these amendments. So let's just move forward with this and, you know, and bring all this to a close, and see what good things happen out in Eastern Collier County, because I think it's going to be even more extraordinary than it has today. So be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Al, I guess, when you started this 15 years ago, you were young and handsome and now you're just young. Is that -- MR. REYNOLDS: I wasn't even handsome then. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The infamous excess credits. I hate to bring it back up again. But can you clear the air about these statements of the infamous excess credits? MR. REYNOLDS: Sure. I'll try. And I went through in the fall, you may remember, maybe not -- you know, this question always comes up. Excess credits and 16,000 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. REYNOLDS: There's really three pieces to the credit puzzle. There's base credits. Those are the credits that a property owner gets through the NRI system by putting all of their land into FSAs and HSAs into SSAs, okay. That number of credits has not changed -- less than a percent since 2002. It's about 136,000 credits. So that's more or less a fixed number unless a property owner does things to improve the environmental quality of their land. Now, if they do that, their score may go up, and they may actually earn more base credits because they have enhanced the environmental value. But within a tolerance, that number is relatively fixed, and that assumes all 90,000 acres of SSAs. There was a second bonus, which was the early-entry bonus that was put in with a cap, so there's a precedent for the cap, and it was a 27,000 cap, and about 20,000 were used, and it was a first -- you know, first in, first out kind of a thing, and those have been retired. So right now there's about 20,000 credits based on the early entry. All of the rest of the credits in the system are generated through bonuses, predominantly the restoration bonus, and that was the wild card. It was not ECPO's idea to have a restoration bonus. I mean, that was an idea from the NGOs, said, let's put some extra incentive and not just to protect what we have but to incentivize restoration. Okay. It was put in initially as a variable number to be determined, went to the DEO, came back -- or at that time the DCA came back. The DCA said, you need to be specific about quantifying restoration credits. So it was adjusted to establish the four, then four, you know, the numbers that we still have adopted today. Nobody had any idea how -- if and how much that was going to be used. And guess what, it was a good incentive, and it got used a lot. So we wound up generating far more restoration credits than I think anybody had envisioned, but there's a quid pro quo. You're getting restoration funded by the private sector. Private sector doesn't do restoration; public sector typically does. So that's been the variable ever since. And there is no way to design a system like this to have a specific number of credits if you're going to have an incentive for something as variable as restoration, because you have to look at the land, you have to look at the type of restoration, the success or not success of that. So that number is -- as Anita was saying, is nothing more than an estimate. It's nothing more than that today. It never was anything more than that, but what has happened is these amendments now create a new tiered system so that there's relative value to restoration depending on how difficult it is to implement. So if it's easy to do caracara, you get fewer credits. It's hard to do panther corridors, you get more credits. Freshwater restoration, which was one of the credits that was -- you know, that's an error in the math. Well, that's because the credit number got increased after that analysis was done. So, okay, yeah, there's a little higher number now in your policy. But at the end of the day, it makes no sense to me to try to redefine a system to cap something that we're trying to incentivize if we think on balance we've got a program now that is going to roughly achieve, you know, that equality between acres and credits. The only way you 5/6/2021 Page 78 of 99 cap credits is by policy, and that's exactly what this does. So it doesn't matter, you know, how much incentive. When you get to 404- -- you know, 404,000, that's the end. And every property owner in Eastern Collier County has equal access to this program. It's not just ECPO. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was my only -- MR. REYNOLDS: ECPO's the only one that's participated to date, but everybody got equal access. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's my second question, since you're certainly intimately familiar with all these policies since its inception. The accusation that owners of 20,000 acres out there are going to be denied the opportunity. I hear that. I heard that statement, but I don't understand. There's nothing to prohibit the non-ECPO landowners from participating. I didn't understand -- MR. REYNOLDS: The program has been in place now for 20 years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Almost 20 years. MR. REYNOLDS: We have had, I think, seven property owners actively participate. All happen to be ECPO, one of whom actually went back and undid an SSA. And to get to the numbers that we're talking about, I mean, literally, to get to 404,000 credits and 45,000 acres, 50 years, 60 years, I don't know. It's a long, long time, because at some point you're not going to have a demand for credits that outstrips or -- I should say it another way. The demand for credits probably never catches up with the land that is being put into the program for conservation. So I think you always wind up with that positive balance. And just think about this. I mean, we're talking about 300 square miles, the only future growth area in Collier County. And if you adopt these amendments, three of every four acres is not going to be developed either for natural resource protection, wetlands, uplands, water retention, or agriculture. Three out of four acres, and of that -- of that one out of four, 35 percent of that is open space. So the real number, if you want to talk about the real number, of footprint of development netting out open space, 16,000 acres. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Mitch Hutchcraft, followed by Tom Jones. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Mitch Hutchcraft, and I am here on behalf of King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus. We are landowners within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. I do want to note my appreciation for staff and for the Planning Commission for your hard work on evaluating these amendments and the fact that we've got to this point today. I know that you've heard the back and forth, and so I'm going to do my very best to be brief. But I did want to remind you of King Ranch's position, and King Ranch remains in support of these amendments just like we have since 2009, and we support them because they improve on the original RLSA program that was adopted in 2002. It provides for a long-term, voluntary approach to landscape-scale planning with necessary flexibility to recognize that there's multiple landowners within the RLSA. The amendments are science-based, and they provide for robust panther corridors, they provide for additional permanent protection of agricultural land, and that ultimately reduces the available development footprint within the RLSA boundary. These amendments rebalance the credits and confirm acreage caps which provide assurances to all of the parties about the amount of land that can be developed, and I think that's a good thing. These amendments augment the most successful land protection enhancement program that I'm aware of and does it at no cost to the public and without violating any private-property rights. 5/6/2021 Page 79 of 99 They also facilitate the equitability treatment of all landowners within the RLSA. And to the point, Hyde Park is not an ECPO member, and they have advanced a project. And so it is available to non-ECPO members. Any suggestion otherwise is inaccurate. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: King Ranch is part of ECPO? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Yes, sir. And it's important that there's that equitability to a company like King Ranch because we have stated our intent is to stay in agriculture as long as it's economically viable. We need to have a program that's predictable and reliable for, potentially, the last person to participate. I also want to acknowledge the input that we have received from our environmental partners to help ensure that we provide meaningful environmental enhancements, including credits for agricultural protection, creation of panther corridors, recalculation of credits and caps which provide a framework that ensures we do address panther protection. We do establish wildlife underpasses, we protect natural systems, we provide regional connectivity, and we restore lands to native condition, and we've done it by aligning private property rights and resources with beneficial environmental outcomes. We think that this is fair to landowners, it's a win for the environment, and it's positive for the residents of Collier County. So today I'm just encouraging you, after 14 years now -- I've been involved since 2001, so I'm coming up on 20 years -- that you recommend final adoption of these amendments which are based on the five-year review committee recommendations, and I further recommend that you adopt these or recommend adoption in light of the fact that they are consistent with the Board's direction, they are supported with relevant and appropriate data and analysis, they've been reviewed by all of the state agencies, including the Department of Economic Opportunity, which found that they are consistent with the state statutes, and that there is no adverse impact on meaningful natural resources. These amendments are actually supported by the landowners who are maintaining this property, and without our stewardship of the land, there wouldn't be anything to talk about. It's also reflective of a very long collaborative process, and we certainly appreciate the partners that have stood with us. And it does document how activity resulting from these amendments will support or enhance the original goals of the Collier County RLSA. And so with that, I do urge you to recommend final adoption of this package. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Tom Jones, followed by Neale Montgomery. MR. JONES: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Jones, and I work for the Barron Collier Companies. I'm here on behalf of Barron Collier. I've been involved in the development and the implementation of the rural lands program since 1999. So I beat Mitch by a couple years. But Al and I were in the room on the same day when we decided to move forward with putting together a plan for Eastern Collier as opposed to putting together a lawsuit to protect our property rights, which were being challenged by the county and a number of environmental organizations. To clarify a couple of points, I would freely admit my memory may not be as good as some people all the way back to 1991, but I am sure that the Natural Resource Index value, the NRI that was referred to earlier, it's not a static number. It's a number that's reevaluated with each Stewardship Sending Area, and it's evaluated with each Stewardship Receiving Area. So the numbers that were in the original plan in 2002 were there as a baseline. We had to start somewhere. And when that index value was developed, the consulting team, yes, it was paid by the landowners, but under the auspices of the county, they went out and evaluated every acre of land in Eastern Collier County and developed the Natural Resource Index value. And it's updated with each permit -- with each application that's submitted to the county. To suggest otherwise just really isn't accurate. Additionally, there was a comment made about the restoration. We, obviously, are the only ones who have pulled the trigger on the town, and we have restored close to 2,000 acres of 5/6/2021 Page 80 of 99 land, more or less. And all that land restoration was in Camp Keais Strand. It's adjacent to the Town of Ave Maria, and it's one of the last of the two intact flowways in Collier County that flows ultimately into the National Panther Refuge. What we did was take down dikes that were surrounding farms. We expanded the width in one location by three quarters of a mile. In another location, part of the restoration program also took down old farm field dikes, and we extended the width of Camp Keais Strand by almost half a mile. Further south and immediately adjacent to the partner refuge in one of our largest farming areas -- and we've been farming since the '50s -- we increased the size and lowered and increased the number of culverts that were under a number of farm roads, which increased the flow of water into the panther refuge. The designs that were developed for the enhancement of the flowway in the southern portion of Camp Keais adjacent to the panther refuge were vetted through the Big Cypress Water Basin at the time, and they deemed that -- and in conjunction with the panther refuge, and they thought these were incredible enhancements to make -- to increase the flow of water south. So we have done enhancement. We probably eventually will do more, but enhancement and restoration work is not cheap, and it takes time. So we're here today after a very long period of time, and I think we make this about as -- oh, one other point. There's been this suggestion that we could come up with an accurate number of credits that would be developed in Eastern Collier County. For the life of me, I don't know how you would do that. So maybe we hire a third party who goes out and evaluates every acre of land in Eastern Collier County, and they then make a decision of what can be restored and what kind of restoration will take place? And then that flows to be -- and mandate it to the landowner that this is the grid, and if you want the restoration credits, this is what you have to do? Let's not forget, this is a voluntary program, and the reason it's successful and will be successful is because it is a voluntary program. So what I would suggest to you, that if you're interested in improving a good program and making it better, if you want to establish a program that enhances the potential conservation of 40,000 acres of farmland which we admitted the first time around, if you're interested in creating two panther corridors, wildlife corridors across the private lands in locations that have been identified by the wildlife agencies, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Game Commission in particular, if you're interested in that, then you should support this. If you want to see a program that caps the acres at 45,000 then, again, you should support this. So if you want to see additional agricultural conservation, if you want to see environmental enhancements, if you want to see a cap for a program, if you want to make a good program better, then I'd ask you to support these amendments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our final speaker on this item is Neale Montgomery. MS. MONTGOMERY: Good afternoon. For the record Neale Montgomery. I'm an attorney representing ECPO. I want to start with where the Chairman ended right before the lunch break, and he said he was interested in including a policy that provided for periodic reviews. I would note that the Florida Statute, the RLSA, does provide for five-year reviews already. Regrettably, we're here trying to get the five-year review approved. So -- and I do believe also in the fall that the commissioners kind of laid a path forward. Item 1 was to review and adopt the five-year review and then come back with the LDC amendments and then come back and have discussion about the white paper, and several people today have asked you to do that, but that was third on the Commission's list of items to be tackled. 5/6/2021 Page 81 of 99 We've also heard several speakers today talk about the fact that Carlton Fields said we should do this study. Well, if you'll recall, the study that Carlton Fields asked to be done was to show or ensure compliance with 9J5. And if you look at the letter from DEO, it notes 9J5's been repealed. So all the talk about doing that study is not relevant at this juncture because there is no 9J5. So we don't need to do that study. And if you look at the policies that the Conservancy asked you not to adopt, included within those is the agricultural credits and the panther corridor credits. And I know some of you got to hear the delightful presentation at both podiums with Meredith Budd and the Audubon, Brad Cornell, and they advocated that you support these amendments because it did provide for the corridor, and they did want you to hurry up and get to the LDC amendments so that those improvements could be provided for. And I would also note that I believe the County Attorney noted, either at the planning board or at the Board of County Commissioners or both, that continuing down this path of doing nothing ensures that the growth is just going to continue under the current rules, and we're never going to get to the improved rules, and so no decision is, in effect, a decision. You've heard from several people that this a voluntary program, and part of what the statute says in regards to it being a voluntary program is that it has to be economically viable. So once we turn it from a voluntary economically viable program to a punitive regulatory program it's no longer voluntary, and it's longer consistent with the Florida Statutes. So I would recommend or submit that 15 years is more than enough time to do the first five-year review and advocate that you support these amendments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No more registered speakers. Are there any people in the room who have not registered but wish to be heard on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A couple of just clarifications from my standpoint. I have a question for Anita and probably another one for Jaime. There's been a lot of words thrown out that I don't like as an engineer. Errors and omissions, that's a bad word for an engineer. Math errors. And in talking to you, it seems like you would characterize it more as a difference of opinion on the base assumptions that go into the calculations, not an error; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. I just want to make sure we don't have any of those bad words out there. Jaime, I had a question for you, too. And I think the last speaker helped clarify it, but I want to hear it from staff as well. One of the speakers talked about they want us to -- talked about the continually updating to best science. And I think one of the speakers said we update everything but the panthers; that we don't update our panther evaluation to the most current science even though we do it with the other overlays. Is that true? MS. COOK: For the record, Jaime Cook, principal environmental specialist with Development Review. With every application, whether it's for an SRA or an SSA, the landowners or applicants are required to submit an updated listed species survey. So that includes all of the current telemetry data that's on file. It includes their observations during their listed species surveys. We have, during our reviews, sent back the listed species surveys and said, you did not include all of the telemetry data. Please update your survey. As far as whether the FLUCFCS codes are correct, that's not an issue for this hearing. That would be something that was done at the LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But it's your position that the NRI calculations are currently 5/6/2021 Page 82 of 99 updated to best available science? MS. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. MS. COOK: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to follow up with the same, Jaime. In clear, uncertain terms, every application that comes in, you stated the NRI is evaluated and updated for every SRA, SSA, WRA? MS. COOK: Every application, an updated listed species and updated NRI score is submitted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on the most current data available? MS. COOK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that is validated by the county staff and asked for the applicant to validate that as well? MS. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MS. COOK: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, Anita -- well, let me -- Jaime, you may be able to answer this as well, or Anita, because the statement was we are -- we have somehow failed to consider primary and secondary habitat for the panther in these amendments, or we've not updated to consider primary and secondary. Can you clarify or -- MS. COOK: The GMP amendments -- or the GMP, the original and these amendments -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. COOK: -- as far as the NRI scoring, it talks about what the layers are that will be scored. It does not get into specifics. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. COSBY: Those specifics are found in the LDC. So any changes to how preferred and tolerated panther habitat is defined would come at the LDC, not now. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it does, but these current amendments do not -- I'm going to ask this question but maybe in a rhetorical way. These amendments do not inhibit or prevent staff from evaluating panther habitat; is that correct? MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because it was somehow stated that for some reason these amendments are negating any changes in panther habitat. MS. COOK: No, they are not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Anita, I just have one question and -- because I know we're going to get into details. From a -- we can go through the history. Al talked to some of the history. I'm certainly familiar with the history. But the basic premises, this is a voluntary program. MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Incentive-based voluntary program, and these amendments, to the best of your knowledge, represent the best we can do now? I guess, you know, we can -- what's the old saying, the enemy of perfect is -- you know, we could keep on restudying this till we have "the enemy of perfect is another analysis by paralysis." But to the best of your knowledge, these amendments currently address all the concerns raised by staff and even address some of the concerns raised by the non-NGOs and other entities? It is a voluntary program, incentive-based recognizing it's private landowners that we have to incentivize to be part of this program; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: That's correct. Staff's evaluation of the five-year amendments found that they do further the overall community goals of protecting natural resources, restoring natural 5/6/2021 Page 83 of 99 resources and, in particular, these go a long way in protecting agricultural. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just as when we had transmittal, these -- if we move not to pass these, we're at status quo? MS. JENKINS: You are at status quo with no caps. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Let's pause for a moment and talk about how we want to proceed and for how long this afternoon. Anyone want to -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So, Mr. Chairman, you did close the public comment portion? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I haven't yet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You haven't yet, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, and that would probably be the first order of business, but let's talk about how we're going to proceed today and for how long. Anybody want to weigh in on that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I would -- typically in this type of legislation we would go through page by page and ask the members of the Board if we have any questions. I don't know if -- that's a lot of pages, but it -- that's one approach. The other approach is we just -- basically, if we have any issues that we saw, we can raise those each individually. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe that's right. Those are the choices. How do other planning commissioners feel about it? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vote for the latter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The latter, okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. We've all been through it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. It sounds like a consensus developing over spot issues and talk about them rather than page by page. So without objection, that's what we'll do. Now let's talk about how long we're going to go today, and I have a preference because I've got out-of-town family in town and I don't want to just be open-ended all evening. I want to see my little grandkids. So my preference would be that we identify a time that we cut at and try to get it done today -- I don't think we're going to get to RFMUD, but to try to get this done today if we can within a reasonable time frame. Did you want to be heard on this, Ms. Jenkins? MS. JENKINS: Yes, that would be our hope as well is that we can finish it, and recognizing that you have family in town, as long as we've four here to maintain a quorum, we're fine with that. But we would hope that we could at least move this part of the agenda to completion today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand. I want to -- I want to participate in this vote. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What's your time frame, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'd like to be out of here by 5:00. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anybody object to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll have a hard break at 5:00 p.m., and we'll make every effort to get concluded by then. I've got five issues I'm going to want to talk about, and we'll see, you know, whether we can get any movement on those or not, and that will determine how I vote. So with that said, it's 3:30. We're probably due for another break at 4:00. Does that work for the court reporter? She's nodding yes. All right. So that's what we'll do. We'll have a 4:00 break, and then we'll come back and 5/6/2021 Page 84 of 99 try to have the last act, if possible. Okay. No one has indicated a wish to speak on the deliberator. Does anyone want to lead off with issues? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I just -- is now an appropriate time to close the public comment section? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good point. Without objection -- and we have no other speakers -- we will close the public comment portion. Now, having said that, I've -- I've got five basic questions that I want to go over with Ms. Jenkins and staff, but I suppose we can close comment of other public people, and she can be called up, and others can be called up if specific questions need to be answered. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I did have a question procedurally. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So we have -- we have the -- what's been transmitted and modified before us, plus we have the two requests to add, you know, as amendments to what we're approving to go forward. So how are we going to take -- I think we need to, you know, discuss how we're going to take those three items, because it seems to me there's three items that are under this particular item, three things to determine. Are we going to pass the main portion, and then are we going to pass each of those -- or vote on each of those other two items? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I'll supplement that question. I'm going to request language changes in five cases, so those will be discreet points of concern that I'll want to raise. And anybody else want to weigh in on how we proceed? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'd like -- just to make sure we're all on the same page, Robb -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- if you don't mind -- what is your understanding of what's before us? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So we have -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: You said three things. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: We have the item that we have the opinion of staff on, which is the modified version of what was transmitted previously. Then we have the -- Mr. Yovanovich has, you know, put forward the other proposal for his client. COMMISSIONER VERNON: 4.20 change, right? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And then we have the other one from ECPO. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Al Reynolds' change. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: The water change. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And so I was just -- are we going to -- I was thinking we would vote on those separately, or I guess we could incorporate them into one vote. I don't know. I'm just making sure that we have an understanding so that we make sure we cover it and that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, understood. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure I got the same -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody else want to be heard on the specifics of -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. To make sure what we vote on -- and I'm scrolling through. We had -- this was pointed out, we have a change that was made by staff starting on -- is that on Page 217? Then we have the entire ordinance, so we're voting on the entire ordinance again, correct? MS. JENKINS: Yes, and the other issues, if you'd like to vote on the ordinance, and then in your recommendation just address those other items. So that can all be part of one motion, if 5/6/2021 Page 85 of 99 you choose. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I would have to say we have to address the two letters of recommended changes, the letters from ECPO and the letters from Barron Collier. I have a couple of points. I have just two minor points I want to -- or two or three minor points I want to raise. I know you have more detail. But how do you -- can we just proceed down the line and go through them? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's do. Let's do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I'll start with I just have a comment because it became such an issue during the -- let me scroll here. It's on Page 223. Anita, you're probably going to have to answer this. It's on 223 of staff, and it's basically in the ordinance. And we -- under Section 5, Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay, D, and it says goals, and there's the -- and it implements the strikethrough. This was probably in transmittal. Employee's creative land use. Use planning. So I just put a question mark around this creative land use. Are we going to get into a discussion, what is creative land use? Is there a need to -- MS. JENKINS: That reflects the RLSA statutes -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I understand that. MS. JENKINS: -- land use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are we going to get into a debate about what is creative? What is walkable? What is all the other issues that we talked about during the three petitions that we heard, or four? MS. JENKINS: So in those petitions we heard that when we come back with the Land Development Code amendments that there is some need to provide definitions for these things, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would ask that we do do that. MS. JENKINS: So in this one we are not proposing any change to creative land use. That was not part of the five-year review or part of the staff's recommendations to change those through this process, so we are not making any recommendations to change that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Would it be appropriate to put the -- insert the words "employees" and "incentive based creative land-use program"? MS. JENKINS: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think that kind of describes what's creative, the word "incentive-based." Excuse me while I scroll down. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then the underlined portion would be deleted? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, it would still stay in, but I would just insert the word "incentive-based." I had a couple other points. I know we have to address the water retention area, 3.13, and I think we'll do that -- MS. JENKINS: So the rest of that sentence, though, before we move on from the goal, we did add at the end of that "through the use of established incentives." COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. JENKINS: So I think we've just reversed it a little bit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Whatever. Just if you want to fix that sentence. It's not a big deal, but I'm just -- I'm just trying not -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think it's unclear to me what you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I wanted to clarify -- I wanted to avoid getting into a definition -- a debate of what is creative land use. I'm trying to quantify what we mean by it. MS. JENKINS: Right. And the creativity is the program -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is by -- through incentives. MS. JENKINS: -- and the incentives, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If you're comfortable with that sentence, I am as well. MS. JENKINS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had one correction. There's another area that was -- it's 5/6/2021 Page 86 of 99 similar, and I think you will have to address that during the LDC. It's on Page 238, Policy 4.6., the SRAs shall include a mobility plan that includes vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, public transit, internal circulation, internal circulators, and other modes of travel mode within the -- and in between SRAs. Understand the policy. No argument with the language. But we've got to make sure the LDC gives clarification to implement, because we got into a debate about what is a walkable community. Well, sidewalks are walkable communities, and people were focusing on town center; is it walkable? How much distance is between? MS. JENKINS: Right. So when we come back with the Land Development Code amendments, each amendment should implement this new language. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. JENKINS: So we will bring that back in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And as you're working in the LDC amendments, I want to get granularity on that and make sure we have clarity so we don't get into a debate again as what is walkable, because during the course -- during the petitions we had maps that showed, well, it's three miles away, it's five miles away. Some of us ride bikes 20 miles a day, some of us walk 30 feet to the refrigerator. Rich? Oh, I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Wow. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was mean. I know that was mean. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was accurate. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's what you get for shaving. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just wanted to see if he was awake. We do have to address the two issues, and I'll get into that. But there was one other area. I'm sorry, my computer just froze again. On Page 4 -- correction -- 249, Policy 5.6, second sentence, Page 2, and you struck through "wetland permits" and put in there "environmental resource permits" for each area, but you would also have to include Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. They are wetland permits. I don't understand -- I may be didn't catch this during transmittal, but there are South Florida Water Management District environmental resource permits, but if there's any other jurisdictional wetlands, we still have to comply with whoever the implementing agency may be at that time. It used to be the Army Corps of Engineers in Florida. Now it's EPA, or Florida DEP. But wouldn't you have to include both the ERP and wetland permits? MS. JENKINS: So this is describing existing Water Retention Areas -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. JENKINS: -- that have those environmental resource permits. So I would have to ask the landowners if they, in fact, have other permits on those Water Retention Areas. I don't have any knowledge of that. We can certainly put "if required" or if -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just -- I mean, I just don't want to limit it to ERP, because that's -- of course, that's a 401 quality issue, water-quality issue, or provision of something to the effect of "or other state or federal permits as required." Something to qualify. Just because I don't -- I don't want somebody to say, well, you didn't tell me I had to get a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Of course, the developers know they have to do that when they do a jurisdictional wetland determination. Those are all the minor points. I do want to -- I'll hold off, but if one of the others want to bring up the issues between the two letters we received as well, we have to address those, whether I'm going to make any changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Who wants to speak next? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then I will. COMMISSIONER VERNON: We're saving those two issues, I think. 5/6/2021 Page 87 of 99 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah, yeah. The issues that I have are not new to staff, with the possible exception of one, and I'll start from the beginning. This -- the language that is in the RLSA proposal carries forward words like "encourage" and "promote" or "discourage," and I had argued last time that it would really be, I think, stronger and clearer if we said -- used words like "require" and "prohibit" rather than "encourage" or "discourage." And at the time Mr. Cohen said that doing that would be putting too much detail into the Growth Management Plan which should remain general and, frankly, I agreed with him about detail and keeping it general in the GMP. But to say smart growth is required is no more detailed than saying smart growth is encouraged. So I was not particularly moved by his argument. And so I'll ask you, Ms. Jenkins, why don't we clearly require rather than discourage or encourage? MS. JENKINS: I think it goes back to the same answer. It's a voluntary program that we're trying to encourage these landowners to use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But if they fail to do so, we're stuck. MS. JENKINS: So we are trying to encourage them to do so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's a voluntary program in that they can volunteer in or volunteer out. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But then there's mandates, right? That's the whole point. Once you opt in, you're mandated -- it should be mandates that dictate what you do because you opted in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely, yeah. And that's -- so I go back to -- and I, you know, look at the Rivergrass litigation -- and I'm not trying to ask for your comment on that, but I think part of the problem that we've encountered is language like "encourage" and "discourage" arguably have been shown to be rather meaningless. And I don't want to see us be confronted by another three villages converting to a town situation down the road when, if it's a town that is being proposed and for all intents and purposes, then I think, you know, it should -- that's what should be asked for. So to my way of thinking, we should require things that we want and prohibit things we don't want and then let people voluntarily opt in if they wish and, as Commissioner Klucik says, if they opt in, they agree to accept the rules, but it's voluntary. I mean, they can continue to go at one dwelling unit per five acres if they wish, and that was the deal that was originally made with them, and they won't lose that opportunity. So I'd be interested in knowing. I'd just like to pause and find out if I have any support for that point from the other members of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, what would the impact be, Mr. Chairman? I mean, I'm trying to figure out what it is that you want incorporated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, well, let's say that we put off the details for the Land Development Code, which I believe is a good idea. That's where they belong. And we've used terms like "smart growth" and "walkability," which I think are begging for definition so that we all know what it is. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I couldn't agree more as a resident of Ave Maria who tried to pin our developer down on walkability, for instance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly. Yeah. And so, to me, having a definition of smart growth in the Land Development Code is the place where it ought to be we know what we mean. But then in the GMP I think we should require smart growth as it is defined in the LDC rather than encourage it, because encourage and discourage really are nugatory. They don't get you anything. A party can say, well, you failed to encourage me. Sorry. So what do others feel about this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm confused because you only have two options here. Either you participate, and in participating you reap the benefits and rewards, or whatever you want to call it, of the RLSA program, or you build one per five acres. And this is -- this is -- it's an overlay. It's -- I mean, a GMP. It's not a rezoning. I -- so I guess even if I said you're -- we can't 5/6/2021 Page 88 of 99 make it mandatory. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's not mandatory for anybody who doesn't want to opt into the program. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's an overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How do you want to change the language? I mean, that's what I'm -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If something is required to be 10 feet tall, then we say 10 feet tall. We don't say we encourage things to be approximately 10 feet -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- because that could be 3 feet or 18 feet depending on the people who are looking at the decision to be made. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I think the same thing would be true about something like walkability. I mean, there's a lot of words like that. I use the word "brochure language." Brochure language should not be in our code when we're talking about things that we really are expecting to happen. And if we use the word "encourage" or "discourage," then we're just waiting for, you know, people who are well resourced and have, you know, a good legal team and are very experienced to basically do what they want. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I -- if we want it to be open-ended, then great, then that's fine. We can make it open-ended and make it vague, but then we have to understand that that's what we've done, and this is our opportunity to decide if we would like to make -- you know, tamp things down a little bit and make them more well-defined and easy to understand if something has been followed or not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's exactly my concern, and I agree with the point that Mr. Cohen made; let's put the details in the LDC. But -- and if memory serves -- and I'll ask the County Attorney to correct me if I don't remember correctly -- I think I do -- that if we encourage smart growth in the Growth Management Plan, is that a sufficient groundwork to support a requirement of smart growth as specifically defined in the LDC? MR. KLATZKOW: If you want smart growth, you mandate it in the Comp Plan. You then implement that -- define that and you implement that in the LDC. If you want walkability, you mandate it in the Comp Plan, okay. These are things you would mandate in the Comp Plan and then come back with definitions and criteria in the LDC. I think if you do that, though, you may blow up the -- this particular amendment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we may. I understand that, but -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Smart growth, not just one small -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what smart growth means -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I've read the whole program and -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you get 20 planners in a room, you'll get 20 different definitions of smart growth. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They're all going to be different. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it should be defined if we use that term, and maybe we decide we do use it. But whatever terms that we want to make operative in a legal sense either to be required or prohibited, they need to be clearly defined. And if we decide to use smart growth, we would define it in various terms that everyone can clearly understand. MR. KLATZKOW: Look, at the end of -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Or we could just leave -- we could choose to leave smart growth as vague because we are not interested in making it specific. And, I mean, I think that's a 5/6/2021 Page 89 of 99 choice that we have, too. We can say it's really important to define these things so that they're nailed down, or we can say, no, we really do want to just kind of nudge people in a direction and hope that they get it, but we don't want to mandate very specific things. I think we could choose either one. The question, though, is we should make sure that we know we're choosing one or the other. MR. KLATZKOW: The core question is, do you want development in the east to be substantially similar to development here? Because that's what's happening with the three villages we've just looked at, okay. There's nothing wrong with that. If you're saying we want higher development standards in the east than we have out here in the west, I would say, why? If you're that interested in smart growth and walkability and everything else, why not mandate it for all new developments in Collier County? I mean, I don't know why you would just specifically say, well, we're going to continue to grow the way we're growing out here in the western portion of it, but the eastern portion, now, you guys have to have smart growth and you guys have to have walkability and everything else. And you're going to have in your own minds a reason for that distinction. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The quid pro quo, of course, is that the developer would be getting much greater density. MR. KLATZKOW: Than what we have here? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Geez. How can you -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In the City of Naples, you can't even move. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Hear me out. That the current -- the current zoning is one dwelling unit per five acres, and that's what they can do right now. And if they want to do more, they would have to come in with a plan, and it would have to -- it would have to be allowed for in the rules that we're trying to establish now. And, you know, either we want these things or we don't, but to encourage them or discourage them is just a waste of words, in my opinion. And I think that that was proven by the three villages that have come before us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a comment, though, on the dangers of this term "smart growth." And you go back to some of the presentations that were made in the county about smart growth and the criticisms that were raised, and it centered around mostly with traffic ability in the county, the number of gated communities; all those kind of things are all examples of not smart growth. So I'm saying this term "smart growth," I think Jeff's said it, you get 20 planners, you're going to get 20 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not arguing -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- smart growth. If we put it in the Comp Plan, then it's probably going to take three chapters to describe it in the LDC. I mean, it's got to be very specific criteria. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I shouldn't have -- I shouldn't have used that term, because there are -- and I'll just throw a number out -- maybe, 20 or 25 times in this draft that use words like "encourage" and "discourage." COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And my proposal is to change them to "require" or "prohibit." And for all -- and I don't recall at this point whether smart growth is a term that's even used in here, but the terms that are used, let's either put teeth into it or decide that it's not sufficiently important to us. But "encourage" and "discourage" gets us exactly nothing. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could you give us an example, Ned? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, let me see if I can find one real quickly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I'm trying to figure out, if I say I require it, it's required if they participate in the program. That's why I'm confused. 5/6/2021 Page 90 of 99 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If they choose to participate in the program -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's what the LDC -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here we go. I'll take you through them. In Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay, Goal D, it says, currently, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations to discourage urban sprawl and to encourage development that employs creative land-use planning techniques. So that's "encourage," "discourage," which means nothing. So that's the first one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't understand that. It does mean something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If staff encourages them and they say, thank you, we decline to be encouraged. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What was the predicate -- what was the first part? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But then if they decline, they can't participate in the program; then build one per five acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's not the way, for instance, Rivergrass worked, because that's urban sprawl. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you read that one again? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I disagree. How is that urban sprawl? It was a receiving area. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Go ahead. Read it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not urban sprawl. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to read the sentence. Collier County's goal is to retain land for agricultural activities, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that employs creative land-use planning techniques. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I think that is totally appropriate, because what it's saying is we have incentives to not use -- to avoid using, developing the most environmentally sensitive land, and we have disincentives to use that land. And so -- and we have incentives to preserve the most sensitive land. And so I actually think, in that sense, that's a really good descriptor, and I'd really -- and it's -- the encouragement and discouragement is part of the whole reason we have the program. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. If I can -- I've been lit up. If I can jump in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I 100 percent agree with what Robb said, and I think he said it a while back. It's -- that's what I call a preamble. So the preamble is, this is why we're doing this, and once you opt into the program, it becomes a mandate. You have to follow the rules. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And if you choose not to come into the program, you don't have to follow the rules, so none of that applies. So I view that -- again, I'll use the word "preamble." This is why we're doing it, just as you have in a real estate contract or a settlement agreement, whereas the parties wish to do blah, blah, blah, and then you set out the terms. Second -- and I was quiet at first because I wanted to think through this. I -- the way I'm looking at this is that we're not a legislative body. We're a judicial, quasi-judicial, and that's why sometimes it seems maybe I get caught up in some of the details here, because I'm trying to figure out the credibility, the evidence, and make decisions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're sitting legislatively. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Oh, we are? 5/6/2021 Page 91 of 99 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Then I stand corrected. But I really didn't hear anything about the issue you're bringing up from any of the applicants, the staff, or the objectors. So in sitting here and thinking about how do I come down on this issue, which you asked me to do, I think I come down, on this issue, I'm not supportive of it based on what I've heard so far. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, that seems to be the consensus. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I will move on. My second issue has to do with aggregation. And the draft that the county staff prepared that was dated March 9 of 2020 had the following language requiring aggregation of certain kinds of proximate villages, and it said, quote, two or more villages or CRDs under common or related ownership or control that are physically proximate shall be aggregated. When aggregated, the county shall review the application by the SRA standards, parentheses, town, village, or CRD, applicable to the total size of the aggregated development. And I think the fact that we didn't have language in there or don't at the present time is exactly why we had to deal with the, whatever you want to call it, aggregation agreement or town agreement that we heard this morning. And so I think that a better way of doing this is if it quacks like a town, it's a town, and it should be governed by the rules applicable to towns from day one rather than having to convert three villages after the fact into some kind of a town. So I believe that language should be included in the RLSA, and I'll point out that the one member of the Board of County Commissioners who voted against this, this was the reason why that vote was cast in the negative. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you help me understand. Okay, so you're talking about aggregation. Is that in -- is this addition of aggregation in what we're being asked to approve? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, there isn't. There's nothing requiring aggregation, but -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What were you quoting? You were quoting prior -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Something that was in a previous draft that staff prepared but then took out, and that draft was in March 9 of 2020. So I just think this is an opportunity we have to fix that deficiency, and if what is being proposed is -- for all intents and purposes meets the definition of the characteristics, the essential characteristics of a town, it should be called a town, and it should be subject to the requirements of the town from the get-go. Anyone want to weigh in on that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't have any -- I can't disagree with you there, but what we're doing now, if you want to take what's happening now, we're taking three villages and trying to aggregate it into a town. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. Trying to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. But -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Why wouldn't we -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you saying -- I know what you're saying; it should have just came in as a town in the first place. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No argument there. We all said that a year ago, but for the reasons, whatever, it came in as three villages, and it was accepted that way. I can't put the genie back in the bottle here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, that's done. That's absolutely done, but we've got a lot of land, a lot of acres in Collier County that could, you know, bring this back to us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you're looking for some language that would prohibit any future aggregation? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, no, no. I'm looking for language that says, if what you're 5/6/2021 Page 92 of 99 proposing -- and, you know, when Collier Enterprises came in, they had Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar, and you looked at that map, you said, these are all the same thing. They've just been -- they've been sliced and diced in order to take advantage of opportunities for less regulation as villages than as towns, and my point would have been, no, when that happened back then, that should have been called a town and regulated as a town, because that's what it was. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So how would you -- what's your recommended change in the language there? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would insert the language that staff was recommending in its March 9, 2020, draft. Quote, two or more villages or CRDs under common or related ownership or control that are physically proximate shall be aggregated. When aggregated, the county shall review the application by the SRA standards, parentheses, town, village, or CRD, applicable to the total size of the aggregated development, closed quote. That was what staff was recommending or had in its March 9 draft, and it came out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What section was that in? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: 4.7.5. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That sounds right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Page 817 of the 3,000-page agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'm going to -- I'm going to continue to try to make a record of my concerns. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I mean, before we go down -- does the rest of the Planning Commission support that or not? COMMISSIONER VERNON: I've got my light on. I'm trying to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Two comments is, one, I kind of share your concern, and I said I kind of feel like, you know, maybe I'm being snookered here when I made my comments to vote for the one that came up today but, really, I still, at this point -- and maybe it's because of the fact I'm a new member and I haven't figured it out, or maybe because it doesn't exist. What is the concern about doing it in reverse order? You know, Joe mentioned, yeah, it's kind of odd -- we've all kind of mentioned it's kind of odd, but -- and I kind of want to support what you're saying in terms of it's a concern, but I don't know what the concern is about doing it in reverse order. And then the second component is I'd like to hear from the staff on their proposal that you just read from 2020 and see if they still have that view. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's hear from staff. MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry you missed the -- Anita Jenkins. I'm sorry you missed the September hearings. We went through that in detail. We did have aggregation policy in the draft, and then staff evaluated it in total. And when we evaluated that policy in total with the rest of the policies, we were finding that requirement was creating inconsistencies with the landowners' ability to come in with a village, and then they could amend the village to grow that village into a town. So we went through a lengthy process in presentation of why we recommended taking that aggregation language out, and here today, that -- the language that was transmitted to DEO by the Board of County Commissioners did not include that, and we bring back to you what the Board directed us to bring back. COMMISSIONER VERNON: But setting aside what the Board did, if you were queen for a day, you would not put that in there? MS. JENKINS: I think it creates inconsistencies with the -- with other Comp Plan policies. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And on my second question, can you fill in the blanks for me of any negative you can think of of doing it in reverse order, starting with a village and then turning it into a town? 5/6/2021 Page 93 of 99 MS. JENKINS: You know, historically, in planning, that's how -- that's how Naples grew is a little fishing village and it -- you know, it continued to grow and add onto it, and now it's a nice little town. So I think that that's the regular progression of planning and growth in America, and so I don't see the downside of -- in growing in that way. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask for a recess now. It's four minutes after 4:00. Let's come back at 14 after 4:00. We're in recess until 4:14. (A brief recess was had from 4:04 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's please reconvene. I think Commissioner Schmitt wanted to be recognized. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to ask Anita to come back up, because I wanted to follow up on the question in regards to this aggregation. You brought up a good point in regards -- basically, towns -- villages grow into towns. Towns grow into maybe townships. Townships grow into small cities, then cities. I mean, that's the way growth takes place. But the end result, when we look at transportation and infrastructure and costs, whether it's before or after, you're still looking at it, and you're coming up, hopefully, with the end result, correct? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're still looking at all the infrastructure to support it, improvements that are needed. MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then part of the -- I'll use this term now, smart growth, because as a village transitions into a town, of course, we're mandating all the infrastructure to support the changes, whether it's the water/sewer, other type of activities. So I guess the question is, whether you do it from the start or from -- at the end, you're still evaluating all the needs and meeting all the requirements to support the development; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: Yes, to support the application. And I think the policies -- and I keep going back to being consistent with policy. The policy provides for different types of SRAs, town, village, and now a compact rural development. We removed hamlets. So those opportunities for a town or a village or a CRD are available to any property owner that wants to opt in. Not all property owners could do a town. They might want to continue to farm part of their land and not be forced to develop an entire town when they only want to do a village. So we just want to be consistent with policy and the opportunities that we're trying to encourage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I would agree that we leave this as proposed and strikethrough. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A procedural question. I mean, we have gone through this before. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I mean, nothing's changed. If we change something now other than responding to the comments from the various agencies, do we have to go back through all these agencies again? I'm not in favor of making any changes if that's the case. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't believe that's the case. MS. JENKINS: No. It goes to the Board for adoption. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if they adopt it, the agencies don't have a right to say, you've changed it after I gave you my comments, and challenge it? MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nope. Because they're going to be able to speak at the BCC, too, say what they want. But they're not going to be able to rewrite history or turn the clock back. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. This whole idea of sending your Comp Plan to Tallahassee 5/6/2021 Page 94 of 99 comes -- goes back to the days when Tallahassee actually cared about planning rather than caring about growth. They butchered the Growth Management Act over the years. Well, "butchered" is not the right word. They have modified the Growth Management Act over the years. I guess the environmentalists would say "butchered." But we've got this relic left there where we send it up to Tallahassee for their review. Instead of giving you a comprehensive review, they give it a cursory review right now, and we get it back, and we then adopt. But, quite frankly, it's a relic of the past. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Indeed. Okay. My next two reasons are somewhat new, and they arise as a result of what we will be considering at our next meeting in the RFMUD. And I realize that RFMUD and RLSA are different creatures, and I understand the reasons for those differences, but there are also, I think, solid reasons why they should be treated the same for certain issues. And I want to point out some language that is -- that is found in the RFMUD, and don't forget RFMUD is and also part of the Growth Management Plan. So when I read this to you, you're going to hear a higher level of detail and also, I think, more requirements and less encouragement or discouragement, and the points that I'm making have to do with the design standards. So here's what we're going to be asked to consider for amendments to the Growth Management Plan when we look at RFMUD. Number 1 -- and some of this language is already there. Some is new, though. Number 1, rural village, village center, and neighborhood design guidelines and development standards, and this is on Page 23 of the RFMUD proposal. First bullet point, a formal street layout using primarily a grid design and incorporating village greens, squares, and civic use as focal points. Next bullet, neighborhoods in the village center will be connected through local and collector streets and shall incorporate traffic-calming techniques as may be appropriate to discourage high-speed traffic. Next, consideration shall be given to the location of public transit and school bus stops. Next, pedestrian paths and bikeways shall be designed so as to provide access and interconnectivity. Next, each rural village shall be served by a primary road system that is accessible by the public and shall not be gated. The primary road system within the village shall be designed to meet county standards and shall be dedicated to the public. Next, a rural village shall not be split by an arterial roadway. Next, interconnection between the rural village and abutting developments shall be required. And let me point out that the current word is "encouraged," and staff is suggesting that we change the word "encouraged" to the word "required." Now, that's from the RFMUD. And, again, I accept the fact that there are differences between these two creatures, but I think on the point of design standards, we should be looking for, essentially, the same things. So consider the level of detail in what I just read you that is going to be recommended for the Growth Management Plan, and also I'd like to know why we wouldn't insist for the same things in the RLSA. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: My only comment to that would be inserting that now after, you know, 15 years into, you know, this update -- I don't recall that being an issue in all the deliberations up to now, and it just seems like it's a -- it's an interesting point. For instance, like, the grid, you know, grid pattern, or the street's laid out in a grid. I just think that if you're suggesting we adopt that and, you know, keep the same standard, I don't know as that's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think the main thing I'm suggesting there, it probably is in support of my original argument that these words like "encourage" and "discourage" are weak and really have little, if any, meaning, and here's a case where staff itself is recommending change from the word "encourage" to the word "required." 5/6/2021 Page 95 of 99 So my fourth one here -- all right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I just want to say, Ned, that I actually -- like, I think it would be more of a neighborhoody-type feel if you had streets laid out in a grid, and I think that would be better, if it was my personal preference, but I just think that it's too late in the game for this -- you know, for the RLSA to throw that in now considering it hasn't been something that has been part of the mix up until now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anyone else want to comment on it before I move? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. The fiscal-neutrality language in the rural village, the RFMUD -- and this would require a relatively minor change to the RLSA to make it stronger in what I consider to be important way. This is what we're going to be asked to approve in RFMUD. Fiscal neutrality, a rural village may only be approved after demonstration that the village will be fiscally neutral to county taxpayers outside the village. It's pretty strong language, and it certainly gets at an essential concern that I've had for a long time, that the taxpayers are not being looked closely enough at when fiscal-neutrality issues arise. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What would be the language that you compare it to in RLSA regarding neutrality? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Where is says -- where it says "fiscally neutral" in the RLSA language, I would add the words "to county taxpayers outside the village or town as applicable." And, guys, you're not going to hurt my feelings by not agreeing with me. I'm in a mode now where I'm just -- I'm trying -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have to question -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm trying to hear them all at once. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- isn't fiscal neutrality -- doesn't -- didn't the fiscal-neutrality studies do that to begin with? Is that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I don't think they did, and so I'm looking to strengthen the language. I think fiscal neutrality failed as a result of person's per household, but all that has been litigated in those villages. But I would like to try to prevent that kind of an argument from coming up by making this language stronger by focusing a spotlight on the importance of the county taxpayers outside of the village or town. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no issue with that change. To me it's -- I think that is the goal of fiscal neutrality, or was. And now we get into the debate on -- we got into quite a debate during the three villages as to one entity saying it wasn't fiscally neutral, and staff was adamant that it was in their statements. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think -- I think my language would return the focus to its proper point, which is in relation to the cost burden on taxpayers outside of the entity being developed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I think that that's what we've -- the result of what -- the process that we've gone through. So I think it's adding -- it's strengthening something that already has proven to be strong enough to accomplish the concern you have. I mean, I realize you disagree with the analysis that was done, but that's a question of how you -- you know, how you do your analysis, not whether you're seeking the same goal, which is to make it neutral to taxpayers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And, No. 5 -- actually, I have a sixth one, which is just a typo. Affordable housing, the earlier draft of this RLSA, I believe March of 2020, had a formula that that specified the provision of affordable housing that would not be borne -- the costs of which would not be borne by the taxpayers, and that language was removed and instead other language was inserted that offered the developer several means of achieving affordable housing, including having the county buy the property, which is exactly, of course, what we saw this morning in the town agreement, $22,500 an acre. 5/6/2021 Page 96 of 99 And to my way of thinking, this is creating a vested right that I believe we are going to regret. And I don't think the county taxpayer should be burdened with that cost. I think the staff got it right in their earlier draft, and I think we're creating a situation where enterprising developers and their lawyers will find ways of avoiding any responsibility -- financial responsibility for affordable housing. And then my -- back when it was made clear to me that there would be no changes accepted, I pointed out, in addition to the erroneous statutory citations which got corrected in Tallahassee, I also pointed out a misuse of the word "discreet," that what was intended was the homonym. Instead of d-i-s-c-r-e-e-t, which means acting with discretion, what is meant is d-i-s-c-r-e-t-e, which means particular. So, you know, just to avoid embarrassment, I'd ask that staff correct that typo. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Agree. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I agree with you on the typo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Unanimous; I agree with you on the typo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, man. This is wonderful. All right. Okay. So anybody else have any comments on any of this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to go back to the two letters from ECPO and one from Barron Collier. I would recommend that staff approve -- I recommend approval of the changes by both ECPO and by Barron Collier. I think they're -- the changes are minor, and they do correct -- I believe they make needed wording corrections that should be made to the GMP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's your motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I have concern with the water one that Al Reynolds brought up; that's one of them. The other one Mr. Yovanovich brought up. I have concerns about Mr. Yovanovich's, not in practice. You know, I kind of heard your comments. It kind of makes sense, but I'm concerned how we do it. I almost feel like somehow we should make Ave Maria an exception, and I feel like we're changing the rule to accommodate Ave Maria. So I don't -- I want to get to the same place Joe wants to get to. It's just a matter of how we get there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only comment on Ave Maria is the footprint is already established, and the footprint was established based on the rules at that time and, of course, half of that section of Ave Maria is the university. To now go back and apply new rules to what's already on the ground, I don't -- you're out there. I don't -- I think it would be difficult to do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I also think that there's quite an analysis that will be done as well when they bring -- whatever petition, whether they bring it back as a village or as an expansion of the town, staff has already confirmed that, you know, there's going to be the thorough analysis to meet all the requirements for any change or addition of acreage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: See, I don't look at it as an exemption. I look at it -- you want to call it a grandfathering. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I prefer grandfathering is what I'm saying. And, you know, I prefer a rule that works for the future, not to change the rule to work for Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I would agree with you there. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And I just don't know how to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It shouldn't be Ave Maria specific. But like I said, the footprint was already well established in Ave Maria just because of where you could build and 5/6/2021 Page 97 of 99 where you couldn't and how the -- how this town center was designed and the university. I think it would be tough to now apply new rules to what's already on the ground. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I think I'm -- we're on the same page. I just want to make sure -- whatever the staff proposed, I thought Rich is saying, well, let's change it, and that way -- it's up to the Chairman. Rich wants to talk. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, certainly. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do you -- first, before you speak, do you understand what I'm saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: We wrote it as an exception for Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did not change the rules. We said Ave Maria is exempted from the inclusion of the 1,000-acre university. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Of the new rule? MR. YOVANOVICH: Of the new rule. We wrote it as an exemption. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But it doesn't mention Ave Maria. It does describe it in a neutral way. MR. YOVANOVICH: It says, any SRAs approved on the date of this ordinance. The only one that's approved -- the only town that's out there on the date of this ordinance is Ave Maria. And if you want to be specific and say -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, no. We don't need to be specific. So, Anita, you're good with that? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. All right. I'm good. I'll support the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? Nay. It passes 5-1. Thank you very much. All right. Old business? I don't believe we have any. New business? MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. JENKINS: I heard Mr. Schmitt's -- did you include staff's amendments brought back? It sounded like you were just addressing -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I addressed those two -- MS. JENKINS: -- the two landowners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have to address -- also to include staff amendments. MS. JENKINS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, to include staff amendments as proposed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So I think we need to vote again. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We'll vote again, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. 5/6/2021 Page 98 of 99 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? Nay. Same vote. New business? I don't believe we have any new business at this point. Public comment, I believe we do have a member of the public who wishes to speak. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We do, though -- we have to go back to our start date on the 26th. Since we didn't do the RFMUD, we're obviously going to have to come in at 9:00 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, that's right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to start that. Do you think it will be a full day, Mr. Bellows? MS. JENKINS: We have a meeting on the 20th -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. JENKINS: -- so the RFMUD would be continued to May 20th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It will be the first item on the agenda. MS. JENKINS: It will be the first item on that agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we were debating because we have to stay till after 5:00 for the LDC amendments, so -- MS. JENKINS: That's on the 26th. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's on the 26th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. I'm all confused. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. MS. JENKINS: So on the 20th when we get through that agenda, we can determine if we need to roll other items and it will be a full day. If it's not a full day for you when we get done on the 20th, we'll say come in at 4:00. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you for the clarification. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Public comment? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, Rae Ann Burton is our only speaker for public comments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Ms. Burton? I don't see her. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Burton, are you in the hall? MS. OLSON: I can go look. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: She's changing her speech. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You didn't see her? MS. OLSON: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So we have no public comment and nothing further on the agenda. So without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. ******* 5/6/2021 Page 99 of 99 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _________________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on __________, as presented _________ or as corrected _________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. ✔6/3/21