Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/02/2021December 2, 2021 Page 1 of 78 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 2, 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 Karl Fry Joe Schmitt (present when indicated) Paul Shea Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Christopher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney December 2, 2021 Page 2 of 78 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Good morning and Happy Holidays, and welcome to the December 2, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. I ask that everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I ask the secretary to please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of four. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And, for the record, by way of one-way communications and also announcements at our previous public meeting, we are aware of the absences, and all three absences are excused. Let's see. Addenda to the agenda. First, by our action at our prior meeting, I think it was one of our meetings in September, we approved the request of ACUNE to make its presentation as our very first agenda item at today's meeting. So in keeping with our prior action and without objection, we'll move that item up from old business, where it was incorrectly slotted. Mr. Bellows, are there any other addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: We have no other changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Planning Commission absences, our next meeting is on December 16, 2021. Does anyone know if he or she will not be able to attend that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So those of us who are here, a bare quorum of four, looks like we hope we'll have a quorum. Approval of the minutes. We have no minutes before us today for action. And before I call on Mr. Bellows for the BCC report, it is my distinct pleasure and honor to recognize my dear friend, my former colleague, a person whom I admire greatly, Mr. Stan Chrzanowski, former member of the Planning Commission. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Stand up for one second, Stan, so people can get a look at you. He's the best. He's absolutely the best. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we're so glad to have him. And, Stan, as had been his previous custom, brought along some Dunkin' Donuts and some coffee, and we are eternally grateful for that. Welcome. December 2, 2021 Page 3 of 78 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's the only way I could stay awake. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, Stan. Welcome to you. So glad you're here, sir. BCC report and recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners did not meet since our last Planning Commission meeting, so we don't have a recap today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. And so at this time the Chair recognizes Drs. Hushon and Savarese for their ACUNE presentation. Our goal is to attempt to keep this to under an hour but, naturally, if questions result, then we're not going to penalize the presenters for the questions and for the time it may take them to answer. Dr. Savarese. DR. SAVARESE: Good morning. Thanks for having us here today. I'm joined with Judy Hushon, who's at the other microphone, and with -- also joined by Sally Woliver, who is in the seats. And let me get the presentation started. All right. Just to kick this off, I just wanted to let you know that FGCU and our water school, we've teamed up with the League of Women Voters, the Collier County chapter, to help get this package of tools into the hands of the right people so that they're used effectively. So what we're going to be presenting to you today is really the results of some phenomenal science that has occurred over the last four years and that's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Professor, with apologies. I don't mean to be interrupting you so quickly. But would you mind stating your full name and your status at Florida Gulf Coast University. DR. SAVARESE: Sure. I'm sorry. I always forget to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. DR. SAVARESE: Anyway, I'm Mike Savarese. I'm a professor of geology at Florida Gulf Coast University and a member of our newly formed water school, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. DR. SAVARESE: You're welcome. Anyway, so what we're going to show you today is the product of some scientific work that's been done with scientists from a variety of organizations, including the University of Florida, the U.S. Geological Survey, the South Florida Water Management District, and a number of others. And we as liaisons, if you will, our role is to bring these tools forward to inform people, to train them on their use, and hopefully facilitate their use throughout the county to help prepare as we move forward as sea level rise occurs and as storms become worse. The tools are collectively known as ACUNE. ACUNE is an acronym that stands for Adaptation of Coastal, Urban, and Natural Ecosystems, and it's really a package of vulnerability analysis tools. What is a vulnerability analysis tool? Well, ACUNE, the first one that you can see highlighted in green, anyway, is how the county is vulnerable to sea level rise and to storms as storms become more intense and perhaps more frequent as we move into the future. So it's a package of computer models that provides visualizations of what the landscape will look like as we move forward into the future. In addition, there's a second package of tools. By the way, both of these efforts are being funded through federal dollars through NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The second collection of tools isn't quite ready yet and will be ready in about a year's time. And it's the same sort of thing. It's another package of vulnerability analysis tools reliant on computer models. But these tools, or the second package of tools, deals with freshwater inundation from precipitation and from flooding. And when ACUNE Plus becomes available, the county will have in its hands a complete package of tools to look at how water in the future is likely to affect the landscape. December 2, 2021 Page 4 of 78 The collaborators, you can see listed up there. The collaborators, these are -- this is the science team that's put the work together: University of Florida; the U.S. Geological Survey; my own university, Florida Gulf Coast University; the South Florida Water Management District; Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve has been involved; and then there's a private engineering firm called Flow-2D that's been involved as well. What's the purpose of the presentation? Well, it's really fourfold. First, we wanted to provide you with an overview of what ACUNE does and its value for analyzing vulnerability as we move into the future. We'd also like to brief the planning council on how the county plans to use ACUNE. So the good news is, one of the pieces of good news is, that county staff is intending to use ACUNE to help with its efforts. The third purpose is to ask the Commission to consider including some language recognizing ACUNE's value within the Growth Management Plan. That may be a tall ask, but we personally think it would be wonderful if there were some genuine commitments to using ACUNE wherever it can be useful. And then the fourth and the last, these tools are helpful in helping the county comply with state law. The Peril of Flood Statute looms over us, and this new statewide flooding resiliency act, Senate Bill 1954, are both edicts from the state that require the county jump through some hoops, and ACUNE can be very helpful in those regards as well. Let me first tell you a little bit about what ACUNE is. It's really a collection of tools. Again, this is a NOAA funded project. It was about a million dollars of investment that came to Collier County. Incidentally, the funding came through the Restore Act, so it's actually BP settlement money through the Deepwater Horizon's disaster that's paying for this and has paid for a lot of similar efforts around the Gulf Coast. Again, it looks at vulnerability, but just by seawater, caused by sea level rise and by storms. The tools inside the package, again, it's a large collection of computer models. The details aren't important. You can see a number of bulleted items underneath the tools. Suffice it to say the tools look at inundation caused by sea level rise, what we commonly refer to as nuisance flooding or sunny day flooding. You've probably heard about that particularly on the East Coast where it's made the news and being dealt with. It also deals with inundation caused by storm surge and inundation caused by waves. And it's important to recognize that as we move forward into the future, as sea level goes up, storm surge and waves, when a storm does impinge upon a region, makes the water ever higher, and as the storms become more intense as the oceans warm, the water gets even higher still. So ACUNE looks at those contingencies as we move forward into the future. It also employs a tool developed by FEMA. It's their economic modeling tool called HAZUS which allows you to look at the economic impact, how property might be damaged looking at an annualized property loss. There's also the ability to use ACUNE for rapid forecasting. ACUNE can be used to look at storms as they're approaching, and so there's an opportunity already being employed by our Collier emergency management department that's actually using the tool to help with its contingency planning as storms make their way to Southwest Florida. And then the last tool is a tool known as XBEACH, and it allows you to look at how the coast, the barrier islands and the beaches, are likely to respond as sea level rise occurs and as storms impact upon the coast. And the last piece of this and probably the one that's involved the community more than any other is the development of what we call asset layers. So what's really important is what's a value on the landscape. What cultural, natural, and urban resources are important to the county. They might be roadways. They may be churches. They may be Native American sites. They may be mangrove forests. We, with the help of people throughout Collier County, have assembled and collated all of those assets, and ACUNE maps those assets on top of the simulation so you can December 2, 2021 Page 5 of 78 actually see which asset is affected in the future and how seriously. One of the great things about this project and the League -- the League of Women Voters has been a league leader, if I can call the league a league. It's been a big help in just getting the word out and involving the community. This project has involved both the Board of County Commissioners and the three city councils from the very inception of the proposal itself. And through this community outreach effort, we've developed two end-user teams. This is a collection of 70 or so professionals that are tasked with managing our landscape as we move forward into the future. There have been numerous public presentations and workshops. We've also collected about 80 civic leaders, the best and the brightest that Collier County has to offer, to engage them in the process. And, again, all of these groups have been involved in the project since the very inception, both from the development of the proposal through the development of the tools, and now with their application as we're here in the final stages. The models in the toolbox are highly sophisticated. I'm not sure if you're familiar with what a bathtub model is. Typically, or most simply, the way vulnerability to sea level rise is done is by just raising sea level. If sea level goes up a foot, let's make a map of the position of the oceans one foot higher than it is today, just using a topographic map, and anything that was one foot above sea level or lower is now -- at least projected in the future is predicted to be under water. This is not a bathtub model. Landscapes don't behave so simply. The landscape influences just how far and how deep water is likely to incur. The model also combines tides, waves, storm surge, and sea level rise. So it packages it all together. These kinds of vulnerability tools are only as good as the topography. The elevation of the landscape is behind it. And this particular collection of models relies on some very well-conceived digital elevation models. So Collier County has at its disposal probably the best topography it's ever had, and the models are founded on top of that. I'd mentioned that the landscape has a tendency to slow the incoming water down. It attenuates the floods. That's particularly important. And our county, at least large portions of our county, particularly the south and eastern part, have lots of green infrastructure, like mangrove forests and salt marshes, and they do a remarkable job of slowing down the flood, and ACUNE accounts for that. The one thing our package of tools does that others don't is it accounts for climate change's affects on storms as we move forward into the future. So this collection of tools doesn't treat storms as static. It anticipates their change as the planet warms as we move forward into the future. And the last piece of this is that ACUNE is updatable and adaptable. So as we move forward as the science get better -- gets better, as the county's needs and asset concerns change, we're able to update -- update the package to keep it current. One of the important things we needed to do at the very beginning was to agree upon what sea level height was likely to be as we move forward into the future and what were the target dates going to be for future planning. The community as a whole agreed on three target dates. You can see them up there in the table; 2030, 2060, and 2100. And then we collectively decided to use NOAA'S 2017 sea level curves to pick a low, medium, and high sea level rise magnitude for each of those dates. So you can see in this table, sea level could go up as little as .4 feet in 2030 or as high as 8.4 feet in 2100, and ACUNE models all nine of those scenarios. So it gives managers an opportunity to make some subjective decisions about what kind of risk you're willing to take. Are you willing to be ultraconservative and plan against the worst-case scenario, or are you willing to be less conservative and willing to accept a greater risk and choose a lower sea-level-rise scenario? The tools can be used in a variety of ways. You can just use ACUNE for nuisance flooding just caused by sea level rise and tides. I don't know if you've noticed, but our high tides are getting higher, and more areas within Collier County are flooding during spring tides when the December 2, 2021 Page 6 of 78 moon is full or when the moon is new. You can anticipate how that's going to worsen as we move forward in time. You can also look at how storms are going to affect the county on top of sea level rise. So it anticipates storm surge and waves during different storm scenarios on top of sea level that will be sitting higher than it is today. You can also use the economic impact tool and look at how properties are likely to be damaged. DR. HUSHON: That's limited to certain people can use that. DR. SAVARESE: Yes, Judy, that is true. DR. HUSHON: And you have to be turned on. You have to request it and be turned on by the county, by Amy Patterson. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Dr. Hushon, I'm going to ask you the same thing: Please identify yourself, if you don't mind. DR. HUSHON: Dr. Judith Hushon, League of Women Voters. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. DR. HUSHON: Yeah. I just want to say, that tool is not widely available. DR. SAVARESE: Thanks, Judy. And that's probably a good reminder to state something else. There are certain portions of ACUNE, like the economic tool, that is only accessible by certain users. For example, there are asset layers that look at culture resources: Where are Native American sites? And those are protected by state law. So there are certain pieces of ACUNE that are potentially viewable by anyone and then others that are only viewable by a select audience. So, anyway, the fourth bullet up there, the distribution of future mangroves and salt marsh habitat, this sounds kind of esoteric, but it really isn't. One of the interesting things about ACUNE is it will predict where mangroves and salt marshes are going to go in the future, and where they go in the future determines how the landscape responds to flooding in the future. So it accounts for the natural changes in the landscape. It accounts for what happens to the green infrastructure. And then the last part is you can use it to predict erosion hot and cold spots on the outer coast, and, therefore, with your management needs, you can predict where you're likely to have weaknesses on the beaches and on the dune structures. Let me walk you through some still images that show you ACUNE, and then when I've finished with that, Judy's going to take you on a live tour of ACUNE. We have the tool up and running, but let me give you some stills first. So this is what the web viewer looks like. So as you log on, this is what you would see. There's a large variety of help resources available, including a video and a manual, and so there's lots of helpful information to make sure that the people that are using this are using it correctly and not over-interpreting what they're seeing. You can see the landscape. That's just a Google Earth image of Collier County. The mapping is done at high resolution, a 20-by-20 meter. Imagine, you know, 20 yards of a football field. That's the accuracy at which the landscape is mapped, and then you can see in the upper right there's a number of tools that can be opened in the legend. I'll show you an example of that in a moment. For example, if you were to open up Collier County assets, that top menu, you would see a collection of assets displayed here. What we've done is we've turned on the fire stations and the parks, so the location of every park and every fire station is located here. We've zoomed in a little bit on the landscape to focus more in on the heart of Naples. And then you can run a simulation of sea level rise and storminess and determine which of those resources are impacted. This is a simulation done for 2060 for a medium sea level rise magnitude, and this looks at the distribution of water on the landscape if sea level had gone up by that amount in 2060 and had experienced a 1-in-100-year flood. And what you can see here color coded is the depth of watering sitting on the landscape in feet. So those yellows and light oranges are as much as nine to 10 feet of standing water on the surface, the greens are five and six, the blues between one and December 2, 2021 Page 7 of 78 three feet. So, again, we've zoomed out quite far, so you can't see the actual impact on specific assets, but you can zoom right in and determine whether or not a fire station is in standing water under those conditions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry has a question. DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Dr. Savarese, it says "storm flood" at the top, so what exactly are you modeling there? It's more than just sea level rise. It's a storm flood in addition to sea level rise? DR. SAVARESE: That's correct. So let me back up a couple of slides, because I can never remember the numbers. DR. HUSHON: You said 100-foot -- we said a 100-year storm, and, you know, a 100-year rainfall storm on top of a sea level rise, and what -- you had a year of 2030? DR. SAVARESE: It was 2060. DR. HUSHON: Sixty, 2060. Okay, so you're looking at two feet or -- DR. SAVARESE: 1.7. DR. HUSHON: -- 1.77 feet of sea level rise plus the amount from a 100-year storm. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So we'll have under 10 feet of water in the yellow or the green? DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, it's scary. No question about it. DR. HUSHON: Yeah. You're looking at Rookery Bay, Ten Thousand Islands down there. DR. SAVARESE: Yeah. A lot of what you see in yellow -- again, Judy makes a good point. A lot of what you see -- the scariest part of the landscape, the yellows and the oranges, are in public natural lands, mangrove forests, that are accustomed to being under water, you know, at least for short periods of time. You know, the inhabited areas, Marco Island, the City of Naples, the eastern part of Collier County that's developed, not so bad. The only heavily -- relatively heavily occupied piece of real estate that's seriously harmed in the yellows and oranges here would be Everglades City and Chokoloskee. Everglades City is just sort of covered by the legend, but you can see Chokoloskee there in the lower right corner. You know, your question is a good one. So one of the nice things about ACUNE and is, as far as I know, unique to this computer modeling package is that it treats future storms in a statistically meaningful way. Let me explain that. Normally when you're running another type of model and you want to predict storm surge on the landscape, you have to tell the model what storm to simulate. So, for example, this could be a map of 2060 with Irma replayed, the track of Irma, Irma's characteristics from 2017 replayed in 2070, 2060, with a 1.7-foot sea level rise. And that just gives you kind of a static glimpse of what the landscape looks like if Irma had replayed itself in 2060 and, of course, you know, storms are squirrely, and they don't -- they're like children, they don't behave, and they go wherever they want to. What this computer modeling package does is it looks at Collier County's storm history as we go back as far as humans have been recording storms and then anticipates climate change and the way storms are likely to alter as we move forward into the future and then creates sort of a generic 1-in-100-year storm, and that's what you're seeing here is this generic representation of what a 1-in-100-year storm would look like given Collier's storm history and the likelihood of how storms are going to change as we move forward into the future. So one of the things that's relatively easy to do as a manager is to look at your vulnerability due to nuisance flooding, because we know very well and very confidently where the flooding is going to occur due to high tides. We know less -- at least less confidently, where the storm surge is going to be. ACUNE gives you a better -- a better ability to anticipate where the storm surge is likely to occur. I hope that made sense. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we ask a follow-up question on that? DR. SAVARESE: Yes, please. December 2, 2021 Page 8 of 78 COMMISSIONER SHEA: When you say a -- right now we have a database that a 100-year storm does a -- produces a certain impact. You're saying that you're actually predicting what a new 100-year storm would look like in the future? DR. SAVARESE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because our database right now is just woefully inadequate. So you're actually predicting -- it's a predicted 100-year storm, not a historical 100-year storm? DR. SAVARESE: It's a predicted 100-year storm based on the history of our 100-year storms. If that -- that doesn't look like that helped at all. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It sounded good, though. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, you'll have to come to the microphone if you want to speak. I'd be glad to have you do that. Introduce yourself, please. MS. WOLIVER: I'm Sally Woliver. I'm the other part of this team and our trio, I should say, or do I say menage et trois, to be correct. Good morning. Thank you for inviting us. Mike, I'm wondering, in the interest of time, because we are only supposed to be here till, what, 9:45? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we'd like to see if we can't get this wrapped up, yeah, by around 9:45. MS. WOLIVER: Let's jump into the live drive in just a few minutes, because I think that will help you understand what it looks like when you're operating this as well. So maybe just jump ahead. DR. SAVARESE: All right. Maybe what I'll do is show you one example of how ACUNE is currently being used, and then we'll go to the live drive; does that sound okay? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. DR. SAVARESE: All right. Anyway, ACUNE is currently being used in a number of different efforts. Let me show you something the City of Naples is doing. The City of Naples is having trouble with its stormwater management infrastructure. Here you can see is the ACUNE viewer. This is -- I'm trying to see if I can read it. This is 2030 under medium sea level rise. Again, about a .7-foot increase. This is just nuisance flooding, so no storms. And you can see -- we've zoomed into the heart of Naples. You can see there are four or five areas that are outlined in red. Those are assets that the City of Naples has identified. It is their stormwater management basins, and those are basins that they're targeting for engineering improvement and are working on getting a contract together now to do whatever infrastructural improvement is required. Under these conditions in 2030, you can see the blue areas. The dark blue areas represent nuisance flooding of about one to two feet of seawater on the landscape, and you can see a number of those polygons have lots of blue in them, particularly the one furthest to the south and the one just adjacent to the Gordon River bridge. DR. HUSHON: That's down near Naples Dock, the one on the -- to the south. DR. SAVARESE: I guess I have a pointer. DR. HUSHON: And you can see the airport, too, how it's not being inundated, but the land surrounding it is. The runways are okay. DR. SAVARESE: This is a management basin that's affected, and this is a management basin that's being affected intensely. And this kind of information, then, can inform what kinds of engineering strategies are ultimately employed to improve the situation. So I think what I'll do is I'll end it there. There are other examples. The Naples Botanical Garden is using it to look at where they're going to conserve tropical Caribbean endangered plants. The Florida Public Archaeological Network is actually using it to prioritize which of the cultural assets on our landscape require immediate attention. And just to bring this to a close, I just wanted to remind you that Collier will be getting the second package of tools, ACUNE Plus, probably next year. And once this is in play, then Collier had the ability to look at its vulnerability to both freshwater and seawater in a very comprehensive December 2, 2021 Page 9 of 78 way. Our next steps: There are training sessions scheduled by the county for the county staff, and those are coming up next week, December 6th and 7th. The League is developing a series of public presentations, one for each of the county's districts, to inform decision makers and the public in those particular districts. And we're hoping that ACUNE is applied when managing growth and redevelopment, and I guess that's where your role could come in. So let me just say thanks. There are -- there's contact information there if you would like to get in touch with us, our email addresses. And I'm going to turn it over to Judy and Sally. DR. HUSHON: Are you going to go over there and drive? MS. WOLIVER: We're going to use Mike to drive, because it's his computer, and I might crash it. DR. HUSHON: Oh, okay. MS. WOLIVER: Just a couple of things. These slides are available to you if you'd like. We can send them to you. It helps you to review it. And where would you like to go this morning? Is there any particular scenario or part of town that you would like to see? COMMISSIONER SHEA: We're sitting in a meeting right now. How about here? MS. WOLIVER: Okay. Sounds good. DR. HUSHON: Government center. MS. WOLIVER: Do you want to grab your doughnuts first? DR. HUSHON: Let's go ahead and go to 2030 medium sea level rise. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is this -- DR. SAVARESE: This is the government center here. DR. HUSHON: And the medium -- our person up in the University of Florida, Peter Sheng, has said that the medium may be our new low, so I don't look at anything below medium usually. When I'm doing evaluations, I start with kind of a medium. Look at the medium; look at the high. This is because the Arctic and Antarctic are melting faster, and we're seeing sea level rise occur at greater rates. Now we're getting close to the government center. DR. SAVARESE: This is the government center here. I guess this is the building. Is this the building we are standing in or sitting in? All right. So I'm going to turn on -- what year did you pick, 2060? DR. HUSHON: Well, you can do 2060, or we can do 2030 and then do 2060. DR. SAVARESE: All right. Here's 2030 with a medium sea level rise. DR. HUSHON: Medium. DR. SAVARESE: So you can see the stormwater management areas, the ponds, are affected by nuisance tidal flooding, but the landscape, you know, the infrastructure and the buildings themselves, are pretty secure. I can zoom in a little bit closer. Okay. So, again, this is nuisance flooding without a storm. DR. HUSHON: However, to the south and west, across -- across 41, things get a little wetter, and some of the homes are not doing so well, and some of the streets are not doing so well. DR. SAVARESE: Here's Haldeman Creek. Here's -- what's the name of the food truck park? COMMISSIONER FRY: Celebration. DR. SAVARESE: Celebration Park. Celebration Park is actually dry under this scenario, but you can see this neighborhood in Olde Naples, and this neighborhood here, by the way, which has been experiencing nuisance flooding for years, is seriously impacted. So there's a lot of -- a lot of homes there. DR. HUSHON: But this gives you all -- if you're looking at a piece of land for development, all you have to do is go to where that location is and put in several scenarios, and you will quickly know how resilient that land is to flooding -- December 2, 2021 Page 10 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would one of the options then -- DR. HUSHON: -- and to storms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- be if an applicant comes before us with a project, and we would take a look at this software and determine where sea level would be in a certain subsequent year, we could, then, perhaps ask the applicant to build up; is that -- would that be one -- DR. HUSHON: You could ask them to build up. You could tell them that their roads need to be much higher than you might have thought, that the general landscape needs to be higher, or where to locate buildings on the land, because the land is often high and low. When you look at the LiDAR of the land, you know that there's a high part and a low part. And this really underlines the fact that you need to keep the development in the high part, and you may need -- the high part may be smaller than they thought it was. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So there are some things that we could do in the future to mitigate what would otherwise be very unfavorable consequences? DR. HUSHON: Yes. And what's happening, too, are that some of the feeder roads for some of the developments you're going to be looking at are going to be under. For example, along Haldeman Creek there, some of the roads down in that area go under well. Gordon Drive goes under. Gulf Shore Drive goes under. Some of the streets in the City of Naples go under. Now, that's not your concern right now, but they do; they go under. Down in the area of the city dock, all those streets look like they're under water completely. Some of the houses are up and dry, but these -- DR. SAVARESE: You know, this -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask Commissioner Fry to ask a question, if you don't mind, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just in interpreting the map, I see the areas of blue, dark blue and light blue. Now, they don't really show buildings underneath, but I'm assuming some of those areas there actually are buildings there. So is there an easy way to, like, shift this on and off so you can see where the buildings were and what was covered by water? MS. WOLIVER: Yes. You just turn it on and off, and you can pick what level you want. We wanted you to understand nuisance flooding, too. It's a great description, right. Well, nuisance flooding is high tides and low tides. It's the perigee and moon, when the moon is closest, added to sea level rise. So that's your definition for nuisance flooding when you see this, because it helps to understand conceptually. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you take this back to 2021 so we can see what's not covered in blue? DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, I'm going to do that right now. So I'm going to just turn off the modeling or turn off the nuisance flooding so -- but maybe concentrate your focus on this blue area here. And as I turn it off -- if I can find it, here it is. If I turn this off, you can see -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, my goodness. DR. SAVARESE: There are a lot of houses. This is actually a mobile home park. Commonly, you know, what you see, unfortunately, is that the lower -- the lower valued property that allow for this kind of development, or has in the past, turns out to be the most vulnerable to sea level effects. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. DR. SAVARESE: If you don't mind, the Chairman asked a question how to use this. This is -- this is really all about building resilience. In other words, how do you adapt to these kinds of problems? And there are practices in place, and the county is charged and staffed to do this, to take this information and develop adaptation plans that can then minimize the risk, say, of this neighborhood going under water in 2030 due to nuisance flooding. And so that's part of the normal practice in growth management and development. The trick is finding ways to pay for it, of course. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you show us 2060 now? December 2, 2021 Page 11 of 78 DR. SAVARESE: Sure. The same neighborhood? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. DR. SAVARESE: All right. So I'm going to go with 2060, and I'm going to go with -- DR. HUSHON: Medium. DR. SAVARESE: Medium. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, my God. DR. HUSHON: What park? MS. WOLIVER: Yeah. Now, remember, you're probably looking at this and saying, oh, I'm buying a boat. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, you need to be on mic. MS. WOLIVER: Sorry. What you want to remember when you're looking at this is the reason we picked the time frame starting in 2030 was that there would be time for Collier County, City of Naples, Marco Island, et cetera, to look at their budget and say, what do we need to be doing? Where do we want to be relocating? Where do roads need to be made higher? So what you're looking at is as this model is being completed, there's the time now to begin to react and to make decisions. That's why next week Judy and I will be working closely with Amy Patterson and her staff to help with staff training. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry and then Eastman. COMMISSIONER FRY: It seems like one of the logical applications of this would by FEMA, you know, and for our codes in terms of floodplains, you know, flood elevations, all those types of things. We experienced a lot of this in our One Naples application. DR. HUSHON: The manager for that is actually coming to the training next week. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So would FEMA use this tool? I mean, we have a lot of controversy about flood insurance and floodplains and all those kinds of things. DR. SAVARESE: Right. You know, I guess I'm just a geeky scientist and don't necessarily understand how the insurance world works. I don't know that anybody understands how the insurance world works. But suffice it to say, you know, this is going to provide more comprehensive and, I would argue, more realistic scenarios for flooding in the future. Under obligations of law, I do believe the county has to follow FEMA's flood maps and the way they're flooding things. So -- and I would venture to say that our scenarios are probably, overall, more worrisome than what FEMA's flood maps are generating. There's a new generation of FEMA flood maps that are being produced. So it gives the county an opportunity to be a little more conservative, I would argue, in terms of a way they decide to manage. How that affects insurance rates is another matter. Insurance rates are not going to be calculated based on these simulations; they're going to be based on FEMA's flood maps. DR. HUSHON: This is much more useful in the western and southern parts of the county right now. When the new ACUNE Plus comes out, it will also have inundation. And what also happens, of course, is that inundation comes down through our canal systems and meets storm surge coming up from the coast. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Mike, is there time to do an example that's along the coast, like the Vanderbilt Beach area or something, or Pelican Bay, something that's right along the gulf? DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, that's fine. As long as you have time, we can be -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: How about your residence, Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Much further inland. DR. SAVARESE: You want -- DR. HUSHON: That's Pelican Bay right there, you're on. DR. SAVARESE: Did you want to see Pelican Bay and north? MR. EASTMAN: Sure. Yeah, sure. DR. HUSHON: And leave "and north" on, because -- December 2, 2021 Page 12 of 78 MR. EASTMAN: And north. DR. HUSHON: Because North Naples has some issues when you -- I was going to say, leave the north on, because north -- well, you can always zoom up there and go up there. But it has more of a problem. Remember, Pelican Bay has mangroves in front of their beaches, so it, in terms of storm surge, a good buffer. It's one of our few neighborhoods with a buffer. DR. SAVARESE: So this is the coastal edge, again, Pelican Bay, all the way north up to Wiggins Pass, and this is nuisance flooding only, 2030, with a medium sea level rise magnitude. And a lot of what you're seeing flooded down here, anyway, is Clam Bay, Clam Bays themselves. But these neighborhoods are obviously affected. Let me zoom in here to the Vanderbilt Beach area. And let me -- let me turn off the simulation so you can see what's underneath it. I suspect mostly what you're seeing here is natural areas along the Cocohatchee River. So these are areas that are not developed. So if I turn this off, you can see it's mangrove forest primarily. DR. HUSHON: But down -- if you go down to the area just south -- the bottom center of the screen, you'll see this is North Naples, and there are a lot of blue areas down in there, and these are houses that have just flooded out. DR. SAVARESE: Now we've just looked at -- MR. EASTMAN: Can you show us 2060? DR. SAVARESE: Yeah, sure. Let me turn this off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that Naples Park? DR. SAVARESE: This is Naples Park. DR. HUSHON: Yes. DR. SAVARESE: So here's 2060 medium, okay. And things get a little more serious. So these neighborhoods are affected here in Naples Park. If I scroll back up to Vanderbilt Beach and the Cocohatchee, some of these neighborhoods are affected. This neighborhood is affected. DR. HUSHON: The one just to the north of that. DR. SAVARESE: Let me turn it on and off real quick just to see what's underneath. I don't know what neighborhood this is, but this neighborhood looks like it's impacted under this scenario. DR. HUSHON: Totally. Like, totally. But this is why, in planning -- anything that you plan and allow development on in the future should be able to have at least 40-year or 50-year life, at least that's -- I think, I mean, if you're going to build something, it has to have a certain life period, and that's why it's important to know, the land looks fine today, but it may not be 20 years from now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like the FEMA rules may be more relaxed than the rules that we might want to put in. DR. HUSHON: They are. I would agree with you. DR. SAVARESE: They are, but they're likely to change and will get more stringent. DR. HUSHON: And the insurance companies are picking this up. That's the other thing to remember. Insurance along the coast is becoming much more -- already becoming much more expensive due to storm surge. MS. WOLIVER: Actually, to address the commissioner's question a little more fully, FEMA and NOAA are cooperating. NOAA's now being used to inform FEMA with their maps, so you're going to see changes. It will be trickle effect, too, to the Army Corps of Engineers who's been relying on FEMA, but there is a difference. Peter Sheng, Dr. Peter Sheng who wrote this model, is Mike's co-collaborator on the grant, has said, look for changes, because they're recognizing that FEMA is no longer adequate for the dynamics of sea level rise and climate change. So you will be seeing changes in the very, very near future. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are insurance companies able to look at this model, which you've said is more severe, more worrisome, and are they able to base their rates on this, which would result in huge increases for people that are in potentially impacted areas? December 2, 2021 Page 13 of 78 MS. WOLIVER: Well, first, one step at a time. This is a tool that was created for the governments here in Collier County: Marco Island, City of Naples, Collier County. How private businesses will have access to this will really be something that needs to be discussed. I mean, it can be made available, but the other thing is you cannot have too many users on this at the same time because it's a very, very sophisticated tool. Go ahead. DR. SAVARESE: FEMA only has control over the National Flood Insurance Program. So if your property's covered by the National Flood Insurance Program, then you have to conform to their rules. So this alliance between NOAA and FEMA and the reconfiguration of FEMA's flood maps will bring in better science. Not ACUNE-level science, but better science, nonetheless, and will affect that National Flood Insurance Program. I don't know how many people in our county rely on that program and how many have independent insurance. And I guess it's conceivable that, you know, this tool could be used to determine insurance rates through private -- through other companies. COMMISSIONER FRY: But just as they have their own actuaries -- DR. HUSHON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- they would use whatever tools they deem accurate to set the rates, I would assume, the private insurance companies. DR. SAVARESE: I believe that's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: They're not restricted to using FEMA? DR. HUSHON: No, they are not restricted, and -- but they will -- they have started using some, and the rates are going up. I mean, if you were to ask questions, the rates along the coast, among people who are having to purchase insurance, homeowners' insurance, have gone up. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MS. WOLIVER: Just to add to that, one of the things that Judy and I are doing through the League of Women Voters is we are inviting community leaders. We're inviting businesses and giving small-group sessions over Zoom so that they can see, and it's part of why we want to do, working with Collier County, the meetings in each district. Those will both be live and available over Zoom. And next week we'll be talking with Amy, Amy Patterson, our Deputy County Manager, about scheduling those and how to work collaboratively with each BCC commissioner who, by the way, they've all seen this, too. DR. HUSHON: We're also working with some of our business -- not our businesses. But, like, the Botanical Garden, they were just about to embark on strategic planning. This was perfect timing for them. Their whole staff and their board have seen it. So they can plan. The zoo has to do planning, the Naples Zoo. Conservancy. Other groups where -- which are -- other outside groups that have to do planning, they are going to be impacted, just as neighborhoods have to plan, businesses have to plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your presentation is very intriguing and persuasive. I'm going to interrupt you for just a second and ask Mr. Youngblood for the purposes of our forward planning for our morning, do we have registered speakers after this, sir? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have one registered speaker for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So maybe take another five or 10 minutes if you need it, or if not we can -- MS. WOLIVER: I think, if you're -- DR. HUSHON: Sally, you're not on -- MS. WOLIVER: If you're fine, we're fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think we took liberties of interrupting and got our questions answered. And, again, your presentation was very informative. MS. WOLIVER: Thank you. We're happy to come back. DR. HUSHON: And I guess the other thing is, any of you who would like to try driving December 2, 2021 Page 14 of 78 it, you have our emails. We can make that available. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, did you want to be heard, sir? COMMISSIONER SHEA: It just seems like an unbelievable tool but, like anything else, it has a good and a bad side of it, and how quickly we can get to the resiliency part of it is going to have a big impact because to me, if I own a house right there in the middle of that blue area, I'd be looking to sell it if I saw this chart, and that's also the other side of the coin is maybe a little bit of unnecessary impact on the sales, real estate sales and the ownership of the properties in these areas. So as fast as we can move to what the plan is to mitigate as much of this as possible is really important. DR. HUSHON: You can put pressure a little bit to the county. They are talking about hiring a chief resiliency officer. You-all can be a little bit of pressure on how fast that hire occurs. MS. WOLIVER: And please remember, we're looking out in time. This is based on what we know the best science available for 2030. That's to give us an opportunity as a community to respond intelligently. You know, it doesn't mean go out and sell your property. It means plan ahead. This is why we're using this, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, did you have more? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Actually, I have a question for Mike. I mean, we've talked about the county. What is the county going to do with this? How do you anticipate implementing the use of this? It probably needs some kind of regulatory support, I would guess. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is going to play very neatly into our next agenda item. This is a statement of the problem. Then we're going to talk about solutions. I'm sorry, Dr. Savarese, go ahead. DR. SAVARESE: It's the other Mike. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The other Mike. Mike Bosi. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. DR. SAVARESE: Good name, by the way. MR. BOSI: I would correlate it to how the county utilizes the Collier Interactive Growth Model, CIGM. It's a supplemental planning tool that we utilize that models land-use activity and infrastructure needs and service needs associated with those land-use activities and provides a complement towards how we do our long-range planning and some of our capital planning. I believe this is a tool that the Board has recognized that's valuable within specifically the next item that's up is the amendment to the CCME that's telling us within two years we have to develop a resiliency plan for low-lying flooding areas. Obviously, this is a tool that could be -- could be utilized to help us inform us of where those activities are, where those vulnerabilities are, and how to best address those and target the areas of greatest need and provide for a broader understanding of where the issues are today but, more importantly, where the issues can be 20, 30, and 40 years out into the future. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How do you see it impacting what we do on a biweekly basis? We review -- we review a proposed development, will there be a -- maybe another review group that would tell us how it might be impacted in the future with maybe some recommendations or -- MR. BOSI: That could be one of the outcomes of, you know, as staff is trained upon the model as we start looking at it, as we have applications that are in the Coastal High Hazard Area, as we have applications that are within the more -- those spots closer to the coast, we could -- I could see how this could inform us to be able to provide you more information as to some of the impacts and some of the needed improvements or needed conditions that may be required, you know, if there was going to be a contemplation of a petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And also we sit as the EAC, and that role may become even more significant in the future as a result of problems like this. I think the presenters have done an admirable job in keeping within the requested time, and we thank you very much for that. Any final remarks? DR. SAVARESE: No. December 2, 2021 Page 15 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. DR. SAVARESE: Thanks. DR. HUSHON: We're here if you need us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. DR. SAVARESE: Can I shut this down? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to have a couple of registered speakers. You might want to leave it up. DR. SAVARESE: I'll just get it out of the way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's fine. Mr. Youngblood, who do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I actually have two registered speakers on this item. Our first one is going to be Dennis Vasey, followed by Stan Chrzanowski. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Morning, Colonel. MR. VASEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dennis P. Vasey, a full-time resident of Collier County. Development of a National Ocean Atmospheric Administration web-based interactive decision-support tool for Adaptation of Coastal, Urban, and Natural Ecosystems, ACUNE, began in 2017, and it's progressing. ACUNE is a geo tool. It uses the best available climate, coastal, ecological, and economic sciences to model probabilistic coastal flood maps and asset maps. ACUNE data visualizations can inform and impact decision-making and resolve misunderstandings about how we might be affected by climate change and biodiversity loss. Climate change and biodiversity loss are linked and present socioeconomic and environmental challenges of various spatial scales that require strong adaptation and mitigation strategies. ACUNE represents the best local climate change and biodiversity loss information available. I respectfully request that you recommend ACUNE use be mandated for all future development and restoration projects delivered to your commission for consideration. And as an aside, I recommend that you include all of the other tools currently being used in our future planning assessments to build resiliency in your recommendation. Thank you, and Seasons Greetings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Colonel Vasey. Next speaker, please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next and final speaker is going to be Stan Chrzanowski. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome, Honorable Mr. Chrzanowski. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you for your kind words, Ed. And for you Terri, "Wesolych Swiat Bozego Narodzenia i szczesliwego Nowego Roku." That's Polish for Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Probably a few other things, too, which should go unsaid. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I know you all know about tides. You get two high tides and two low tides a day, and both the high tides are a different elevation. And the higher of the two high tides, you take the average of the higher of the two high tides, and you get mean, average, high high tide. But tide does rise higher than that. I assume they're going with the highest tide or maybe the mean average. That will all be worked out. This county has a very good drainage system, but drainage systems work both ways. Culverts flow both ways. If you're trying to drain a road to an area where the water is higher than the road, the water's going to drain back to the road. I assume the model takes that into account. Back in -- well, I retired in 2010, and you never could have convinced me in 2010 that humans could change the world's climate. It just wasn't going to happen. In 2016, two scientists, Rob DeConto and Dave Pollard, wrote a paper that appeared in Nature Magazine. There's two major science journals in the English-speaking world. There's Science and there's Nature. You December 2, 2021 Page 16 of 78 see something quoted about COVID or asteroids or sea level rise or evolution, it's going to be in one of those two. I used to subscribe to both, but now a buddy subscribed to Nature, and we swap every week. They come out weekly, because science changes so quickly. Well, DeConto and Pollard wrote a paper about Antarctica melting a lot faster than they thought, but that didn't include Greenland, and it didn't include land-based glaciers and whatever. And when you looked at what they wrote, you know, it caught my eye, because they said that the sea level rise may be four feet from that, and then you add the others to it, and you're talking six feet by the year 2100 and high tide being, like, three, and the average elevation of the Everglades being, like, six. The first thing that caught my eye was we're losing the Everglades. So I wrote Dr. DeConto and Pollard, and they sent me to Ben Strauss with Climate Central who, you know, we talked, and he kind of convinced me that, yeah, we're going to lose the Everglades. And I'm looking at all these restoration programs we have going, and, you know, we're throwing money down the drain. But also the rising of the sea -- you saw the exhibit he put up about where the water's going to be around the airport. Well, roads have road base under them. When that gets saturated, the road base kind of gets spongy, and the roads start to fail. Long before you lose the houses, long before the road floods, it starts to fail because the base is flooded. The base gets saturated. So there's a lot of -- I'm happy to see this going forward. When I was on the Planning Commission, I -- once or twice I brought up sea level rise, and back in those days, under Governor Scott, it was not an item that was well received. I'm glad to see that people are finally starting to pay a little bit of attention to it. And I am sure that your model is going to at least get somebody's attention. Thank you very much, and have a nice day. And, Terri, if you want to know how to spell that, I'll send it to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner Chrzanowski. Any other registered speakers? No. Anyone in the room who is not -- or Mr. Bosi, go ahead, please. MR. BOSI: I just wanted to make the Planning Commission aware, we have Chris Mason available. He is the county's floodplain manager related to FEMA and related issues. I know we had just a little bit of discussion related to insurance regulation and FEMA issues. We just brought him here just in case -- not to make a presentation. Just in case you had any questions for him. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Appreciate that. Any persons in the audience who did not register but wish to speak on this matter, please raise your hands. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, anything else from the Planning Commission on this before we move from a statement of the problem to some possible solutions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, Ned, I would -- I would be interested in hearing from the gentleman from the county just in how this tool might be used by the floodplain managers at your discretion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's entirely in order. COMMISSIONER FRY: You came all this way. I figured we needed to -- we owed you an opportunity to speak. MR. MASON: Sure, sure. It's a pleasure to speak here today. My name is Chris Mason. I am the floodplain coordinator for the county. As far as what our department does, I work directly with the Building Department. We're located in the floodplain management section, which is basically a subset to the Building December 2, 2021 Page 17 of 78 Department. And the current regulations and ordinances that we enforce are based on the Florida Building Code and also FEMA regulations. So at this time the Florida Building Code requires a one foot of elevation above what we call the base flood elevation or what is the elevation of the 100-year flood event. As far as the modeling goes for the ACUNE program, again, as it was explained, that -- the elevation of the water that's shown in there or the modeling is shown to be the 100-year flood on top of sea level rise, if I understood that correctly. MS. WOLIVER: Nuisance flooding. MR. MASON: Nuisance flooding. So the FEMA maps do not incorporate that data. The FEMA maps incorporate historical storm data against topographic data, and that's contained in our flood insurance study. And so FEMA, and its contractors, what they do is they do their own modeling, which is a separate product from this ACUNE program and, again, that only covers historic flooding or historic storms and topographic data. So that's what derives your 100-year floodplain. And as far as we, again, enforce our building regulations, that's, again, based on the Florida Building Code which has incorporated the "one foot above base flood elevation" requirement for commercial and residential structures. A tool like this could be used to go in and update ordinances. There are communities around the country that go beyond the minimum. At this point in time, FEMA's minimum is to build at base flood elevation. They don't have that one-plus-foot requirement. That's a state-driven requirement. There are communities around the country that have gone to two feet and three feet above base flood elevations, but those are written into their own local ordinances, and I suspect some of that is planning on sea level rise, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MASON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And no one else is signaling at this point. So, yes, Dr. Hushon. DR. HUSHON: One of the other things I just thought I'd point out, Dr. Sheng, who is the author of the model, he has said repeatedly that the storms are getting worse. They are intensifying closer to land, and they are retaining their intensity longer when they're on land than was historically true. And that's if you go back to the old storms versus the newer storms. And so when he has been modeling the storm impact -- if you turn on storm, which is one of the little dots you can hit, we really didn't do storm today. We never turned on that dot. But if you had turned on that dot, it is a little worse storm than it used to be if you use just the historic data because he weights it to the more modern data. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. ***The first matter coming before us today on our formal agenda is PL20210001271. It is the EAR-based CCME Growth Management Plan amendment. It's coming to us for adoption. We've already heard it back, I think, in June. We heard it on transmittal. It is legislative in nature. We don't need to swear in witnesses, and we don't need to make disclosures. And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Sabo. MR. SABO: Good morning, Commissioners. James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager for the county. I won't belabor this any longer. Our recommendation is that you approve this as the land planning agency for the county and forward the CCME proposed amendments to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit their adoption to the Florida DEO, and I'll entertain any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Sabo, are there any changes that have been made since we December 2, 2021 Page 18 of 78 heard this for transmittal? MR. SABO: We have not. It essentially reflects House Bill 1094, and that's directly from the state legislature. COMMISSIONER FRY: As we discussed it back then, it was really mandated by the state, and this is really boilerplate they've provided that we're inserting into our codes, correct? MR. SABO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And, again, this is just setting a target for when we'll have some plans in place to address what we previously heard in the previous presentation of sea level rise? MR. SABO: That is correct, Commissioner Shea. It requires the use of best practices. If the county finds that ACUNE is the best practice, then, of course, they would utilize that model. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a question: It does say in here this item requires ex parte disclosure on the agenda. Is that incorrect? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is incorrect. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? Anyone else signaling? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a few comments, a very few, and I'll try to keep it brief. First of all, what portion from 100 percent on down is this an unfunded mandate from Tallahassee? MR. SABO: Well, I have not read about any money coming our way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I thought. Okay. And I'm not personally opposed to it, but I will point out the inconsistent or anomaly at least in a very recent mandate that came down from Tallahassee declaring as sancrosact -- sacrosanct certain property rights that we were required to approve and we did approve, and now this comes down and cautions us that certain things such as emergency egress in the event of a flood and types of constructions that can occur on the west side of the flood line, we must be mindful of. And, once again, it seems as though there's a great deal of sausage being made up in Tallahassee; that our job is simply to eat it and say thank you very much. I see these as conflicting. We don't have any choice about it, and -- but I wanted to make that point. And also One Naples was mentioned by Commissioner Fry. And it's my understanding that One Naples is 50/50; that half of it is seaward of the coastal construction control line -- and go ahead. MR. BOSI: The Coastal High Hazard Area. It's half and half within the Coastal High Hazard Area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Coastal High Hazard Area, okay. So I'm just wondering out loud; maybe there's no answer to this question: Had this statute come down for our mandate enactment before One Naples, would that, perhaps, have changed the action or at least the way we had looked at it? If you want to comment on that, I'd be glad to hear a comment. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. I would say if we were at the end of the task that's required by this amendment of the CCME, then possibly it could have informed the -- it could have informed some of the discussions in a more elaborate way related to inundation related to sea level rise and some of the resiliency strategies that we are going to be developing over that course of time. So, yes, I think it could have, but that would have been a little bit further down the road than just us adopting. This adopting means we're going to -- the time clock is starting for us to get this -- the resiliency study done, but yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And this had actually been a major point of Chairman Strain who expressed on multiple occasions his concerns about evacuation and sheltering December 2, 2021 Page 19 of 78 in the event of a hurricane. And I notice Point No. 12 of Exhibit A calls upon us to consider hurricane evacuation and sheltering when we approve projects that are high density, high intensity. Also, No. 14, reduction of flood risks, I'm not sure exactly how we do that other than try to pare down the size of projects. But these are all questions that I think we will need to address going forward. And I don't have any further comments to offer on it. Anybody else want to be heard at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it's here for us on adoption. We've heard from staff. Any registered speakers, Mr. Youngblood? No registered speakers. Anyone in the room who has not registered but wishes to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. With that, we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing, and we'll take up our deliberation and action on the question of recommending adoption. Who'd like to begin? You can begin with a motion, or you can begin with a comment. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to adopt and transmit. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we recommend adoption of this GMPA to the Board of County Commissioners and that upon adoption it be forwarded to the State of Florida for official recording. Any further the discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously; that is to say by a vote of 4 to nothing. All right. It's eight minutes after 10. I suggest that we now take a 10-minute break, our midmorning break, and then we can come back, and we can hear the St. Matthews matter. We stand in recess for 10 minutes until 10:18. (A brief recess was had from 10:08 a.m. to 10:18 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Let's reconvene, please. ***The second matter coming before us today is PL20210000176. It's the St. Matthew's House CPUD. 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 Mr. Eastman, please. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials, public record only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. I made a site visit to St. Matthew's. I had communications with and materials from staff, and similarly with the applicant, members of the public. Also, I've reviewed the public code enforcement records pertaining to this property. December 2, 2021 Page 20 of 78 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I amend mine? I did make a staff visit -- a site visit as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll begin with the applicant's presentation. Mr. Yovanovich, you're on. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Do you want me to start even though the County Attorney's chair is empty at this point? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's wait. But while we're waiting, let's talk about your traffic consultant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. As I talked to the Chair, Jim Banks, our traffic consultant, is -- he said I could tell this on the record. He previously had colon cancer, and he's having issues ever since the surgery for that. Sometimes he has flare-ups that makes it very uncomfortable for him. So he's going to -- with your indulgence, would appear by phone and on Zoom because he just, candidly, doesn't feel well enough to be here in person. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand completely, and I don't think there will be any objection from the Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- for that to happen. All right. So let's proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. As I said, my name for the record. The individuals who are here in person that will be discussing the petition are Steve Brooder, who's the chief executive officer for St. Matthew's House. Steve's right there; myself; Mr. Arnold, who you're familiar with; Frank Feeney is not going to make a presentation but is here to answer any questions you may have that are civil engineering related; and then Jim Banks, after Mr. Arnold, will do a brief overview of his TIS. The location of the property is on the screen. What we're here to do is actually consolidate three parcels of property that are currently owned by St. Matthew's House that have three different zoning designations. The most northern piece up here is where the current St. Matthew's House is, which is going to remain. That is zoned C-4, and it's within the overlay, Bayshore/Gateway Overlay, and it has a conditional use. The middle 4.5 acres, roughly right here, is zoned the DeVoe PUD. And, finally, the most southern piece where the former dealership was, right here, is zoned C-4. So we're coming in to consolidate the properties into one commercial PUD. The essence of the petition, and Mr. Arnold will get into greater detail, is to increase the number of homeless shelter beds on the existing homeless shelter site and, if approved within the existing homeless shelter, from 104 beds to 150 beds, and to establish within the PUD a maximum of 130,000 square feet of commercial-related development. Right now there is no cap on the commercial-related development. It's whatever you can fit on the two C-4 parcels you can have as long as you meet the development standards. C-4 height is 75 feet. Mr. Arnold will explain in greater detail that we're reducing that to 50 feet. So there are some changes that are being made through this petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that zoned or actual? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is -- that's actually -- that is zoned height, and we have an actual height in there as well. But right now, as you know, straight zoning districts only have zoned height in them. They do not have an actual height definition or limitation. What we're not here to do -- and which was I, think, miss -- I'm assuming you've read materials from Mr. Pires and the planner who provided testimony. We are not here to allow for the homeless shelter beds to be on Tract B. And, in fact, if you look at the C-4 zoning district allowable uses, the C-4 zoning district makes it clear that group housing excludes homeless shelter beds. So we've never asked for the ability to put homeless shelter beds on Tract B. We have December 2, 2021 Page 21 of 78 agreed to say it more clearly by putting another express prohibition for homeless shelter beds on Tract B, but we've never asked for homeless shelter beds on Tract B. We are -- Mr. Brooder is going to come up and explain to you the vision for St. Matthew's House. They do more than just provide a homeless shelter. He will explain how the homeless shelter works, because I think there may be some misconceptions out there about how the homeless shelter actually works. Terms like "we're going to increase vagrancy" is not a fact, because the homeless shelter takes great care in making sure both those who need the services are safe but the surrounding community is safe. And I'm going to have Mr. Brooder come up and explain in detail how that works, how they do that, their goal for this campus, and then Mr. Arnold will come up and provide his planning testimony, and after that Mr. Banks will provide some transportation testimony. MR. BROODER: Good morning. I'm Steve Brooder, St. Matthew's House CEO. I wanted to give some background, as Rich said, and be able to answer any questions. For over 34 years now, St. Matthew's House has been focused on serving people experiencing homelessness, hunger, and addiction. That's our focus. That's what we do. That's our mission. And today, we operate the only two homeless shelters in Collier County. The focus of today's meeting is the Campbell Lodge in Naples with 104 beds, and we also have the Immokalee Friendship House in Immokalee with 44 beds. Both shelters are operated very much in the same way, and I'll describe that a little more. Our Naples shelter was built in 1994 and underwent extensive renovation in the past few years. While we were constrained by the conditional use to the number of beds and air conditioned space, we were able to create more efficient space during the renovation and add non-air conditioned space, which is a multipurpose space. Now we're able to make this application to increase our capacity to 104 beds within the existing footprint. Today our current waitlist daily is averaging 50 to 60 people. Now, that's a mix, and it varies every day between men and women and moms with kids. With the renovation we actually increased our ability to serve moms with children by creating more secure apartments for them. We have a very extensive intake process when folks come to us. They're drug screened. There's a daily Breathalyzer. We also do a thorough background check. So we have rules. We don't allow certain offenders into the shelter. This makes our shelters, both of them, what we call high-barrier shelters. You may be familiar with the terms "wet shelter," "damp shelter," "low barrier." Ours is a high barrier in the sense that there's no drugs, no alcohol is allowed, no disruption is allowed. We also, through the renovation, were able to establish a much better controlled access to the property. So as you visited the property, you saw the fence and the gates. That's to make both the people inside secure and the populations inside the facility secure. So we separate, with a controlled access, the men from the women from the moms with kids. Anybody can leave any time, but it's a very controlled access to enter the shelter. We also assign a bunk and a locker to everyone that comes in, and after intake our goal is to provide intensive case management to everybody that we serve. That means everybody has a case file. Everybody meets with a case manager. And the whole process is to get people experiencing homelessness back on their feet back to a normal life. We view this model -- we call it transformative rehabilitation. It's very different from some shelters in other cities where people can line up for a bunk every night. That's not how we operate. So once you're assigned a bunk and a locker, you can stay up to 90 days. Right now our typical stay is about 68 days. Some folks stay longer. There are exceptions. If you're working on things that are very important getting back to your regular life, then we can extend that 90 days. We work with a lot of partners which are invaluable to the shelter operation: Neighborhood Health Clinic, NCH, David Lawrence Center. These are all invaluable partners to us. December 2, 2021 Page 22 of 78 You probably heard about the annual point in time count. That's one night in January all across the country. Basically all the coalitions in every county or every municipality, with volunteers, go out to seek to count the number of homeless in that municipality. One night in January. So it's an estimated count. And in Collier County, the latest numbers are between 600 and 700 individuals experiencing homelessness. That's what they counted. But it's widely recognized that's about a third, typically, as you look across the country, of the actual number of homeless in any area. It's just hard to find people when they don't want to be found. So as we get into our transformative rehabilitation, we're really focused on helping people find employment, taking care of matters that have affected their ability to find a home, and get back to a normal life. And part of that is we have transitional housing. We operate Wolfe Apartments. So folks that are doing well can transition to apartment living and then move on from there. But, basically, our shelters can only accommodate those wishing to be served, wishing to improve their situation, and are willing to come in and abide by the rules. So there are many chronic homeless on the streets that don't wish to be sheltered. Many are suffering with mental illness. Another problem, of course, with homelessness is addiction. In 2010, when we saw a revolving door of folks coming into the shelter, leaving and then coming back, addiction was part of their problem. So in 2010 we started a men's recovery program so that people coming into the shelter that were suffering from addiction could move right into -- be referred to our recovery program, and in 2013 we started our women's program. So that's worked very well to transition people from the state of homelessness when they're in addiction into recovery. Our county drug court has been a great partner in referring people to the shelter to avoid incarceration, and we've worked very closely with the drug court. I mentioned our three core mission items, and hunger is foremost in that. That's how St. Matthew's House began those 34 years ago was feeding hungry people. And then COVID came along in March and April of 2020 and had a huge impact on our food assistance program. So we met the challenge to date. We have delivered over 270,000 meal boxes to people suffering from food insecurity at 12 different distribution sites. These are mainly our church partners. And we work together with our food bank partners, Harry Chapin and Midwest Food Bank and individual donors and contributors to provide that food. We now have a 10,000-square-foot warehouse that didn't exist pre-COVID, but that's to serve our food and emergency assistance in the county. We acquired the DeVoe property, I think Richard mentioned, in 2013 with the help of a generous donor, and we've maintained and improved that property over these years. This acquisition really allowed us to expand in this area to meet the growing needs of our services and to operate one of our thrift stores. We have six thrift stores. We operate those as social enterprises that provide job training for folks that are in our shelters and in our programs, and they provide the revenue to help fund the programs. We operate other social enterprises. Lulu's Kitchen is the newest on Tract B. That's an 8,000-square-foot facility that was built ground up for our purpose, and that's a great facility. If you haven't visited the Fresh Start Cafe at Lulu's Kitchen, I would encourage you to do that because it benefits the mission. The whole building is to serve the mission. As a social enterprise, we operate the Fresh Start Cafe and Delicious by Design Catering, but we also create all of our mission meals; those are all the meals that go to all of our campuses and other centers, assisted living centers, senior centers, every day. And, lastly, we operate a culinary training center inside Lulu's Kitchen. So folks that are in our shelter or in our programs can get that culinary training to then move on to jobs in hospitality. The other social enterprises we operate, I mentioned we operate Delicious by Design Catering. We also operate the Port LaBelle Inn in Hendry County as a full hotel with meeting rooms, meeting space. So all of these are integral parts of our mission, and it's really about serving people, December 2, 2021 Page 23 of 78 meeting the -- it's a growing need. And so we're there to expand and deliver services as best we can. So we're requesting the help today to continue to serve, really, the most vulnerable in Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Wayne, if you don't mind, I wanted to ask Mr. Brooder a few questions. MR. ARNOLD: Of course. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Brooder, thank you for that overview, and I appreciate it. Some questions just in reading some of the opposition to this and just in better understanding your mission. Under what circumstances are moms and children accepted? Is it generally a hunger? Is -- it just -- MR. BROODER: Into the shelter? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR. BROODER: They're experiencing homelessness. COMMISSIONER FRY: Homelessness? MR. BROODER: So they're living in cars with relatives, and they have nowhere else to turn. The shocking part of that waitlist every day is the moms with kids that have nowhere to go. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that a significant portion of that waitlist? MR. BROODER: It varies every day, but it can be as many as 10 moms, and right now we're full. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So one of the deviations is to reduce the square footage per occupant from 150, as in the codes, to 100. You mentioned that you can build -- you can grow from 104 to 150 in the same footprint. So explain to us why that reduction is sensible, and I guess part of that is why the 150-foot limitation that's in the codes is not applicable. MR. BROODER: Yes. We've been very successful with the space to date, but then with the renovation we realized that, when it was built in '94, there were a lot of inefficient utilizations of the space. So being creative, we worked with a consultant out of California that only works on design of homeless shelters, and we were able to take a look at the space dedicated to offices and other areas and dorm space and actually carve out more bed space in the existing footprint. COMMISSIONER FRY: So no need to -- the other option would have been, I think, to add to the square footage, maintain the 150, and just build a bigger footprint, but you decided that it was detrimental to the residents to have a smaller footprint? Is the current facility 150 square feet, or is it -- is it 100 square feet already? MR. ARNOLD: If I might. I'm Wayne Arnold, certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, and I'll try to answer that question. With their renovations, they just meet the standard for the 104 beds that they have, and as Steve mentioned, they've recaptured space. And not to mention the fact that if you've toured the facility, they no longer have the St. Matthew's House organizational business offices there. Those are above the thrift store on the south end of this property. So they have space that they can recapture. And the standard that we asked for -- essentially, the building today is about 15,000 square feet. Our idea was, let's keep it in the same footprint as they did when they added the 20 beds back in 1999. The idea was, we can keep the footprint the same, have less impact to any of our neighbors by doing that. So the standard we've written is a really simple opportunity to get 150 beds in about 15,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. Next question, it was intended for Mr. Brooder, if he's able to come back up. Mr. Brooder, what is your vision for the 130,000 square feet of commercial that's been December 2, 2021 Page 24 of 78 requested? In the opposing letter it mentioned that 64,000. That was not mentioned by Mr. Yovanovich, but they seem to imply that it grew from 64,000 to 130,000 in the application, which appears to be a doubling of that footage. It's general C-4 uses in a lot of cases. So I guess my question is, what is your vision for it? Why do you need general C-4 versus just some specific uses that are complementary to your mission? MR. BROODER: Yes. As Rich was going through the different tracts, it's -- we have been talking for a number of years to clean it up, to get it under one zoning designation. In fact, the line between the PUD and the C-4 designation to the south runs right through part of the building, the old DeVoe dealership. So this would clean it up. I don't -- I don't know if that 64,000 number is right, because when you look at the dealership, second floor, the warehouse space we have, and then we just added 8,000 square feet. So I think it's more -- existing square footage is more than that. The only immediate plan that we would have for any commercial expansion is to potentially add two bays to our warehouse, and we've been discussing this. So that's at the furthest south portion of the property. Our warehouse space was the old service -- were the old service bays for the DeVoe dealership. And as we've grown to now have six stores, it would be beneficial to have two extra bays. But we have no immediate plans to do that. We don't have bids for it or anything at this point. Some of the other structures on the property, the ancillary warehouse space is quite old. It's metal, super structure, and potentially in the future we could see improving that. But there are no immediate plans beyond that. COMMISSIONER FRY: And there are -- it doesn't sound like there are any plans for general for-profit commercial uses on the property. It's all complementary uses to -- MR. BROODER: The mission. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- St. Matthew's House? MR. BROODER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think that's all I have. Thank you very much for the clarifications. MR. BROODER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions before the applicant continues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Again, Wayne Arnold. I'm a certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. And I'm going to run you through a few of the slides. You know, we've talked already about the zoning on the property, and I've highlighted sort of the three distinct areas. So going from north to south, on the north is considered Tract A in our proposed PUD. It's currently zoned C-4, part of the mixed-use overlay for the CRA. The middle piece is what is known as the DeVoe Pontiac CPUD, and that allows a variety of C-3 type uses as well as auto dealership and things of that nature, specifically prohibits homeless shelters in its today version. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In that CPUD, is there actual and a zoned height limitation? MR. ARNOLD: It does not have an actual and zoned height limitation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And the southern blue piece that's highlighted -- and you can see what Mr. Brooder mentioned -- the zoning line goes through a portion of the building. So a thrift store's not technically allowed in the C-3 DeVoe PUD that allows C-3 type uses. So that portion -- and Steve can correct me. I haven't been in the building for a while, but it was operated as a cafe, a little, small Starbucks cafe, because that was a permitted use in the DeVoe PUD. So it's a quirky scenario. December 2, 2021 Page 25 of 78 You know, that original DeVoe building goes back into the early 1970s when it became an auto dealership, and it grew. The DeVoe PUD grew out of the need for the DeVoe dealership to expand. And those of us who've been around long enough know that that was the used car lot for the DeVoe sales lot for many, many years. And then, of course, St. Matthew's House came along in the mid 1980s and was an 84-bed facility and then grew into the 104-bed facility with a conditional use. So until, I think it must have been 1991-ish time frame, maybe late 1980s, C-4 permitted homeless shelters by right in the C-4 zoning district, and it subsequently changed to require a conditional use for soup kitchens and homeless shelters. So the 20-bed expansion was required to go through the conditional use process. And the minutes are very short. It was approved unanimously by the Board at that time. And the idea was let us utilize the existing footprint that we have. We don't need to expand our building to do that. And I don't know the history of this calculation with regard to the 1,500 square feet plus 150 square feet per person for those over seven. I don't know where that came from. I don't think anybody on current staff knows. I was at the county in 1990 through 1998, and I have no idea where that standard came from, but it's been in your code for some time. But we've done some research. We don't find anything that would prohibit us from a building code or fire code standpoint to utilize that standard. Rich has done some research, and military barracks are, like, 73 square feet per person. ALFs have various standards depending on where you look, but those standards can range from 75 to 90 square feet per person as a guideline for design purposes. So we think that the 100 square feet we've asked for, it just makes that a really simple opportunity for us to come in and make that standard work and let them recapture some of these spaces that they've renovated and no longer have the need for other than for bed space, because there's such a demand for it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't necessarily need to interrupt you, Wayne. I just was signaling that I have questions maybe at an appropriate point. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Sure. So one of the other highlights here, and I don't think it was brought out in the opposition letter, but this property is in the Activity Center No. 16. All of the property is, with the exception of the Tract A, which is the homeless shelter, and it's reflected on both of these. The one shows a closer version, and the one on the right shows the entirety of the activity center boundary. So it's in an activity center. You know, under the Comprehensive Plan, we can seek almost any commercial or light industrial use that is deemed to be compatible. Knowing that this has been largely used for a car lot and a homeless shelter for the last 25-plus years, we honestly don't think we're changing the dynamic of what's going on around us. We're simply making this a consolidated PUD with consistent development standards. It's easy for all of us to understand what the rules are, and it will be easier for our neighbors to understand what the rules are as well. Some of the surrounding uses. The Point at Naples Apartments are our most immediate neighbor to the east. They have an access easement across a portion of our property that serves as their only form of access to the apartment complex. I think there are about 290 units that have been constructed. They're two- and three-story units. Our property is outlined in yellow on that page. The government center is a very close proximate use to us. And then, of course, Home Depot is our nearest neighbor on this side of Airport Road across Glades Boulevard. And, you know, to talk a little bit about compatibility. And I know Mr. Brooder said they don't have immediate plans for building some of the other facilities, but given the location and adjacency to the government center, we think that there are a whole series of potential uses that St. Matthew's House may use to supplemental their other social service issues that they're dealing December 2, 2021 Page 26 of 78 with, and that could be leasing out office space. They could build an office building, for instance, and we know that that can fit. They could tear down the existing thrift store building that was the dealership and make a true office building out of it and capture more space and then, more importantly, rather than leasing 10,000 square feet or more for food storage offsite, there's an opportunity to build legitimate warehousing here for them to do it on site, and it wouldn't be a food distribution center like I know that -- Ms. Homiak, in your conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, it was whether this is a place where people are going to line up for a mile with hundreds of cars and get a food distribution, and that's not the case. As Mr. Brooder mentioned, they do that through their connection with other churches that they serve. So you'll see on the news in the morning, when they're having these distributions, it will be at the First Baptist Church campus or the Presbyterian Church campus or some other church campus that they have an affiliation with that can accommodate the large volumes of people who, unfortunately, need the food service. So those are some ideas of how we can get to the square footage. And as it's been said, there is no limitation today. And, you know, we obviously did a traffic analysis, and we looked at what would be a maximum footprint that we could fit here legitimately, keeping in mind that we've shrunk the two C-4 pieces from 75 feet down to 50 feet. So those would probably support three-story office buildings. We know in the City of Naples they have a 42-foot height limit. You can build a three-story office building and 42 feet if you choose to do so. So 50 feet was our established height. It was consistent with C-3 and the middle piece that was DeVoe PUD. And we can fit the 130,000 square feet in some form. You know, we've looked at can we fit an office building of, you know, 10,000 square feet per floor and do a 30,000 square foot office building that could be leased to their partners, to attorneys who want to be close to the government center and the courts, or to any other viable business that's allowed under C-4. So that's why it's important for them to have other uses in the long run here, Mr. Fry. The existing site plan, this is the Tract A. This is the shelter building itself. And in orange is highlighted everything that's currently under roof today. And the area in the little northeast corner of the site that you can see with the shading, that is a -- it's an unenclosed screen room. And, you know, they could recapture that space, for instance, by walling it in and getting the square footage to the square footage that would support our calculation of 100 square feet per person. And, again, not changing the overall footprint of the building. One of the other changes that was recently made -- and you probably saw in your backup, we went through -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Wayne, I'm sorry. I will interrupt, just because it's timely. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you showed the gray area. You're going to reclaim that. You're going to convert it to air conditioned space. Mr. Brooder mentioned bunks, and I'm curious, does each resident have their own room with a bunk in it, or is it a bunk room? MR. ARNOLD: It's a bunk room. It's -- the women and children's areas are separate rooms. The men sleep in the bunk room, so there are multiple cots, if you will, beds for -- COMMISSIONER FRY: In one large room? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So would the unshaded areas be reconfigured in any way, or are you simply making changes to the shaded area? MR. ARNOLD: What we're proposing to do -- and not to say that it would preclude them from making future changes, Mr. Fry, but under the square footage calculation that I'm trying to show you is we're limiting ourselves to 150 beds maximum, and that would equate to 15,000 square feet minimum that I need to do that. That area still will have dining space for them. The meals are not prepared on site anymore. They're prepared at Lulu's Kitchen next door, and they're brought over for feeding there. As I said, the administrative offices have been -- except for the residents who -- the December 2, 2021 Page 27 of 78 resident administrative people who are there for the shelter purposes only, the administrative business offices are all located at the thrift store building on the second floor. So there are spaces that are no longer needed to serve the overall administrative functions for St. Matthew's House as an organization. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you can add the remaining bunk beds in that area that's shaded, and that's the plan? MR. ARNOLD: That's the plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just to -- okay. So -- okay. So you would not necessarily have to change the layout of the existing building in order to meet the objective. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. And just to that, if you go through the math and calculate what we would need to satisfy 150,000 [sic] people by the formula that's in the code today, it's about 24,000 feet. So if you deny the deviation, it would require St. Matthew's House, to get to their 150 beds, to modify that footprint to increase it by about 10,000 square feet. And it's possible to do that. It's just not the ideal situation for a charity that's trying to help others. They'd like to do it in the least costly way that they can and still be the good neighbor that they've proven to be. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: This was the existing master plan and, again, highlights the fact that we've got a building that overhangs two different zoning districts. This was the master plan that was originally created, oddly enough, for the DeVoe PUD, for the middle piece, but it showed the existing dealership on it. And there was some confusion over the years that this was how big the DeVoe PUD was. It was never a 10-acre PUD. It was always about a four-and-a-half-acre PUD, but over time people sort of thought that the DeVoe dealership was one -- it was one parcel under the tax records, but it was never consolidated zoning. So in our proposed master plan, we show a Tract A, which is the homeless shelter. And as Rich mentioned, if we need to expressly prohibit the shelter to be on Tract B, we're happy to do that. And, likewise, I mentioned the warehousing use. We've added that as a permitted use, the refrigerated warehousing. And if we need to make that an accessory use only, we're happy to do that as well if that alleviates some of the concern from our neighboring property owners. And on this plan, just north of the southern Tract B, you see a box, and that box represents an area where we think we could fit a small office building in the future that could house either truly the administrative offices for St. Matthew's House or some other business function that's a permitted use under C-4. So these are our permitted uses. And as I said, the only place that the homeless shelter is permitted is on Tract A. And as Rich mentioned in his opening remarks, you can't get -- and I think there was some representation from the opposition's expert that somehow we were allowing the homeless shelter to be throughout Tract B. But if you go to the -- and I'm sure Mr. Bellows or Ms. Gundlach can affirm this, but if you look at the C-4 permitted uses, it does allow certain social services, but it specifically excludes homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Those are only found as conditional uses. CHAIRMAN FRYER: With respect to the principal uses on Tract A, you cite SIC Code 8322. Are you wanting all of those uses? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Fryer, in our brief conversation yesterday, you mentioned that to us, and I think there are certain uses that we can certainly give up. And I can -- when we move on to another expert, I can sort of maybe jot down some of those uses. You mentioned parole office and, I think, probation offices -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. ARNOLD: -- refugee services. And those are uses we can certainly expressly prohibit in that list of uses. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So you'll give us a list before we deliberate? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I will. You also mentioned legal counsel services to us, and that's one of the 9000s, and it allows for Public Defender Offices and things like that. I'm not sure that December 2, 2021 Page 28 of 78 we need those, but it's larger legal counsel type facilities. I'm not sure if there's a concern there or not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It wasn't -- my concern was not with public defender. It was with parole and probation offices. Now, I realize that across the street the county has such an office -- MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- but I don't see why you would need one as well. MR. ARNOLD: I think we would agree with that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just so I understand -- I'm not sure that I do -- if you expanded the footprint to stay at 100 square foot per bed, you could proceed without any -- any application, any process -- MR. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- from us or -- MR. ARNOLD: I would -- if we weren't going through the PUD process, I would be coming before you for a conditional use change, and that would be to increase the beds. Right now it's limited to 104. So I would, either by conditional use or this PUD vehicle, get to the 150. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No other questions from up here, so please continue. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. And we've talked a lot about the deviation on group housing and the need for that. One other deviation that we requested was at the request of your landscape review person. When this project was built, your code did not require a buffer between commercial uses. So there is no buffer on our southern boundary between our most immediate commercial use. So staff asked us to write a deviation that, in the form of redevelopment of the site, if we decide to raze portions of it that affect the southern property line, that we would put back in a buffer to code, so that's what that deviation purports to do. So we added that as a deviation. And I would say, just from the standpoint of overall compatibility that, in my opinion, we're not changing the relationship to our neighbors. And I know that they've raised several issues, but the reality is, there is no cap on our square footage. If you tell us no to the PUD, St. Matthew's House will find a way to continue to operate under its existing zoning. They may have to come back to you for a conditional use regarding the beds. And that's not ideal, obviously, because they do have the need today for this, and I think they've proven over time to be very good neighbors, and I don't know that you're going to find immediate neighbors from the Glades community here, for instance, which, back in the day, was of great concern. And I think they've grown to be good neighbors with them. And the other thing I would say is you're looking at a site that's, literally, 100 percent developed. I mean, it's been a commercial site now for years. And the apartment complex developed after the site was developed for a car dealership, and the current ownership of The Point Apartments acquired their property after the homeless shelter was there. So I'm not changing my footprint, or I'm proposing to not change my footprint for the homeless shelter. I'm proposing to lower my heights. And I'm asking for uses that are already permitted there today. And from a traffic standpoint, I know Mr. Banks is here to talk about that. But knowing that the car dealership is not operating there, I mean, think about if you're concerned about the traffic going into the apartment complex and I'm trying to offload 18 Wheelers full of cars. I can't think of anything that's probably more incompatible from a use standpoint than having to deal with that because, you know, we are aware of that, and I think when you look at -- not to steal Mr. Banks' thunder, but if you look at that traffic analysis, he concludes that there's only 12 p.m. peak hour change from the situation that we have today as opposed to the 130,000 square feet that we're asking for with the increased homeless shelter. And I know that there was some concern over the homeless shelter, whether or not an assisted living facility was the appropriate thing to use, and I'll let Mr. Banks get into that. December 2, 2021 Page 29 of 78 I'm not going to go through all of the criteria, the findings. You have 18 or so of those criteria. I identified those in my application. Staff has analyzed those as part of their staff report. I'm 100 percent confident we're consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. This isn't subject to a community character plan. This is subject to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. We're largely in the activity center. All the uses we're proposing are allowed. The compatibility and the relationship to our neighbors is remaining as it has been. It's not an incompatible relationship. You have other commercial uses that could be there, could be much more, I think, inappropriate than what we could have in the situation we have today. So I'm happy to continue to answer questions, or if you want to have Mr. Banks do a brief description of the traffic analysis, we can do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a couple of questions for him, if that's all right. Oh, and Commissioner Fry's also signaling. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a couple more for you, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: You mentioned a Starbucks on the portion that is not zoned. It's part of the vertical part of Tract B. Will that be -- is that still a Starbucks? Will that be re-purposed now once the zoning is unified and become part of the thrift -- MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Brooder's nodding his head yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- become part of the thrift store then at that point? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Speak to what could be done today without this application in terms of commercial development on the DeVoe part of the parcel. MR. ARNOLD: On the DeVoe parcel that's zoned PUD in the middle, it allows for C-3 uses as well as new and used automobile sales and some other uses. It specifically prohibits this homeless shelter, which we're continuing to prohibit today. On the C-4 piece, that's where the thrift store has been constructed and the administrative offices are located, you could recapture that as an automobile dealership. It's allowed under the C-4 use. Any of the C-4 uses would be permitted there. I could carve it up into three outparcels and put in fast-food restaurants. I could do a lot of things that would maybe not generate square footage, but they certainly generate trips. So all the underlying zoning stays the same. This is part of the overlay. The overlay allows different uses. They don't use SIC codes. They use some, you know, more general terms for uses. But the PUD that we have would prevail anyway, as does the C-4. You can elect to use all the underlying zoning, or you can elect to go into the overlay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Let me rephrase it slightly and just under the assumption that the St. Matthew's House will continue the operations as are currently on the footprint. What could you add in that -- in that middle, the vertical section in terms of, could you build an office building, a three- or four-story office building today that you are contemplating for the future under the rezone. MR. ARNOLD: So this is our proposed master plan. And on Tract B, the first Tract B designation that's outlined, that roughly is where Lulu's Kitchen is located and the cafe that exists that was recently built. South of Great Heron Drive is a small rectangular area -- square area. That's where we think an office building would fit and where one might want to be assuming that St. Matthew's House on the south end would increase its warehouse space, administrative function space, thrift store, perhaps, or whatever other social enterprises they have. You'll notice that we added the ability to sell used boats and cars because they do have donations for those items to the thrift store, and they obviously want to continue to sell those items. So that's why that was added as a potential use. COMMISSIONER FRY: But that operation of the used cars and boats would only be in support of the St. Matthew's House mission, not a retail lot that -- and you're willing to stipulate that in the -- December 2, 2021 Page 30 of 78 MR. ARNOLD: We can stipulate that, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Yovanovich just pointed out that I misspoke on the DeVoe PUD. It allows C-2 plus uses not C-3. I just wanted to correct the record on that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Being -- and that being the middle -- the vertical section, the central section? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The narrow section? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the office building still allowed? MR. ARNOLD: It's still allowed as a permitted use in C-2, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you could build that office building today without coming before us? MR. ARNOLD: We could. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments from up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the applicant have anything further at this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to see if Jim Banks is on the line. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, good, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Jim, you there? MR. BANKS: Yes, I am. Good morning. I don't know if you can hear me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we're good. We can hear you. We can hear you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can hear you, Mr. Banks, and best wishes for a speedy recovery. Thank you for participating remotely. MR. BANKS: And I want to take a moment just to thank the Planning Commission for allowing me to participate video. I never know when I'm going to have these events happen. And it started yesterday and kept me up all night last night. So I do appreciate you allowing me to participate in this manner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We wish you a speedy recovery. MR. BANKS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have a question or two, unless you want to make a preliminary statement, Mr. Banks. MR. BANKS: Why don't you ask your questions, and then maybe we can go from there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. First of all, the concern that I had is analogizing to an assisted living facility. I realize there is no direct analogy to be selected from the TIS codes that you use. But when I think of an ALF, I think of a place where people -- sort of their terminal habitat. That's where they're going to go live out the remaining years of their life without necessarily being out and about in the community trying to find work. And, so to me, the ALF analogy is, I think, not as appropriate as, for instance, an adult daycare center would be. For the most part, if I understand correctly, at St. Matthew's you have people coming and going during the day to receive food and to receive other services. Some people spend the night there, but for the most part people are out of there by the close of business. I realize that some are pedestrians and some ride bikes. Some take public transit. But there are, undoubtedly, people who get driven in a privately owned vehicle. And to me, that sets up a distinction between what St. Matthew's is proposing and what you would expect from an ALF. Do you have a comment on that, sir? MR. BANKS: I do, and I appreciate the question. When we were looking at what we thought was a good representative land use by ITE, we considered how the ALF and the homeless shelter operate and function in some of their similarities. And I'll briefly touch upon those. For one, both require staff to help the needs of those that are there. The ALF, however, December 2, 2021 Page 31 of 78 requires much more staff than what a homeless shelter does because of the daily care needs required for elderly folks. You've got medical needs. You've got common -- things that we take for granted today, just getting up and taking a shower, whatever. Typically at the ALF, there's a much more attentive and higher level of service by staff than what's necessary at the homeless shelter. So the ALF generates much more traffic from the staff standpoint than what the homeless shelter does. Also, both facilities have food delivered to their location. They prepare the food, and they serve the food to those that are staying at the ALF as well as the homeless shelter. But in this case, some of the folks that are there at the homeless shelter actually assist with the meal servings and cleanup and that type of thing. So an ALF requires all staff for all the cooking and all the cleaning and all the -- and therefore [sic]. So in that respect it also requires more staff in an ALF than does a homeless shelter. Now, with respect to the folks at the homeless shelter, I believe, when I spoke with the operator of St. Matthew's, he has explained to me that on average, about 10 percent of the people that visit the shelter actually have automobiles, and most walk and ride bikes. And I think we've all been on Airport Road, and we've seen some of those folks walking and riding bikes going in and out of the homeless shelter. And although at an ALF obviously the ownership of automobiles is much lower, they also have family and friends that come visit on a daily basis, and you know, check up on those that are staying at the elderly. So we think that that pretty much offsets the fact that some of the homeless people have automobiles but, yet, there's family and friends that drive to and from the ALF. And so, again, we submitted this -- we prepared the Traffic Impact Statement methodology, and we outlined this in the report, and we submitted it to your staff, and they reviewed it, and they agreed that it was a representative land use for estimating similar amounts of traffic demands. Again, they don't -- they don't function identical to one another, but their patterns and the way they operate does have some similarities. And I also would like to point out that the ALF -- if we would have just went out and did a survey of what is generated today at St. Matthew's House, try to correlate that with the increase, I don't believe that would be as accurate as the ALF because that would have only been a one-day survey. The ALF in ITE had nine survey sites for the a.m. peak hour and nine survey sites for the p.m. peak hour, and the average number of beds at the ALFs that were surveyed by ITE was 123. So some of the ALFs had more than 123 beds. Some have less. So that's right around where we are. So we just (unintelligible) as myself and your staff agreed that that ALF would be a fairly good representation of the amount of traffic generated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Did you -- well, let me rephrase it. It's my understanding that one of the services that St. Matthew's performs is it facilitates folks getting jobs. And so my question is, is part of facilitation driving people to potential job locations? MR. BANKS: I would -- all I could say is, Mr. Fryer, is that we base it on the ALF traffic patterns. We did not -- we did not, you know, microanalysis that type of (unintelligible) that might occur from the homeless shelter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll hear from the CEO who -- MR. BANKS: The answer to your question is, no, we did not consider that. MR. BROODER: We do operate two vans, passenger vans, for appointments that the folks from the shelter have. That could be to CareerSource or other job search opportunities. Making different appointments over at Neighborhood Health Clinic, so that's how those are handled with the transport van. That is parked in the adjacent parking lot in Tract B. CHAIRMAN FRYER: About how many times per day would such a van ingress or egress to the property? MR. BROODER: It varies every day. I would say there's probably two trips per day per December 2, 2021 Page 32 of 78 van -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BROODER: -- on average. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jim -- Jim Banks, these are for you. MR. BANKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: In your ALF comparison -- and I understand, I mean, the comparisons you're making, the conclusions you're drawing make sense to me on one level. I guess one level where they don't necessarily, you mentioned the average ALF is 123 beds. They're asking for 150 beds. So that's roughly 20 percent less or about 23, 24 percent more than the ALF -- the subject average ALF. So would you not, then, have to add 23, 24 percent to the traffic counts to arrive at a reasonable number for this facility? MR. BANKS: Yes, it's in the -- it's in the computations. Because we have the additional beds and the trips are based on the number of beds, it's a linear equation. So if you increase the number of beds, you're going to generate more traffic, and that's what we did. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you did factor in 150, okay. MR. BANKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Speak to -- one of the concerns of the neighbors was the impact on, I think it's called Great Blue Drive, just in terms of the redefined use of this. You've got an office building that they're contemplating right beside the -- you know, right beside Great Blue Drive, and the residents that access their property through Great Blue Drive are concerned that the traffic on that road will become more congested. Can you speak to that, please. MR. BANKS: Yes. As it relates to the increase in the number of beds, 44 [sic] beds, the a.m. peak hour, the additional trips that we expect to be generated will be nine two-way trips. That's, you know, a lot more than -- one every 45 seconds. That's two ways. Then in the p.m. peak hour, it was 12 additional trips. And we -- not all of the trips will come in and out on that segment of road. There's other points of access onto Airport-Pulling Road as well as Davis Road [sic] to the north. So there are other means of ingress and egress into the site, so we're not expecting that those additional trips generated from the increased number of beds will all use that southern route. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you did factor in the potential traffic from 130,000 square feet of commercial, correct? MR. BANKS: I did for looking at the adjacent links. And the only reason that we did that is, as I understand it, we're not asking -- we're not proposing today to raze the site and build 130,000 square feet, but it's the potential that it could happen. And so I could at two -- I looked at two scenarios. I looked at the additional traffic that would be generated by the 44 beds. We analyzed its impact on the adjacent roads and found that there is adequate capacity on those adjacent roads to accommodate the 44 beds, and then we also did the hypothetical analysis that we would -- that the site would be razed. There would be 130,000 square feet of mixed commercial use built, plus the 150 beds for the homeless shelter, and then what would its impact be on the adjacent road, and there was still adequate capacity to accommodate that type of intense development which, again, it's not being requested here today. And to another point -- because I do know that there was a memo where somebody suggested that maybe the traffic counts that we used were during COVID, and maybe we should be trying to factor them up to future conditions because of the possible reduction in traffic on these adjacent roads during the height of the COVID lockdowns or not -- maybe not lockdowns. It's not a good word, but the protocol that took place at the time. As it turns out, the 2021 AUIR report actually reflects that there is a decrease in the amount of traffic on those adjacent roads in 2021. So there was actually more traffic on our adjacent roads in 2020 than there was in 2021 except for one link of Airport Road, which is 10 additional trips, which is negligible. December 2, 2021 Page 33 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think that's Segment 6 of Airport, and I believe we've had testimony in previous hearings that, broadly stated, that is on account of COVID. Would you disagree with that? MR. BANKS: I think -- I think that the 2020 volumes and 2021 volumes reflect what was going on with COVID, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. The Tract B, how many -- how many square feet are developed on Tract B? I made a site visit, and I've seen some of the ancillary uses accessory to the main use of St. Matthew's, but I was not able to estimate the square feet of those improvements. Are you able to do that, Mr. Banks? MR. BANKS: I think Wayne would probably have a better idea of that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: They whispered in my ear that it's 56,000 square feet that -- approximately 56,000 square feet that exist there today with Lulu's and the existing buildings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So 54,000 square feet is being used now, and you're asking for a maximum of 130,000 square feet. And I have not heard a sufficient explanation as to why you would need all that much. MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question is right now the number is -- there is no cap, okay. We have C-4 zoned property. We have C-2 plus zoned property. And we don't know what our future will be. So we did a reasonable layout on the property to figure out what could fit on the property, and we came up with 130,000 square feet. Another factor is, we're required now to do trip caps as part of PUDs, so we had to have a reasonable number of square feet that we thought we could fit on the site for purposes of the trip cap, and that's where the 130,000 came forward. Right now we don't think we're going to hit the 130-, but we don't know, and we thought that was a reasonable amount of square feet that could fit on this property based upon laying out what we thought we could fit. So that's where the 130,000 square foot came from, because we didn't want to have to come back in the future and ask for an increase in the square footage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think there's a person in this room who has anything other than the very highest regard for the work that St. Matthew's does. It's an important asset to our community. That stated, there are outer limits that it is our responsibility to respect with regard to the adjoining neighborhoods and the potential for adverse and unintended consequences of what may be being requested. And the thing that concerns me most is not what St. Matthew's is asking for because, frankly, Segment 6 on Airport-Pulling has got a lot of capacity left. My concern is is that if some day a very generous benefactor decides to award St. Matthew's a very, very large sum of money and takes that money and wants to find a site that's two or three times the size of this and it's going to sell the property, and the property, as you're proposing, would be zoned CPUD with all kinds of opportunities that we are all comfortable would not be exploited by St. Matthew's but might well be exploited by its successor in interest. MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's figure out what happens if you don't like the 130,000 square feet and you ultimately vote no. What's there today? The benefactor comes along and decides we're going to sell the site. I don't think that's ever going to happen, because I don't like the chances of actually getting a homeless shelter approved through the rezoning process anywhere in Collier County. I don't like my chances, but let's just say we find that magical site that actually is in the right location to serve the homeless and we can move, so you tell us no. I have existing C-4 with all the uses allowed in C-4 that we're asking for. No cap on square footage. I have existing C-4 on Tract A uses we're asking for; no cap on square footage. I'm actually -- I'd be 75 feet in height zoned versus the 50 feet I'm asking for, so I could probably December 2, 2021 Page 34 of 78 fit more. And then I've got Tract B which is C-2 plus at 50 feet zoned height. So I think we could probably fit more than 130,000 square feet if we removed all the infrastructure, and you would have uses that we're asking for today under the existing zoning. So if you tell me no, we're in the same place that we are today with no cap on square footage and taller buildings. Now, that is -- with all due respect to the opposition, that's what they bought into: C-4 zoning on the homeless shelter piece of property with a conditional use; C-4 zoning on the most southern piece of property which includes used and new cars and all the other C-4 uses; and C-2 plus zoning in the middle piece. That person who built that apartment complex and that person who bought the apartment complex determined they were okay with those allowed uses and those allowed heights and those potential impacts to them. We think we're doing a better job for them than what the existing zoning does. And they knew it was compatible because -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we could do better still and still, at least in my personal opinion, get almost everything that St. Matthew's wants by means of associating all of the commercial uses all the way up to your 130,000 provided that they are accessory to the uses of St. Matthew's primary goal or a successor 501(c)(3). MR. YOVANOVICH: So let me ask what that means. Let's just say that St. Matthew's House has the benefactor come along, and they're willing to replace the Tract B piece, the most southern Tract B piece with an office building. They want to replace it with an office building. Some of the space would be used by St. Matt's, but the remainder of the space would be rented to whoever wants to rent that space, because it could be a revenue source for operating the mission. Am I allowed to do that? Because those office users are not there to support St. Matthew's House other than by paying them rent and, you know, substituting funds for the mission. Is that an allowed use? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would give you more than just 501(c)3. I would give you public facilities PUD because of the proximity to the courthouse, to the other offices. I think there would be quite a robust market for -- in the event of a sale. But right now what you're asking for is something that I could certainly vote for if I thought it was always going to be St. Matthew's, because of the great job they do, but I don't want to see the door open without having to come back here. And people can always come back here and ask for a rezone, and with the advantage of knowing what has happened, in the future they could very well grant much more liberal uses than I'm asking for. MR. YOVANOVICH: So let me flip the question, if you don't mind. What use that we're asking for in this PUD is raising a concern for their surrounding community? Because I can't think of a use other than the C-4 uses we're asking for that are already allowed on the property and the few additional SIC codes. Which one of those additional SIC codes is troubling you, Mr. Chair, that you can't support this PUD with 130,000 square foot cap? CHAIRMAN FRYER: My view of the future is that if this property is sold to a developer that is not focusing upon or dedicated to community service in the same very beneficial way that St. Matthew's is, that they would have all the benefits without any of the restrictions. And that I find very troubling. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm asking which uses are creating the ultimate benefit for that developer who may come along in the future that doesn't already exist with a property that's in an activity center that your Comprehensive Plan says we can ask for up to C-5 uses and some light industrial uses under the Comprehensive Plan, and I've already got C-4. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Personally, I would -- I would favor giving St. Matthew's all uses, within reason, not probation and parole and not refugee, and there are a few others -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They'll come out. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- which you said they'll come out, as long as they are accessory to the organization's main service. And I don't care if it's a car wash. If the proceeds are going to go help homeless people, that's fine with me. Now, this is just me personally speaking. But what December 2, 2021 Page 35 of 78 I'm afraid of is after we're all gone, and memories are short, and another kind of a development comes in. Now, granted you've got entitlements now, but they weren't sufficient for your purposes or you wouldn't be here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the main reason we're here is because the -- there are some uses that we would like to have on the campus, but one of the primary purposes this all started was to address the lack of homeless beds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are those uses accessory to the main mission? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which ones? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The ones that you said you would like to have. MR. YOVANOVICH: The additional ones that are not C-4? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: So why don't we say -- are you okay with this? MR. BROODER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we say everything that's not C-4 has to be accessory to St. Matt's. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I can -- I think I can get to a point of accepting that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we'll delete, you know, the probation officer, things like that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to call on Commissioner Shea, who's been signaling, for him to speak, and also so that I may excuse myself for a brief minute. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm a little farther behind understanding what's going on. Why wouldn't you just drop your request for a cap if there's no cap now? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was -- you know, that's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why don't you just drop it, and then we don't even have this discussion? MR. YOVANOVICH: The reason the cap is in there is because I had to have that for the TIS to establish a trip cap. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would love -- I've offered to drop the cap. I'm willing to drop the cap. And you know what, we'll fit what we fit, and we'll meet the development standards. I'll be 50 feet zoned height. And I forget my actual height right now; it's blanking on it. But happy to do that and drop the cap. But we're now in the -- we're in the world now where we have to have a trip cap, and that's why we -- I'm happy to drop it. If staff is willing to drop it, we'll drop it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just use the numbers for the trip cap and say that's the basis of your trip cap. But I'm not asking for a cap on the development. I mean, does that make the TIS useless? MR. YOVANOVICH: If staff -- if staff is comfortable with you get X trips, peak-hour trips with no trip cap and then I've got to stay under the trip cap and it turns out I can only do 90,000 square feet or I can do 170,000 square feet, depending on what the uses are, I'm fine with that. But that cap was just there -- the cap [sic] was to establish the trip cap. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Rich, a couple of different uses on the Tract B have been brought up, and a couple of them were addition of warehouse space and auxiliary refrigerated warehouse, this type -- storage bays and those types of things, and those things make perfect sense to me. They're direct support of the St. Matthew's House mission. And then you talk about -- and I think Chairman Fryer alluded to a car wash; he'd be okay with that. You've talked about an office building, which is basically, I think, a revenue-generating idea -- MR. ARNOLD: Could be. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- to raise funds for St. Matthew's House. So this is where I'm -- if I'm struggling with this in any one major area, it's really you're in a -- St. Matthew's House December 2, 2021 Page 36 of 78 has a -- there's no way this problem is going to reduce over time. The homelessness, the hunger, these things, we're not -- we're not solving these problems. There are more and more homeless people. I mean, I can only see their mission increasing. So where I struggle is, why not have the entire footprint reserved for uses that are accessory or directly supportive of the St. Matthew's House mission, not commercial enterprises to raise money like an office building, but simply allow the growth of St. Matthew's House to utilize that footprint for directly supporting uses, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's exactly where I am, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got 150 beds if we get approved; that's my max. There are other uses that -- for instance, I could go eat at Lulu's. It's a commercial venture that makes money for St. Matt's. It also trains and employs people who come from that program. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What happens if we want to expand and have another homeless facility? We find that magical space somewhere in Collier County that I can actually get it approved, but in order to make the money work, I need to build an office building on this site to generate additional revenue so I can build beds somewhere else. Because I agree with you; this problem's not going away, and I'm sure Steve will tell you this problem's not going away, and this has been -- I used to be on the Immokalee Friendship House board way back when before St. Matthew's came in and made it a much better facility. This is a problem, and we need -- and they are looking for opportunities. They've got thrift stores, you know, throughout Collier County to raise money. Why can't they use this site for property they already own to operate a venture that may make more money? Why are you asking to limit uses we can already have on the property? We've already said any of the additional above C-4 have to be -- have to be accessory to St. Matt's. Why are you limiting rights they already have to put on that property because something may change in the future and they may want to re-purpose a portion of the property? I don't understand why you're doing it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not sure that you understand what we're saying. I would be quite satisfied with whatever revenues are to be made on Tract B being used on any other St. Matthew's site. It doesn't have to be here. I like -- the mission of St. Matthew's is a great one, and if they could make money with an office building here and spend it somewhere else, I'm fine with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So as long as St. Matt's is the landlord, they could have an office building? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Or another 501(c)3. MR. YOVANOVICH: What if St. Matt's says, you know what, this site would be perfect to sell to an office developer and -- or the county even, and said -- but you're probably going to tell me that's a 501(c)3. But let's just say I win mega-millions and I want to build a building here. I want to buy it from them, and I want to build an office building and they say, you know what, we can get a lot of money out of Rich. He's feeling pretty generous. Why would you tell them -- why would you say no to that opportunity? I already can do that building. I can already do that building -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I didn't say no. MR. YOVANOVICH: You did. You said it -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I didn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- has to be owned and operated by a 501(c)3, and Rich Yovanovich is not a 501(c)3. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you sell the property, a portion of Tract B, and the proceeds go to a 501(c)3 like St. Matthew's, I'm all for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you just told me you weren't, because you said you don't want me to sell this property to a developer because they want to raise money for -- through the December 2, 2021 Page 37 of 78 sale. Maybe I misunderstood that, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you're not understanding what I'm saying. Maybe I'm not explaining it well. But I'm going to -- I'm going to withdraw for now, and I know you'll be back for rebuttal, and we can continue this if appropriate. Any other planning commissioner want to be heard at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, do you want to say anything more at this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, but, you know, perhaps -- well, I don't know if you want to keep going and let whoever's the public speak or staff speak. At some point we would like to be able to talk about just -- what we've been discussing, and I don't know if that makes sense or not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, certainly you'll be coming back for rebuttal, and we can also use a lunch hour. We can figure out a way to get our heads together on this that maybe works for everybody. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we have nothing further. I think staff goes next, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Staff? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the zoning division. And staff is recommending approval of the St. Matt's petition. And if you have any questions, it would be our pleasure to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody signaling at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, I do think -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- part of what we're talking about is full support for St. Matthew's mission and maybe concerns about Pandora's box here where we open up unintended uses of the property not in direct support of their mission that yield additional traffic, additional impacts change the character of it, and the relationship, the compatibility with the neighborhood, and all that. So speak to staff's analysis of that and put us at ease, if you can, about why you think this is a safe application to approve if you were in our shoes. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Did you want to also -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. And I would just add a recognition. The land-use arrangements within our county ultimately originate from our Growth Management Plan. And our Growth Management Plan anticipates where we have the highest intensity of uses, and then we blend those uses down away from that intensity. This entire facility is within an activity center. It's where we say the most intense uses are going to be from our Growth Management Plan, from the highest regulatory document, from how we arrange our land use -- our land uses. This petition places a cap upon something that right now isn't capped. And the amount that could be developed with good engineering in the height limitations that are associated at 75 feet could be much more intense than 130,000 square feet. We understand the concern if a future owner would occupy this, but if a future owner would occupy this and was following the Growth Management Plan and the guidance of the Growth Management Plan, a wide variety of C-4 and C-5 uses are things that the Growth Management Plan says is appropriate in this location. And from that standpoint, we view that, the capping of the square footage that's proposed, as improvement for the immediate neighbors because it is going to place a much lower threshold than what could have been entitled with the endorsement of the Growth Management Plan, of the Future Land Use Map. And from that standpoint, we viewed these as an improvement. Now, I understand the concerns that the Planning Commission have, but from purely a December 2, 2021 Page 38 of 78 standpoint of how our Growth Management Plan arranges land uses, what's currently -- what currently exists from the existing zoning, the height limitations that are associated with that zoning, and the intensity and the wide range of uses that are associated with that, we view that having more finite limitations how much can fit within this box, so to speak, we think is an improvement, and that's where we ultimately arrived upon our recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. That was very helpful. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you, Mike. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, let's talk quickly about our schedule for today. It's about 20 minutes of noon. What is going to be the wish of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we know how many public speakers we have on this matter? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question. Mr. Youngblood, what do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any registered public speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: What about Mr. Pires -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Pires, I think. MR. PIRES: Yeah. We didn't know that we had to register as being the party. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, you'll have every opportunity. How many -- if you -- whether you've registered or not, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. MR. PIRES: We will sign everybody up, Mr. Chairman, if that's the preference. MR. YOVANOVICH: I need to address something he just said. He just said he didn't think he had to sign up because he's a party. He's not a party to these proceedings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We haven't conceded he's a party. MR. YOVANOVICH: But he just said it on the record. I want to make clear he's not a party to the record, and he should have signed -- he's not a party to the proceeding, and he should have signed up. He can speak because you always allow people to speak who don't sign up. But I just want the record to reflect he's not a party. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the record will so reflect. He's not. The party is the applicant and the county. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, we will all submit speaker slips. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you come up so that we can hear you. MR. PIRES: Tony Pires, Woodward, Pires, Lombardo, for the record. Good morning, almost afternoon -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning. MR. PIRES: -- to the Planning Commission. And we were under the impression we did not need to sign up. We will sign up to speak. We have our team. We have our presentation. And we will ask for some consideration of about 45 minutes presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's what we needed to know. No harm; no foul. We'll -- MR. PIRES: Mr. Bosi has a question, I think. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Chair, I forgot to recognize, we did invite Mr. Eric Short, one of our Code Enforcement officers, down here in case the issue of Code Enforcement complaints, issues associated with anything related to the various sites, and I just wanted to make the Planning Commission aware. I didn't know if there was any questions in those regards as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So those people will be prepared to speak but won't December 2, 2021 Page 39 of 78 necessarily do so. MR. BOSI: Yeah. They're prepared to address any questions that the Planning Commission may have. No formal presentation. MR. PIRES: And, Mr. Chairman, we have one transportation expert. We would ask the Commission's consideration of allowing him to testify remotely and appear remotely. He's signed up for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. I've noticed that there are two sheriff's deputies in the audience and would like to know, gentlemen, are you here to testify? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You are? MR. YOVANOVICH: If asked. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come on up, sir, so we can hear what you're saying. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: We have -- we have a brief -- just a few statistics that I was asked to present to you guys just about St. Matt's surrounding areas like The Point, Justin's Place, and Home Depot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we do him before we break for lunch so they don't have to sit around here? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can certainly do that now, yeah. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: I would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you testifying for the applicant? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: I'm just here -- I was asked to come here for the Sheriff's Office. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Commissioner, staff asked their assistance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. Would you please identify yourself, Officer, and then you have the floor. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: My name is Sergeant Adam Kallenberg. I'm currently one of the day-shift supervisors in East Naples. Like I said, I was asked to come here and just present some things for you. It's just some of our calls for service. Over the past three months, six months, nine months, and then we went back to 2018 to 2021. I will be brief. Don't worry, we won't go line by line, I promise you. I know everybody's ready for lunch. So, like I said, the properties that our analysts provided us with was St. Matthew's House, Justin's Place, the Home Depot, and The Point Apartment complex. So some of these that we're going to go over is -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does this include Lulu's? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: It is just the entire St. Matt's property. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: So some of the calls for service include intoxicated persons, suspicious incidents, disturbances, trespassings, anything drug related, and then medical calls, which can be from the mundane all the way up to the most serious and everything in between. So, like I said, it was broken down into three months, six months, nine months, and then a comparison between 2018 and 2021. Just some of the higher numbers just for some of these things: Suspicious incidents, in 2018 at St. Matt's House, we had 19 total. In 2021 so far to date we have 23; disturbances are even between 2018 and 2021 with both coming in at 18; and for medical calls, we have -- 2018 we had 35, and then in 2021 to date we have 89. So moving on to Justin's Place, some of the suspicious incidents, there was one in 2018; in 2021 we have 12; trespasses, one and one for each, 2018 and 2021, we received only one call for service for that. Medical calls, 2018, we have four, and then 2021 we have 18. Moving on to Home Depot, suspicious incidents for 2018, we have 33, and for 2021 we have 38. December 2, 2021 Page 40 of 78 A lot of these calls, like a trespassing, in 2021 we don't have any calls, and in 2018 we only have one. And then medical-related calls, 2021 we have 12, and then 2018 we have five. And then moving on to The Point, suspicious incidents, even -- pretty even across the board. 2018, we had 27. In 2021 to date we have 28. Disturbances, again, fairly even. 2018, we had 32; in 2021 we have 34. And then, lastly, for medical-related issues, 2018 we had 18, and 2021 we're coming in at 39 so far. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you keep records with respect to the residents of the subject in question? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: We do. It would be in our -- what's called our CAD system. It's our computer automated dispatch system. That's all public record that -- things that we can pull up. We also have an in-house system called Wings 4, which has people's names, addresses, all that kind of stuff, who we come in contact with to take reports for, whether it be accident reports, suspicious incidents, disturbances. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So when you -- oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't know how you normalize that. For somebody like me, that doesn't mean anything. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So if you took a similar area of town that had similar apartments and Home Depot, something like that, are those numbers high? Are they unusual? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: It's all relative. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Relative to what? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: It would depend on where you are, the time of year, all those kind of things. They ebb and flow. So I couldn't give you a direct answer on, yes, this is higher here; no, it's lower here. It pretty much depends on the day, the time of year, and where it's at. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So do you feel that you're being called there more than you might be to other areas of the community? That would stand out. After a while somebody would say, oh, no, we've got another call over here again. We keep getting -- you're not -- the force is not feeling like there's an inordinate amount of calls associated with this facility versus regular areas that don't have a homeless shelter? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: As far as the Sheriff's Office, we're neutral on it. You know, our motto is it's the duty of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to protect, preserve the lives, property, and constitutional guarantees of all people. So whether it's an area that's got a lot going on or an area that doesn't, we're going to come either way. So it's -- I'm just here to kind of present you guys with just some numbers for our calls of service. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You need to run for office. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Well, I don't know about that. I don't know about that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, then Commissioner [sic] Eastman. COMMISSIONER FRY: You need to outright lie more. So I agree with Commissioner Shea. I'm not sure what the numbers mean exactly. So I guess my question and one of the concerns was that I think The Point, perhaps, are they having intrusions from people from St. Matthew's House that are -- are these calls for disturbances and trespassing and all these things that are happening in The Point, are they St. Matthew's House residents, or is there any data that would let us know whether increasing the use in the St. Matthew's House facility with additional residents creates an additional risk to the neighbors? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: That would probably be something more for our analysts to figure out. I will level with you; that's definitely a job that's not for me. So I couldn't give you December 2, 2021 Page 41 of 78 a definitive answer on it at this point. I'm sure all that stuff could be drawn up and figured out, but as far as just the numbers, that's all I have for today. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions of the Sergeant? Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: So what I'm gathering is that you're not really comfortable to give an opinion or a conclusion. You're just here to give the numbers and the data and let those speak for themselves? SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Correct. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: I'm just here for a factual statistic basis. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Deputy. SERGEANT KALLENBERG: Thank you very much. Appreciate it, guys. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's -- I would recommend that we break for lunch now and then come back and hear members of the public, but I'm open to suggestions from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRY: It doesn't sound like we will -- I mean, we have a 45-minute presentation to come and then some discussion rebuttal. Have we heard from staff yet? Did we hear -- we did hear staff. So we really -- we're into the 1:30, 2:00 if we just stay, I'm afraid. So having lunch now would make sense to me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone disagree? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's 11:48. How much time do we need? COMMISSIONER FRY: I usually ask for the full hour, but today I would be -- personally I'm okay with a 45-minute lunch if -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is -- the place that you used to be Zach's, is that open? Do they serve -- do they serve food there? MR. BOSI: Yes, it has transitioned more to a Mexican style eatery, but it's good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can get lunch there. MR. BOSI: And it's open. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can we do 40 minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. What's 40 plus 49, 89 -- COMMISSIONER FRY: 12:30. CHAIRMAN FRYER: 12:30 it is. We're in recess until 12:30. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:49 a.m. to 12:33 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you've got a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Before we call upon members of the public, the applicant has requested an opportunity to indicate to us what concessions they're prepared to make as a result of the hearing so far, so I'll turn it over to Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Based upon what we understood the feedback to be from the Chair and what we perceive to be feedback from others, it appears that -- as there's not an issue with what we're -- with what we are requesting. It's a question of who's benefiting from that, and there's concern that if the property ever is disposed of by St. Matthew's House, another developer can come in and there would be unforeseen circumstances relating to what could happen today. So during lunch we discussed what are the odds that I'm going to win the lottery and come December 2, 2021 Page 42 of 78 in and offer them too much money for the property, and I think we've all agreed that those odds are slim and the chances that St. Matthew's House is ever going to dispose of this property is slight. And we'll deal with that if that ever happens sometime in the future. So what we're prepared to do, based upon feedback we've gotten, is we'll agree that all the uses have to be for the benefit of St. Matthew's House. We understand that if we were to build an office building, that would be okay as long as we're the landlord and we collected revenue and if we built other things that were revenue generators as long as it was for the benefit of St. Matthew's House. As long as we owned the property or another 501(c)3 owns the property, these uses would be permitted. So we're willing to do that. We're willing to put that on the record. Hopefully that will address concerns by the Planning Commission, and hopefully it will address concerns by the opposition. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, one of the great things, I think, about Lulu's Kitchen is that it's not only providing services for the public and the catering, but it also provides an opportunity for training career development for the residents of St. Matthew's House. So my question is -- you've talked about the most likely next use is going to be an office building. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was hypothetical. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hypothetical. But I guess, if it was an office building, would it be utilized similarly to provide benefit to the residents in order to give them job training skills of some kind, or would that be just purely profits from the rent goes -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The history of what St. Matthew's House has done is they've looked at opportunities to benefit those they're serving. So I'm sure they would look at an opportunity for employment there as well related to -- and I'm not saying there's going to be an office building. That's just a "what could happen some day." More likely than not you're going to see other operations like either Lulu's expand the catering services, expand the -- what you've heard is expand the warehousing so they can keep the food there and then bring it out and distribute it. I was just giving you what's the hypothetical of what could happen some day. I'd rather not focus so much on that could happen some day. But, you know, maybe if it did, but we understood that that meant that the rents had to go towards the benefit of St. Matthew's House, and that's the only reason I brought that up. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're saying the tendency and the pattern of St. Matthew's House has to be to look for opportunities to raise money but also benefit the members and help further their journey. MR. YOVANOVICH: They've been in the catering business long before Lulu's, so they have looked at that -- they have looked at those types of opportunities. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, really, lunch gave me an opportunity to really think about where I was struggling, and it really was the -- it was the hope that anything you do on that property is an opportunity to help further your residents, that there is some kind of opportunity for them to work, learn a new skill, similar to what Lulu's Kitchen and the catering operation does. So that's really, in a nutshell, what I was meaning by what I was saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. They've always looked for that opportunity, as you know. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Would you also, Mr. Yovanovich, be willing to exclude probation and parole and refugee services? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission, thank you. My December 2, 2021 Page 43 of 78 name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires, Lombardo. And I will try to -- and Andrew's been very helpful in trying to navigate, there we go, the PowerPoint on this matter. I've got the first screen up, so -- right there. Thank you. Initially, we'd like to -- we're in opposition and represent -- our team is -- the client is West Shore Point Naples, LLC. They are the owner of the apartment complex, The Point Naples, that's the immediately adjacent neighbor. Legal counsel for the property owner is myself and Stephen Tilbrook with Akerman Law Group; we have our expert planner, Cecilia Ward, AICP; and expert traffic engineer, Pramod Choudhary. If I mispronounce his name, he's listening, so I'm sure I will hear about it at some future time. And with the Planning Commission's indulgence, with the holidays and trying to coordinate everybody's schedule, we request that the Planning Commission, after you hear from Ms. Ward and hear from Mr. Choudhary, accept them as experts in their field and also allow Mr. Choudhary to appear remotely today, if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That is acceptable. MR. PIRES: Thank you. And one other -- it's just sort of a housekeeping matter, and I -- we have, for the record, two submittals that we made: One November 22nd; one November 30th. Hopefully all the Planning Commissioners had a chance to review those. I have extra copies to give. Terri's always happy to walk out of here with a briefcase of documents that I provide, so I have additional documents for Terri for today. Mr. Yovanovich has indicated he's not happy with the fact that I filed a supplemental submittal on November 30th, 2021, as it was arguably, from his perspective, not within the seven days prior to the Planning Commission. With all due respect, this Planning Commission, one of the hallmarks of it is the willingness and the openness of accepting materials by any party, even when they show up the day of the hearing with photographs, documents, and materials. And the submittal was made after we had a meeting. It was a nice meeting. I was in person, Mr. Tilbrook was on the phone, with Wayne and Rich to talk about possible ways of resolving this matter. We didn't resolve all the issues, and so then we said, okay, let's take the PUD document and outline what we believe are the appropriate changes that would make it complementary to and compatible with our client's property, and that's what's in the November 30th letter as well as our expert testimony from Mr. Choudhary and an errata sheet from Ms. Ward. So we would ask this the Planning Commission not exclude it, because I think that's what Rich is going to ask. And also the public notice that goes out to people doesn't say you have to have your materials in. It says if you want them in the agenda packet, you have them in ahead of time. So we would request, in the spirit of how this Planning Commission has always operated, that the Planning Commission accept both submittals. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We -- I've considered that, and I've spoken with the County Attorney, and as a matter of policy and practice, we are getting much more restrictive and stricter on receiving materials at the last minute. So what I would suggest that you do -- and I'm going to be very lenient in allowing you to have time to make your presentation, but it's going to need to be oral rather than submitting -- submitting documents at the 11th hour. MR. PIRES: Okay. But if I can, for the record, at least proffer them for the record to preserve that right. And I guess the only submittal that Rich is objecting to is November 30th, Rich, for clarification, because the other one was November 22nd, well in advance. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, if I may. For the record, the rules are very clear that you have to provide it seven days in advance. The first submittal meets the seven-day requirement. The second submittal did not meet the seven-day requirement. So, obviously, I'm not going to object to something that met the seven-day requirement. December 2, 2021 Page 44 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you want to make your record, you may, but it will be on the basis of the Chair's having overruled your request to submit the second submittal. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may walk over to Terri for a second and hand this to her before I forget and she has to track me down later. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask for a clarification while he's doing that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So someone from the public could send us an email this morning or last night, and that would be acceptable, correct? We don't have to disregard an email that comes in from the public at any point, or are we supposed to be disregarding anything that doesn't arrive a week before? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask the County Attorney to weigh in. COMMISSIONER FRY: Because couldn't they also walk in and have a PowerPoint, a speaker, and walk up? I showed slides at a County Commission meeting. I mean, so what would preclude Mr. Pires from showing his presentation or presenting that letter on the overhead just as a public speaker even if he was hot -- he's not a party to the thing. I just want to understand what the rules are here. MR. KLATZKOW: A couple of thoughts. One, this issue will ultimately be determined by the Board of County Commissioners, and I would urge Mr. Pires to get his materials in on time for that hearing if he wants them part of record. Two, fundamentally, this is a courtesy to the Planning Commission. We've had too many times with people dumping massive quantities of documents in your lap on the day of the hearing and then saying, I'm putting it in the record. What the heck does that mean? It's not like you guys had the chance to actually read it. So I've never understood anybody doing that. For a member of the public to send in an email, of course you should read that. You know, we're here for the people of Collier County. But there's a big difference between somebody sending you guys an email because they heard the hearing was taking place and then an attorney, you know, giving a plethora of documents at the last second that you guys possibly haven't had the opportunity to review. Is there a hard-and-fast rule, no, but the Chair made a ruling based on this particular set of facts and circumstances, and I agree with him. But at the end of the day, Mr. Pires knows it doesn't matter. Because this is a contested matter, it is going to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners unless between now and then the opposition can make some sort of compromise with the applicant. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: And, again, we preserve our submittal -- we made the record submittal. And, again, for the record, all the planning commissioners did receive it and had an opportunity to review it, it sounds like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I didn't. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I did. I read it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I probably received it, but I didn't have an opportunity to review it. And I don't like receiving large quantities of material at the 11th hour. But we've enabled you to make your record. You proffered it. I've overruled its admission into evidence but, really, that isn't going to make much difference because the Board of County Commissioners will decide, and I'm sure you'll have it in for them in a timely way. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for today's hearing, again, the -- that's our team that's involved in this. And in this particular matter, we also have Kristi Sinnott. And Kristi, if I mispronounce your name -- she's the director of property management for our client. And in this matter, you will hear testimony, I believe, from our planner and from our transportation engineer, traffic engineer, that the project is inconsistent with the Growth December 2, 2021 Page 45 of 78 Management Plan, not in compliance with the Land Development Code Section 10.02.13, not in compliance with the Land Development Code Section 10.02.8. Hello, Joe. Mr. Schmitt. (Joe Schmitt is now present in the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pardon me, Mr. Pires. I want to recognize the arrival of Commissioner Joe Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, thanks. Of course, Tony well knows I was at Phil's -- MR. PIRES: Phil's, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- ceremony, and Tony knows Phil well. But sorry to interrupt. MR. PIRES: No. No interruption. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for the effort to be here, Commissioner. Go ahead. MR. PIRES: And the project is inconsistent with the Collier County Community Character Plan. The objections and issues we have -- and you'll hear again, is the rezoning's not compatible with nor complementary to the adjacent residential community. And that's always an important aspect, and that was in our first submittal, November 22nd, that part of Policy and Objective 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element is that a new development is not only compatible with but has to be complementary to the adjacent development, which mean it enhances, it improves. And that analysis generally is not well fleshed out, and we believe that will be fleshed out by our presentation. Also the impacts of a 50 percent increase almost in the homeless shelter beds, we don't believe, has been evaluated nor mitigated, and we'll get into that discussion. The significant reduction in living space per homeless resident is contrary to the existing Land Development Code, the impact of which has not been evaluated for vagrancy, theft, and crime generally. And the existing language in the Land Development Code with regards to the 150 square feet has been in the code since 1991, when the LDC was first adopted. I didn't go back to all my zoning pamphlets I have from the '60s and '70s and '80s, but I did find and have the fact that the 1991 Land Development Code they adopted, and they have -- they have in that code the requirements from the 150 square feet. And, if I may borrow the visualizer for just a minute. And I always -- thank you, Mr. Bosi. I usually turn those things sideways or upside down. This is the excerpt from the 1991 Land Development Code, and you can see the 150 square foot per bed in a homeless shelter after six was in existence back in 1991. And the second page is from 1992 Land Development Code. And you'll hear there's been no testimony or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Put that back up again. That was quick. MR. PIRES: Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sorry, thanks. Got it, okay. I wanted to see if it said the same thing. Thanks. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. It said the same thing in 1992. And all -- my recollection of the testimony, and I stand to be corrected, is that it sounds like it's just for convenience. Now, the argument was that the applicant did not want to -- could have a greater impact on the neighborhood by building and providing the additional 46 beds at the 150 square feet, and he wants to do it for 100 and, therefore, stay in the same footprint. I'm not sure how that justifies a significant reduction in the space from -- by a third, from 150 to 100 square feet, and we'll hear some testimony on that. And the significant expansion of commercial and homeless-related uses we believe is neither evaluated nor justified. You'll hear from the traffic engineer that the traffic impacts associated with the commercial and homeless shelter expansion have not been accurately assessed nor evaluated. And in the December 2, 2021 Page 46 of 78 commercial, there's an addition of an industrial district use that wasn't there previously that we believe will have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential apartment community. And you'll also hear discussion about landscaping and buffering; that they're asking for deviations for certain landscaping, and the application does not provide adequate buffering of adjacent residential properties, is our argument, and doesn't meet the criteria for rezoning. And part of what you'll hear, we believe, from the testimony is that this property, as it is in an activity center, requires a Type D 20-foot buffer along Airport Road, along external roadways. And we will have that -- we'll have that section, and we'll talk about that section in our presentation. So we'll have that, that reference, and that is part and parcel of our presentation. It's sort of an overview. We'll go into greater detail. And, Mr. Chairman, also at the end, what I will conclude is I'll read into the record what we believe would be the appropriate revisions to the submitted PUD document that we believe would mitigate and make it compatible and complementary to the surrounding and adjacent neighborhood. We appreciate the developer or the applicant in this case indicating that the -- I'll call it the refugee services and probation officers -- offices will be excluded. A couple others are, and you'll hear it, offender rehabilitation centers, public welfare centers wouldn't be allowed right now, and we would ask that those be excluded, plus we'll have some other discussion about other uses. In one aspect we may want to ask the Planning Commission to ask the applicant -- I know they talked about having a consultant from California that came in and addressed or discussed with them how to reconfigure their space. And they didn't give the name of that organization. I wonder, is it the Healthy Housing Foundation, or what the organization is because I think that's a significant item for the Planning Commission to consider. Next, we have -- I'd like to introduce Steve Tilbrook. Steve is with the law firm of Akerman and representing the developer and has known the developer for quite a while. And, Steve, if you want me to, I can do the mouse, or you can do it. MR. TILBROOK: I think we can do it. Thank you, Tony. Steve Tilbrook with Akerman Law Firm. I do not represent the developer. I represent West Shore Point Naples, which is the owner of West Shore. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you in the Miami office, sir? MR. TILBROOK: Fort Lauderdale office. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fort Lauderdale. MR. TILBROOK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. TILBROOK: Thank you. And what you see on the screen is the location of The Point at Naples, which is an apartment complex with approximately 260 units. It's structured. It was purchased by West Shore, LLC, which is a national owner and operator of apartment communities. They are all over the country. We have with us today Kristi Sinnott, who is the property -- director of property management for West Shore throughout the country. She happens to live here in Venice, so she drove down for the hearing to be part of this; it's that important to them. West Shore also owns the Belvedere at Quail Run, so they own over 500 units in the Naples area. They've made a significant investment in building, operating, and preserving communities for people, apartment homes in Naples, and this is important to them. They acquired those properties in the 2016 [sic] to 2019 range, so it's been 15 years. They are a long-term hold. They own and operate these facilities for the long term. COMMISSIONER FRY: Did you say 2016 and 2019 and then say 15 years? MR. TILBROOK: I'm sorry. 2016 was they -- 2006. 2006, I believe, is when they acquired -- COMMISSIONER FRY: And 2009? MR. TILBROOK: And 2009, yes, is when they acquired the properties. So this is December 2, 2021 Page 47 of 78 a -- just an example of the workforce housing. It's owner operated. I'm sorry. It was acquired in 2016. I apologize for that. It is 2016. So Kristi Sinnott is going to give a statement as -- from her perspective as the director of property management. She has direct contact with the property managers on site. We're just here to ask for your consideration as the adjacent property owner that really is the closest property owner that does feel the brunt of the proposed changes that are likely to occur at this location, so we appreciate you giving Ms. Sinnott an opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. SINNOTT: So my name's actually Kristi Sinnott, but that's -- it's okay. Nobody ever says my last name right. And I am with West Shore, director of property management. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you spell that for the court reporter, your last name. MS. SINNOTT: Yes. It's S-i-n-n-o-t-t. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. SINNOTT: You're welcome. What I want to talk about is that -- with the on-site property manager, on-site teams, and what the residents have had complaints over the past several years regarding the amount of homeless that come to the property and then set up the tents and the camps, complaints, calls to law enforcement we've had. And I know he spoke about that a little bit earlier. But we have had situations with overdose of the homeless that are living in the woods. We also have them not just living in the woods but just migrating throughout the property. Noise issue. We've had some arguments that residents have come out of their home and experienced. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pardon me, ma'am. Excuse me for interrupting. I want to be sure that I know where your data is coming from. MS. SINNOTT: Oh, from the on-site team and what they're dealing with daily, on a daily basis, and conversations they're having with the police department, the sheriff's department. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is any of this information coming from public records like of the police department, the Sheriff's Office? MS. SINNOTT: I mean, we have -- we have call -- I mean, it definitely is on record, but I don't know if you have that, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm just curious, are there written records that are in the possession of your client that document this type of thing? MS. SINNOTT: I'm not positive that we actually have record of that on our site. I know that we get -- I mean, this is kind of basic, but we get the cards with the case number every time that they call the police department, and the sheriff's department also has assigned a specific officer just to our community to handle this situation specifically. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chair, if -- I'm not going to cross-examine her yet, but there's nothing that has been filed in the record with any of that information that I can find. It's not attached to anything that Mr. Pires has provided to you, and I just want that to be clear on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And if we don't have written information, if we can get oral information, that may be sufficient, and whatever we get, we'll take it for what it's worth. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, I would request that Ms. Sinnott be allowed to testify without interruption from Mr. Yovanovich, and he can raise his issues after. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think that's in order, if you don't mind, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. PIRES: Thank you. MS. SINNOTT: Sure. The other situations, we've had on-site team reported to law enforcement the residents that we had in the tents. One resident, as our maintenance team was going out to clean up the tent area, he was attacked and assaulted by one of the homeless individuals. That's definitely a police report that's been filed. We have constantly, on a daily basis, they're working through someone from the team always having to go out and get them out of December 2, 2021 Page 48 of 78 the pool area. The car wash station is where we have bathing happening and, of course, trash, and the shopping carts that get brought back there as well. So just a little bit extra cleanup and work for my team on site. And then as I was saying, over the last months, the sheriff's department, it's probably been even a good three to four weeks, the sheriff's department has assigned this specific agent to handle the complaints. And he worked on pushing -- the homeless that had camped out, he worked on pushing them out of that location, and then we were given a city [sic] violation that we had to clean up all of that area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. In questioning -- the questioning with the Collier County Sheriff's Office, you don't have data on that. Do you have any data with the county regarding any code enforcement complaints -- MS. SINNOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and all the various actions that have been identified to Code Enforcement; do you have that? MR. PIRES: Well, if I may, I have a series of photographs that she may be able to testify to that are a result of a code enforcement violation against the apartment complex owner by virtue of all the activities; is that correct? MS. SINNOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, then, are you going to -- you could do that after you're done with your presentation, unless you want to do that now, that's fine, because some of this should be on the record. And I am somewhat surprised that you're giving what I would call expert testimony, but you don't have any data that -- here with you today regarding the Collier County Sheriff's Office and the number of complaints. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The sheriff was just here before we went to lunch. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, was he? I missed that. Thank you. MS. SINNOTT: Sure. MR. PIRES: Ms. Sinnott, the photographs -- can you describe the photographs that I'm placing -- if you look. MS. SINNOTT: Sure, yeah. This is the area in the wooded area of the property where they set up just tent homes and were living there. I'm not positive how many people at one time were always living there, but it was definitely -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is this on your property or their property? MS. SINNOTT: This is our property, yeah. And that's another picture of just trash and debris. MR. PIRES: And, again, West Shore has been cited for these code violations. MS. SINNOTT: Yes. Yeah, we took care of it. MR. PIRES: And it has been taken care of? MS. SINNOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: These are on common areas? MS. SINNOTT: It's in the wooded area, common -- yeah, for the property behind one of the buildings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm seeing, you know, you have issues with homeless people setting up camp on your property. This application is St. Matthew's House, which is a facility for homeless people, so they're not in camps, and they want to increase their capacity to take people out of the camps. So my question for you is, would they not in what they're requesting tend to help this problem and -- that's number one. Number two is, are you attributing the homeless people that are on your property to St. Matthew's House? I mean, are they tied to St. Matthew's House in some way? I guess my question is, how is this relevant? December 2, 2021 Page 49 of 78 MS. SINNOTT: Yeah. Assuming, based on conversations that we have, that -- you know, sheriff's department has -- that's who we lean on for most of this when we have the discussion. We've just been told verbally that, you know, hey, you're in the center of this. You're in the middle of the shelter and the soup kitchen, and of course you're going to have that type of traffic. So, I mean, we're assuming that -- your first question, which is asking, you know, the feeling of that growth, would that help? I'm definitely not an expert in that. My assumption, and, unfortunately, my common sense was stating -- making me believe that that could be more of a problem and more traffic and more individuals coming to that location. COMMISSIONER FRY: So your point really is that you -- because of the location of St. Matthew's House and the supporting services, you're really in the vortex of the homeless issue. MS. SINNOTT: In the center. And if there's more, you know, growth in that arena, how much more traffic and more individuals will then be coming to that location? MR. PIRES: Ms. Sinnott, have you been in communications with the on-site property managers as to this issue? MS. SINNOTT: Yes. MR. PIRES: And what are their names? MS. SINNOTT: We have a manager. I don't know how to pronounce her last name. But we have a manager there currently named Abbey. We have a regional that is there weekly. Her name is Mallory Eglin. Both of these team members are doing everything they can to partner, to work with that, and keep it cleaned. MR. PIRES: To your recollection, have you had conversations with them about whether they've been advised by the sheriff's department that the sheriff's department had told them that the individuals who have been using the car wash for showers, laying by the pool when prospective tenants are being toured the property come from the soup kitchen or homeless shelter; do you recall that? MS. SINNOTT: Yes, that's been the conversation verbally, but -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I want to remind the Planning Commission, I mean, we're not a court. We're quasi-judicial, and so we have rather relaxed rules of evidence, and what we're hearing is hearsay evidence. MS. SINNOTT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Which we will take for what it's worth. MS. SINNOTT: Right. Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I had a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So when you encounter these situations, do you call leadership at St. Matthew's House? If you do, what kind of response -- in other words, why wouldn't they come out and clean it up when it's believed that it's their -- MS. SINNOTT: Yeah, that's a good question. The on-site teams, I'm not positive who would have instructed them, whoever they spoke with, and I can't give a name. But whoever they spoke with always told them to, you know, work with police, and that's why the sheriff's department gave us this specific law enforcement agent to handle this situation. So, I'm sorry, I don't -- I don't know who they would be speaking with; I'm not positive. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It just seems like, you know, they have -- they could come out and clean it up just as easily, and at least there would be a little bit of acknowledgment -- MS. SINNOTT: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- that maybe we might have contributed to it, but... MS. SINNOTT: Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Do you have any more? December 2, 2021 Page 50 of 78 MS. SINNOTT: No, I don't have anything else. MR. PIRES: Anything else from the Planning Commissioner or anything -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? Are you finished? MS. SINNOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Pires, are you finished? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do I get to ask her questions? I thought we would do it witness by witness. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We can do it witness by witness. Is that agreeable, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So, ma'am, you're finished with your direct testimony? MS. SINNOTT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know you said it, Sinnott? MS. SINNOTT: Sinnott. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sinnott. Sorry. MS. SINNOTT: That's okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't have any personal knowledge to what you're testifying to, correct? MS. SINNOTT: Personal as -- just with the teams calling me and the incident reports that they have completed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is there a reason why you don't have the manager here testifying? MS. SINNOTT: No, no reason. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any names of anybody you may have spoken to at St. Matthew's House regarding this issue? MS. SINNOTT: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any evidence that the homeless people that you're referring to are residents of St. Matthew's House? MS. SINNOTT: No evidence. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any evidence at all regarding -- let me strike that. You acknowledge that homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed? MS. SINNOTT: Well, absolutely, throughout the United States of America, sure, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm assuming you're aware that it's not unusual for homeless people to camp out in the woods, correct? MS. SINNOTT: Oh, not -- at my apartment communities, I don't have that anywhere else, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: And this is a wooded area, correct? MS. SINNOTT: Yes, on the property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where people can go to not be seen, correct? MS. SINNOTT: I mean, I would -- I guess they can. We can see the tents. I don't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You can see the tents. Do you -- MS. SINNOTT: From the pictures that we just were showing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking you, if you were driving down the street, can you see the tents? MS. SINNOTT: Not on the street from the property. There's -- you can see evidence. You could in the past. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are homeless people camping out there today? MS. SINNOTT: No, three weeks. We've had three weeks. This is the first time, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Three weeks what? December 2, 2021 Page 51 of 78 MS. SINNOTT: Three or four weeks of not having complaints and not having those issues right now with working closely with the police department, and the police department told us that it ebbs and flows, and so there's no guarantee. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, again, you don't -- you're not providing any personal testimony as to what is or is not occurring on your site, correct? MS. SINNOTT: No personal, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MS. SINNOTT: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask her one more question? MS. SINNOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER FRY: What does your -- what do your property owners want here? You having -- St. Matthew's House exists. They've applied to expand their base, not to add on to their footprint, so not to incur additional construction. What is it that -- what is it that you want to happen as part of this application? What are you asking us to do? Reject it completely? Go ahead. MR. PIRES: Again, Mr. Fry, she's the, like I said, property manager. She's not the, you know -- COMMISSIONER FRY: But I'm asking you. I guess I thought she could answer for the property owners, but -- MR. PIRES: And what we're asking for is -- and we'll go through it at the end, is that the -- if a rezoning is to take place, that there be appropriate reductions and adjustments in uses, additional landscaping and buffering, not have the additional beds at the reduced square footage, to make it compatible and complementary to our community. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Have you posed those to the applicant? MR. PIRES: Yes. Well, we had a meeting and had a conversation, and then we proposed those to Mr. Yovanovich, and Mr. Yovanovich said some of those are acceptable but most of those are not. And I can read all those, and that happened -- again, with the holidays, it was difficult. It was the 29th and the 30th, I think, Rich. I've got the emails. We were communicating back and forth on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. MR. PIRES: And I can at the end tell you what he agreed to; what he didn't agree to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tony, can you put up the slide. You had four bullets. You talked about mission. And I want to look at that third sentence. Do you have that? MR. PIRES: Which slide, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was back. MR. PIRES: That one or the one prior? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One prior. Again, I apologize for coming in late, but I may have missed it, but -- no, that's not it. MR. PIRES: The second bullet point? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You were talking about mitigation, and that's what -- I was trying to figure out what your intent was because of the -- 50 percent increase in homeless shelters -- that's it. The 50 percent increase in homeless shelter beds have not been evaluated nor mitigated. Could you expand on what is it you were looking for as far as being evaluated by the applicant, and what kind of mitigation are you looking at? MR. PIRES: The question is, what's the real impact on the adjacent properties to ensure the compatibility and that it's complementary to, especially by the reduction in the square footage allocable -- allocable to each particular individual. The only analysis that has been performed is a -- I guess a Traffic Impact Statement. There's no indication of what putting more people in a -- I'll call it a denser environment, what kind of environment that would create. And so that's really not been evaluated. It's something that I think the applicant said, well, you know, we looked December 2, 2021 Page 52 of 78 at barracks, we looked at ALFs, we looked at others. But, again, this is a standard that's been there for 30 years, and there's been no analysis as to why it should be reduced at this time other than, I would argue, convenience. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There is a request for the increase. It was clearly articulated in the application to increase from 104 to 150. Did staff not evaluate that as part of the zoning process? You're asserting that somehow that was not evaluated? MR. PIRES: It really wasn't totally evaluated, again, and the reduction in the square footage for all the beds in that area and person wasn't really evaluated, and our -- that's our argument, our position, our opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there -- MR. PIRES: And we'll have some testimony to that effect. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Other than the square footage, is there something missing in the code in regards to what you think the social impact -- the other impact associated with the increase in homeless in that facility? That's where I was confused on the statement. MR. PIRES: I think you'll hear some testimony from Cecelia Ward with regards to that when she comes up. And if you could wait until her presentation, Cecelia will address that. She's the planner that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. PIRES: -- will be testifying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the part -- somehow it seems to imply that -- and I'm not saying you did this purposely, but somehow it implies that staff failed to evaluate this when, in fact, it appears in the staff report there is an evaluation, and it was based on the allowed zoning, so -- MR. PIRES: No. The allowed zoning does not -- the zoning does not allow a homeless shelter. It's a conditional use, and so they're trying to change that. And I know back the last time they had it, it was a conditional use. They increased it from 20 to 84 but used the same 150 square foot per person over the sixth person. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. But the conditional use is allowed? MR. PIRES: At 104. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At 104. MR. PIRES: But now they want to go to 150. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. PIRES: And we contend and assert that there's been no real analysis as to what that impact is on the facility, on the adjacent properties. They did a trip analysis, and that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I mean, I'm probably going to defer to -- the same question to staff, because I need clarity as to what it is that would have had to have been evaluated. And you said you have an expert -- MR. PIRES: We have our planner who will testify as to those issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. PIRES: And, as a matter of fact, now is my opportunity to introduce her. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now is my opportunity to call on Commissioner Fry. MR. PIRES: I apologize. COMMISSIONER FRY: Before you go, Tony. MR. PIRES: Oh, I'm here. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I don't think you're objecting to the need for an additional 46 beds for homeless somewhere in Collier County, correct? It's not an objection to having more beds. It's an objection to the higher density in the facility. MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you prefer that they did an expansion and added square footage to maintain the 150 square foot per occupant? MR. PIRES: No, we believe that's an issue also. It's a twofold issue: The increased December 2, 2021 Page 53 of 78 capacity of the shelter by almost 50 percent and the reduction of square footage by 33-and-a-third percent. We think that -- both of those are problematic. COMMISSIONER FRY: So really you're really just saying, doing nothing -- no expansion should be allowed in terms of number -- MR. PIRES: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- of residents in any way, shape, or form. MR. PIRES: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: And that's partly because of the homeless issues that you're -- the property is experiencing next door with homeless camps being set up being as -- this being the part of the vortex of the homeless issue? Because there are homeless camps elsewhere in the county. MR. PIRES: Right. The issue is about whether it's compatible to and, again, complementary to. Compatible and complementary to, how does that enhance the apartment complex? How does that enhance -- having that additional number of people residing in that homeless shelter enhance the adjacent properties? We don't believe that has been shown. COMMISSIONER FRY: Was it complementary to that development when they bought it five years ago? The St. Matthew's House was there. I mean, I guess -- MR. PIRES: Again, at that level, they -- again, when that was acquired, those -- the use at this level of 104 beds with 150 square feet per person was in existence. But now that's being changed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. PIRES: And so that affects our client. COMMISSIONER FRY: Understood. Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Every year the county does an assessment of the number of people living in homeless camps. Do you have any of that data? MR. PIRES: I don't have that. We just had some testimony, I think, from the Sheriff's Department. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. PIRES: They indicated approximately, I think, 600 to 800, I think, was the estimate, I believe, with the January count, or maybe it was the executive director. Maybe Mr. Brooder said that. I think it was January of each year is the count, if I recall. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They do the count every year, yes. And -- MR. PIRES: I think it was 6- to 800. I could be corrected by Mr. Brooder or Rich. Cecelia. Go ahead, Cecelia. Yeah, if you could -- what we'd indulge into the Planning Commission, if we can have Cecelia briefly outline her credentials and have her qualified as a planner in providing expert testimony. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. WARD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Cecelia Ward. I'm a certified planner, president of JC Consulting located in Tequesta, Florida. I have 40 years experience in the planning field, both in the public and private sector. I have been the assistant director of governmental planning for a Westinghouse Communities in Coral Springs in Parkland. I've also been the director of planning, zoning, and building for the City of Fort Lauderdale. I've been the strategic planning assistant director for New York City. I have been practicing as president of JC Consulting as a consultant for now almost 15 -- 15, 16 years. So what I'd like to do is just go through -- I provided very detailed, comprehensive, and extensive analysis of the application. What I'd like to do in my presentation is just highlight what I believe are the most important and critical key points from a planning review that the Board should consider. December 2, 2021 Page 54 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission about the expert's credentials? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Please proceed. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the record, also Ms. Ward's had a presentation or materials in the November 22nd submittal that was timely submitted. That was in the packet that you all received. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. WARD: I'd like to just summarize briefly -- it's up there already. Based on my planning review, as Mr. Pires had said, the rezoning and PUD application is inconsistent with the county's Growth Management Plan, most specifically the Future Land Use Element, in that it is not compatible nor complementary to the adjacent multifamily residential use. And we've been hearing a lot about this, so I'm going to present more detail as I get through my presentation. But I think that's one of the most important aspects of the Growth Management Plan. It's not only directing intensity and density of development to a particular area, such as the activity center, but it's also how you achieve that in compliance with the specific provision of the plan. It's also not in compliance with the county's land development evaluation criteria for rezonings and for PUDs, and it's inconsistent with the county's Community Character Plan. I recognize that the Community Character Plan is just a guide that the county has adopted when considering redevelopment, but it is a criteria that is listed under the PUD regulations. Before I begin, I would just like to highlight some of the changes that occur and the impacts from going from conditional uses to permitted uses and also some of the other changes that are a result of this proposed rezoning. First of all, they're asking that you remove the conditional-use review process for several of the uses that are being proposed for Tract B. They're listed here. I don't need to read all of them. But, basically, by removing the conditional-use process, these uses do not have to come back to this board for review. And that's a significant issue when you're trying to determine how you are compatible and how you are complementary to an adjacent neighborhood. When you change them to a permitted use, you no longer have that ability to review and impose certain conditions or additions that would help alleviate any concerns that an adjacent property may have and ensure that compatibility and complementary existence. They're also allowing uses that are only permitted in -- one use specifically that's only permitted in the industrial district. That's the refrigerated warehousing and storage warehousing, cold refrigerated only, 4222. So this use is not allowed in the C-4. It's also not allowed in the DeVoe PUD. It's an industrial use. So I would introduce that as a permitted use. And it's also allowing -- I know there's been some discussion about the homeless shelter use. Currently just to explain this, the DeVoe PUD does not permit homeless shelter. As indicated by the applicant, the homeless shelter use is a conditional use in C-4, so they're not really requesting this in Tract B, and I think that's a very considerable consideration that they've offered, and I appreciate the clarification. The significant difference, as I've noted, between changing from a conditional use to a permitted use, again, it removes the provision especially from the Planning Commission. Today under your code, which is 10.08.00, you have the ability to review conditional uses and ensure safeguards and make recommendations. That would go away with this rezoning change. Just to highlight some of the key provisions. Now, in my report I listed several policies, several objections, several sections of the comprehensive -- of your Growth Management Plan, excuse me, where the application is inconsistent in my professional opinion. I'm going to just highlight what I believe is some of the more significant issues. Policy 5.6 requires that you are compatible and also complementary to the adjacent residential multifamily, and by introducing these social service uses and an industrial use without the protection of a conditional-use review, what happens now is not only do you have what is in December 2, 2021 Page 55 of 78 existence today but now you're also adding more uses that just, if you would, further distance the ability to achieve that compatibility and that complementary existence between the two uses, residential and now which is heavy commercial and industrial. It also creates the ability to -- the potential to have additional impacts. As you heard, there have been some vagrancy issues. I have not -- I'm not the expert on that. I'm not familiar with the specifics on that other than there have been some citings of that. You'll hear from the traffic consultant certain traffic issues. Noise. Litter. Our potential concerns, especially lighting and loading issues when you introduce this refrigerated warehouse component. Again, without the conditional-use review, you take away the ability to address all of those issues. The applicant is also -- the application is also inconsistent with the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and Mixed-Use District Overlay that applies to the property. This is really a social service campus. And while I agree with the staff that the intense -- that the direction of a regional activity center is to direct intensity and density of uses in a particular area, it has to be done with the intent of the district. In this particular area, the intent is to have pedestrian connections and provide mixed-use development that helps to encourage nearby residents to utilize those services. So what we're really doing here is we're creating a mixed-use development that is a social service campus that does not necessarily create any interest for residents or benefits for -- benefits from the adjacent residential community to have pedestrian connections to and utilize those services as they would in a retail center or a shopping center. It's also my professional opinion that the application is not in compliance with the county's PUD and zoning evaluation criteria. You've heard this before. It does lack information and analysis to reach certain determinations. That burden is on the applicant, not on the staff. The applicant is required to provide that evidence. That has not been provided in the backup that has been reviewed and that has been submitted. That's necessary to determine whether or not there will be impacts on light and air to the adjacent residential neighborhood to assure that there be no negative impacts on adjacent property values. That has not been addressed. Basically, the applicant just said we believe there will be no impacts on the adjacent property values. Thank you. And also to ensure that there be adequacy of public and private improvements based on timing of development. That's a PUD requirement. You usually have a phased development plan, and you show that you're going to have certain improvements occurring as you come in and do your redevelopment. That has not been provided. I think most significantly, in my opinion, are the two deviations that are being requested. I'll just deal with the buffer, for example. There's been no information provided in the application that addresses the buffer that is currently required under the C-4 zoning. In an activity center, you're required to have a 20-foot buffer. That has not been addressed at all by the applicant. Additionally, this request for this deviation in square foot for the homeless facility going from the 150 feet to the 100 feet, I think the most important analysis that has not been provided is, what is the impact on the homeless residents themselves? What we've heard is that you now have 104 beds. You have somewhat of a concentration of homeless shelter uses and persons. Let's just talk about persons. Now you're adding 50 more on top of that in a much smaller confined space. We're not talking about assisted living facilities. We're not talking about barracks who have more of a controlled environment. You now have concentration adding more homeless persons who we don't know what the affect is on them, not only the people who are there currently but also the people who may be coming there as a result of this increase. Will they want to stay, or will it encourage more vagrancy as a result of that more confined smaller space? And that has not been provided by the applicant. There's no information doing a data and analysis countywide or statewide or nationwide as to whether or not there would be an impact on the homeless persons themselves. Additionally, as has been stated previously, this code has been in effect for 30 years. To December 2, 2021 Page 56 of 78 come in and ask for a deviation from that without looking at that globally and the effect countywide, I think, would be a disservice to the community. It's also not in compliance with the county's PUD evaluation for the following reasons: Both the county staff, in their report, as well as the applicant have indicated that the uses that they're proposing and what they want to do can already be done on the existing zoning. I have to just question the issue with respect to the warehouse that's permitted in industrial. But if that is the case, what is the purpose? If it's only to not have to go through the conditional-use process, I think, again, that does a disservice and is somewhat incompatible with being able to achieve the intent of your Future Land Use Element, which is to be complementary and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. And ownership in and of itself should not be the sole purpose for requesting a rezoning. That is one of the criteria, that you need to own the property, but that being the purpose for just being more comprehensive because we own the property, I think, while it's a good intention, does not really fulfill all of the -- answering the questions in the code that are required for evaluation of the rezoning as requested. So with that, I'll conclude my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: The fact that the expansion of the homeless shelter will serve the community better by allowing greater capacity, there will be more people who will have access to this, how do you speak to that in terms of the analysis, the need for the rezoning community-oriented-wise or even complementary, like maybe getting some of those people out of the woods and into the program? MS. WARD: I'm not an expert on homeless activities, but I will say that we don't know whether or not the requested deviation will have a positive or negative impact. That's what my presentation is. I think there is a need for more homeless shelter availability, and I think that's just something that's just evident, as has been stated, across the country. But I think that the fact that we're condensing that number of persons within a facility without understanding the impact of that is what's missing. Additionally, if you leave that as a conditional use, you would have that opportunity to have that information come back to you for that review. Just as it was done going from 84 to 104 beds, you would still have that opportunity going from 104 to 150 to consider all those potential impacts, especially on the adjacent neighborhood. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to make sure I understand your expertise as what you're testifying to. You're not an expert in the operation of homeless shelters, correct? MS. WARD: No, sir, I am not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. You're not a transportation engineer, correct? MS. WARD: No. I'm deferring to the transportation consultants. MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- and you have no expertise whatsoever with regard to -- with regard to operating homeless shelters, correct? MS. WARD: No, that's not been my experience. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So all the questions you raise are just hypothetical questions. You can't provide any expert opinion as to whether the reduction from 150 square feet to 100 square feet is not an appropriate reduction. You're just unhappy with the information provided, correct? MS. WARD: No, that's not correct. I cannot provide an expert opinion with your first statement. With the second statement is, it's the burden on the applicant to provide that information. December 2, 2021 Page 57 of 78 MR. YOVANOVICH: Which I agree, the burden's on us. Now, you would agree that Mr. Brooder got up and explained the operations of the St. Matthew's House, correct? MS. WARD: Yes, I did hear that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you have any knowledge about how St. Matthew's House actually operates when forming your opinions? MS. WARD: Yes, I did. I went on the website. I read through all of the materials. I even looked at their financials, anything that I could find. MR. YOVANOVICH: So did you contact anybody at St. Matthew's House and ask them how they do their intake process? MS. WARD: No. No, I did not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you contact anybody at St. Matthew's House to ask them how they have security? MS. WARD: No, I did not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you contact anybody at St. Matthew's House regarding how people get to and from the homeless shelter? MS. WARD: No, I did not, but I think I heard some testimony to that effect. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I just want to understand the basis of your opinions that you have just provided. Did you contact anybody at the Sheriff's Office regarding crime statistics? MS. WARD: No, that would not have been my -- my position to do that. That was through -- West Shore provided that information. MR. YOVANOVICH: But you provided a concern that there was -- there would be an increase in vagrancy? MS. WARD: Based on the information that we had from West Shore, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: From West Shore. And who at West Shore did you speak to regarding the information? MS. WARD: Mr. Tilbrook provided some information. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're relying upon information provided to you by the attorney informing your opinion regarding vagrancy? MS. WARD: It was a -- it was a code enforcement -- code violation that he cited to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: So he sent you one code violation? MS. WARD: And also discussed that they've been having several other impacts, which you've heard from their property manager. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're relying upon hearsay informing your opinion regarding vagrancy? MS. WARD: Well, my opinion is a planning opinion. I think the information is sufficient to form a planning opinion that vagrancy has occurred. So, from a planning standpoint, I believe that is a good consideration. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you have no evidence that the, quote, vagrancy that you're seeing has anything to do with people who are actually staying at the St. Matthew's House facility, correct? MS. WARD: Are you talking about something in writing or any other avenues? MR. YOVANOVICH: The prior testimony was she has no idea or any evidence that the people who -- the homeless people are actually staying at St. Matthew's House. MS. WARD: I don't know that I can answer that, because I thought I heard that the deputy that was working on the case mentioned that it was because of the proximity to St. Matthew's, but I don't know that I can answer that. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree that the existing St. Matthew's House is compatible and complementary to the apartment complex, correct? MS. WARD: I don't know that I can say that. Let me just explain why, if I can. December 2, 2021 Page 58 of 78 I think that it's there. And the apartment house is there. So it exists together. I believe that there are measures that should be taken to help improve the operations and maintenance to ensure that compatibility based on the testimony. MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's test your expertise in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. When did the comparable -- I mean, the compatible and complementary criteria first appear in the Collier County Growth Management Plan? MS. WARD: You would have to show me that. I only go by what's adopted today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I want you to assume that when the apartment complex -- let me put it -- are you aware that the apartment complex came in after St. Matthew's House existed on the property? MS. WARD: That's -- to my knowledge, that's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So when the apartment complex came through, it went through a review of the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, correct? MS. WARD: I don't know that, but I would expect that that would be the case. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it was determined that the apartment complex was compatible with the homeless shelter, correct? MS. WARD: I don't know that, but I would expect that that would be the case. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we can agree that the apartment complex is compatible with the homeless shelter? MS. WARD: Could you just explain how you mean that, though? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you just said the apartment complex came in after the homeless shelter. The rezone criteria talk about compatible and complementary. Obviously, the apartment complex got approved, correct? MS. WARD: Well, to answer your question, I could agree that a residential multifamily could be compatible with a homeless shelter because I don't know what the impacts would be created by a residential multifamily on a homeless shelter. So from that perspective, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you would -- now, your client obviously bought the apartment complex with the existing St. Matthew's House there, correct? MS. WARD: I think you said that, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I mean, wasn't the existing St. Matthew's there -- I mean, your lawyer put up the 2016 date. MS. WARD: I heard that, yes. I think I've already answered that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So your client must have determined that the existing homeless shelter is compatible with its apartment complex, correct? MR. PIRES: Hearsay. I understand it's speculation. I think it's totally inappropriate. That's what he's asking, speculation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Noted. And I'm going to take this opportunity to call on Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I wanted to talk to Rich, because I wanted -- I know you're on a cross specifically addressing the issues with the number of beds. My concerns are, what are your issues that were raised based on the zoning issues? I'm looking at the slide and the one previous. You're not -- you have no cross on any -- with any of the information as provided specifically to the zoning. Now, your cross is pretty much directed specifically on what I kind of am gathering is an opinion -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- based on the impact of the increase in the homeless shelter, but there are other issues as well that are being claimed now by a stated professional. But you've not addressed any of those questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and, Mr. Schmitt, I was going to address those -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- in my closing. December 2, 2021 Page 59 of 78 So let me ask this question: Are you saying that Collier County staff did not do their job in analyzing this petition? MS. WARD: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that it's the applicant's burden to provide the data and information. MR. YOVANOVICH: And didn't -- we provided information to county staff, correct? MS. WARD: The information that I'm citing was not in the application. MR. YOVANOVICH: We provided information identifying how we satisfied each of those criteria, correct? MS. WARD: No, I'm sorry, I cannot agree with that. The information was not provided. There were statements such as, if I could give an example, we expect that the proposed development will not have an impact on property values. That is not information. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, staff is required to review the information we provide and go through and determine whether or not we satisfied each of the criteria, correct? MS. WARD: That is typically what happens, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And staff has opined in their staff report that we have satisfied each of the criteria, correct? MS. WARD: I don't know how staff was able to reach that conclusion without that information. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what you're saying is staff did not do their job, correct? MS. WARD: I can only say that I don't know how they reached that conclusion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, I just -- if it was just staff's responsibility to approve, there would be no need for us. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. I understand that. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, yeah, they approved it, and it's up to us to decide if we agree with the criteria they use. And she's testifying that she doesn't agree with their criteria. It doesn't necessarily mean that they did something wrong. I guess I kind of object to the wording of that that they didn't do their job. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. What I was trying -- my point is, what you have is the typical case. You have a battle of the experts. They have their expert who's up there saying we didn't satisfy the criteria, we have our expert who says we do satisfy the criteria, and you have the independent reviewer, which is Collier County staff, that says we have met the criteria. That was going to be part of my close. You got it now in the questions from Mr. Schmitt. I only have a couple of more questions, and then I'll sit down. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before doing that, Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I would ask, in your professional opinion, what do you -- how would you modify the application so that your client might be more willing to accept, in your professional opinion? MS. WARD: And I believe we worked on that. There are some changes to the uses that are being proposed. Some buffering, additional buffering. Again, in the C-4 today you're supposed to have a 20-foot buffer. That has not even been addressed in the application, so I think there's additional buffering. Hours of operation. Lighting and glare from the additional warehousing that's being proposed. So all of those. And I'm sure Mr. Pires is going to go through those in detail, but we've actually sat down and worked through those. In my professional opinion, those get us closer to that complementary and compatible situation where everyone can walk away and, I think, be satisfied. MR. PIRES: Mr. Shea, if I may. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The challenge of that is that you're asking to go back and change what's already there. MS. WARD: No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The hours of operation, the warehousing, and -- December 2, 2021 Page 60 of 78 MR. PIRES: If I may just briefly interrupt. Part of what Rich objected to was our -- we took the Exhibits A through F of the PUD and redlined it and sent it to the staff and to the Planning Commission, that's what Rich objected to, and that's what we would suggest would make it complementary and compatible to it. So -- and Celia worked with us on that. In her professional opinion, it would make -- it would resolve these issues. But, again, Mr. Yovanovich objected to us. And so I will go and read it at the end of the presentation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. No, I'll back off. I apologize for jumping the gun on that one. MR. PIRES: Oh, no, sir. We appreciate you asking. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just as long as we address that. MR. PIRES: I wanted to make sure that you know that Cecelia also looked at that, and it was a team effort; we reviewed it, and this is our request. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I didn't see it. MR. PIRES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I haven't seen it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and, you know, I'd love to just cut to the chase and let's go to the end of the book -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's a good idea. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and just put them up and let me tell you why we couldn't agree to what they want to do, because their letter -- MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, I think he's on cross, not his argument now, so if we could -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think that's correct. Let's have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I've only got a couple more questions, if you'll let me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Cross of this witness? MR. YOVANOVICH: Of this witness. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're complaining about the fact that we're not going through a conditional-use application to expand the homeless shelter, correct? MS. WARD: No, I'm not complaining. What I'm stating is that the rezoning request changing the state -- state, if you will, of the uses from conditional to permitted, and that takes away a process of review that affords some protection to the neighborhood, adjacent neighborhood. MR. YOVANOVICH: What criteria in the conditional-use review criteria are not also included in the rezone criteria we're going through today to rezone the property to allow a use that would be allowed under a conditional-use process? MS. WARD: I believe if you go to Section 10.08.00 of the Land Development Code -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Bear with me. I've got to get back in. And I have it right here. Go ahead. MS. WARD: It allows conditions and safeguards that could be recommended by the Planning Commission and then, obviously, approved -- accepted/approved by the city -- by the County Commission. So they could make those additional conditions and safeguards in their review of a conditional use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Could they not also make recommendations and safeguards as part of rezone? MS. WARD: They can. That's what we're proposing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. But what I'm confused about, you're saying we're somehow sneaking a homeless shelter in on a different review process because we're going through a rezone and not through a conditional use. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? MS. WARD: Yes. I'm not saying you're sneaking anything in, so please don't characterize that. All I'm saying is that it needs to be brought out -- brought to an attention that we're going from conditional to permitted that changes the state that these uses are in, changes the level of review from a compatibility and a complementary review to be in compliance with the December 2, 2021 Page 61 of 78 Growth Management Plan of the county. It gives that extra level of review to your commission, both your Planning Commission, your County Commission, and just pointing that out to say that this is why we believe it is critical that the proposed modifications to the ordinance are considered to help assure and allay the concerns that we have from that compatibility and complementary position. MR. YOVANOVICH: What body or person, if you know, actually reviews conditional uses in Collier County? MS. WARD: You'd have to show me that section of the code, but I know the Planning Commission has the authority to review that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you aware that conditional uses have been delegated to the Hearing Examiner in Collier County? MS. WARD: This is right out of the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Have you read the administrative code or the Hearing Examiner's ordinance to know that conditional uses are actually reviewed by the Hearing Examiner? MS. WARD: I didn't review the administrative code, but if you could show me the section of the code, I'd be happy to review what you're stating. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you aware that there are only four review criteria for a conditional use and there are probably over 20 review criteria for a rezone? MS. WARD: I'm aware that there's a difference. What I'm saying is that by taking it out of the hands of your Planning Commission, that removes that safeguard of review from this commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Cecelia. MS. WARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry has -- MR. PIRES: So you have questions of Ms. Ward? COMMISSIONER FRY: Cecelia, before you sit down, I took about what you said about the conditional-use process to mean that -- not so much for the -- I mean, we are reviewing the increase from 104 to 150 today and the density reduction of square footage, but we're also -- when you mentioned permitted uses, I thought maybe you were referring more to Tract B, that list of permitted uses -- MS. WARD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- whereas those would not have to come back before us regardless of what they put in, as long as they're one of those permitted uses in the future; whereas, if it was a conditional use, each individual use would have to come back, go through a conditional-use process. Is that what you're -- is that what you're saying? MS. WARD: That's correct. Those uses that are currently listed as conditional uses in the C-4 would have to come back to you if they wanted to come into -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Like what? Is the office building a conditional use or -- we know the homeless shelter was. MS. WARD: The general warehousing and storage, legal counsel and prosecution, used vehicle sales. I know some of these are there, but an expansion of any of those. I know they already talked about removing the homeless shelter from the Tract B. And I think the other most significant change in this rezoning is introducing the refrigerated warehousing and storage, cold or refrigerated only. That's in your industrial zoning. So just to go back maybe to the previous question is, by adding -- you're adding now twice as much commercial. I understand that you can go infinitum. I get all that. But by adding twice as much commercial, possibly the addition of additional warehousing bays and doors, you don't have that opportunity to review for impacts from light and glare and noise and operations loading. COMMISSIONER FRY: But we don't today. December 2, 2021 Page 62 of 78 MS. WARD: You do today under the current code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask the county attorney to clarify a point that was raised. I realize this is a work in process, and we are going to be considering at a very early time how conditional uses and other contested matters are to be apportioned between the Planning Commission and the Hearing Examiner. I just -- I'm asking the County Attorney to remind me, what's the state of play right now under the current rules? MR. KLATZKOW: I'll defer to Bosi on that one, because he does the day-to-day on this. MR. BOSI: The -- per the code, it does say the Hearing Examiner can hear conditional uses. There is an evaluation that goes on from the Hearing Examiner as to whether he feels it's of public interest and concern, and if it is, that is elevated by his office to the Planning Commission. There is nothing in terms of any written criteria that helps establish that other than the amount of public interest within a conditional use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we are in the process of revisiting that, are we not? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And just for my edification and not to hold you to it at all, but in your judgment, just having heard this information, would you consider this issue, the conditional-use portion here on Tract B, is this something that should be elevated to the Planning Commission or decided by the HEX? MR. KLATZKOW: This -- when Mr. Strain was doing it, it would have been elevated to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I thought. MR. KLATZKOW: I can't speak of the current Hearing Examiner. MR. BOSI: I couldn't speak to it, but I would say, the only thing I would make a comment upon is there's an interested -- there's objection from the property owners. There's no other public here. This doesn't seem like a matter of public concern. It's a matter of one specific property owner, in my perspective. And from evidence of the individuals who are not here, I can -- I'm only left to conclude that the concern expressed by this petition is raised by one specific property owner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Hear from Mr. Eastman and then Commissioner Schmitt. MR. EASTMAN: The opposition's planning expert, please. You talked about compatibility and making compatibility, and you talked about certain changes, buffering, if you will. Could you prioritize those and sort of, you know, give us a condensed version of what you feel are the most important, from your perspective. MS. WARD: I believe first are uses, the type of uses. And I know there are some there, but we're talking about doubling of commercial, introducing an industrial. We're talking about a concentration of more homeless shelter beds in a much smaller space. So I think all of those are to be discussed. We, I believe, have already discussed the issue about not increasing homeless shelter facility uses, the beds themselves, on Tract B, so that's a very good direction. There are some other uses that we've proposed that should be expressly prohibited on Tract B. The buffering from the neighborhood, the residential neighborhood, is very significant. This allows to give some space between the additional commercial that's going to be added to the site. There's also some hours of operation for the bays and the operation of the warehousing. Direction of lighting, direction of glare. And I think Mr. Pires is going to read this all into the record at some point. But these are the type -- I think from the beginning it's uses; then it's buffering; then it's hours of operation, lighting, and glare impacts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm going to go back to the conditional use. Mike, it was my understanding when the planning -- when the Hearing Examiner process was put together, any item that was deemed to be contentious or residents object to regarding conditional December 2, 2021 Page 63 of 78 use, it was automatically raised to the Planning Commission. It was not -- it was a staff recommendation. Am I -- could you correct that? Because you kind of indicated that the choice was to the Hearing Examiner. My understanding is staff could clearly say this is an issue that we're going to bring to the Planning Commission and as above and beyond what normally would be dealt with by the Hearing Examiner. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Please understand, Nick and I created this process along with Mark Strain. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I was involved in it when it was started. MR. KLATZKOW: We started the process, and we started the process more to cut the red tape -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: -- you know, so people can get -- people can get the mundane projects done quickly rather than just having to go through processes. Mark was also on this Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. And it was Mark's belief that if a conditional use was basically uncontested -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: -- he would process it. If it was contested, he'd bring it here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what he did. I don't know what the current Hearing Examiner's doing. I just don't know. MR. PIRES: And perhaps I could -- I'm looking at the administrative code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, that should be in the process, and we're not here to debate that, and there's probably no need to go on. But I think the point -- and the academic point here was that I understand what's being raised in regards to a conditional use versus the PUD but, regardless, we still, as a Planning Commission, have a right to enforce or impose or whatever rules we believe necessary under the rezoning process that we would under a conditional use. MR. KLATZKOW: It's almost a red-herring argument, because the conditional use is a permitted use that we need certain conditions on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you can do the same thing in a PUD ordinance -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- saying, okay, we're going to approve this, but we want enhanced buffering here, we want this, we want that, and you do that all the time -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: -- so that in some sense it's six of one, a half dozen of the other which process you use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, to me it was a nice academic argument, but it's sort of moot because we still have the opportunity to add any conditions we deem necessary that is justifiable and defensible in regards to where we think -- what we need to add to the PUD. MR. KLATZKOW: We do that all the time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. PIRES: And just a real quick point on that. The administrative code says, it could be a matter of great public interest or concern as determined by the discretion of the Hearing Examiner or as requested by a member of the Board of County Commissioners. So then it would come back to you-all in that case. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That very provision is one of the several that are under serious potential change. We're looking at that now. MR. PIRES: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Be careful what you ask for, by the way. December 2, 2021 Page 64 of 78 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. MR. KLATZKOW: There's a reason why we set up the Hearing Examiner. MR. PIRES: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Reasons why we brought a Hearing Examiner in. MR. PIRES: You don't have enough hours in the day, I understand; you want more work. I get it. Next, if we may, Pramod, are you on? Pramod Choudhary. MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. Can you hear me? MR. PIRES: Can you hear him, members of the Planning Commission? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yeah. I can hear you. MR. PIRES: I don't know if he's been sworn, Terri. THE COURT REPORTER: I can't swear people in over the phone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not swearing in people over the phone. MR. PIRES: But he will be telling the truth. Pramod is a traffic engineer. Pramod, if you could briefly give your background, your experience in testifying as an expert in proceedings, whether zoning, planning, or condemnation, eminent domain, other proceedings in the state of Florida. MR. CHOUDHARY: Sure. My name is Pramod Choudhary, and I'm a consultant with the Keith Engineering Services. I have 28-plus years of transportation planning and traffic operations experience. Just to let you know, I was the traffic consultant for Collier County from 2005 to 2014 under Nick Casalanguida. So I was basically involved in developing the traffic impact guidelines. I authored that guidelines during that period; the development of the AUIR, establishment of all the roadway capacities. So everything that goes in there, I have been very closely involved with that, so I understand what Collier County is looking for. And all those nine years or close to almost 10 years that I was there as the consultant for the county, I was doing exactly these kinds of reports for the county, so that's my credentials. If you have any questions on that, I'm willing to answer that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any members of the Planning Commission need to know more about the gentleman's credentials? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, sir, you may proceed. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHOUDHARY: Okay. Yeah. I went through the Traffic Impact Statement that was provided to us. I reviewed it independently. And the very first thing that struck me was that the data being used is during the COVID situation that we are in. So, overall, there has been a reduction in traffic and the AUIR 2021, I believe, indicates that in their Attachment C that there is a reduction, and I think Jim Banks also pointed out that, that there is a 10 to 20 percent reduction on that segment of Airport-Pulling Road, so that was one concern that I had was that we want to be conservative when we are trying to do all this traffic impact assessment. So the ideal thing would have been that we should have used the 2019 data and applied a growth to it to come up to the 2021 service volumes and compare that rather than comparing it with the temporary lower volume due to COVID. So that's something that can be discussed. The other thing was that the trip generation that has been used for this development, it is an existing development. So whenever we have an existing development, we should be using that real data that we have access to. So if you had just collected the data from the site, we would have known exactly how many trips are being directed right now and how many we can expect with the increase in number of beds or the increase in the commercial development that they are proposing. So that is the standard practice that we do. The Trip Generation Manual is good. We can use that, but that we typically use when we don't have any available data to use. So that is what we end up using. So that was another December 2, 2021 Page 65 of 78 concern. So if you can move to the next slide. The other thing I found was in terms of assessing the impact on the roadway segment, the Traffic Impact Statement was fine, but once you start looking at the operations of the access driveway and intersection and the median openings, then the pass-by trips cannot be simply deducted from the total traffic generated by the site, what they had calculated, because that pass-by traffic is there on the road network. It only changes its operations. The through traffic may become a right-turn traffic or a left-turn traffic, and that affects the operation of the driveway and median opening. So you cannot simply deduct the pass-by traffic, and those are the things that's there in the impact guidelines that you need to be aware of when we are assessing the impact on the roadway segments. That I felt was missing from the Traffic Impact Statement. The other thing was the distribution that they have 65 percent from the north, 25 or 30 percent from the south. I didn't see any basis for that. There was no justification why that assumption was made. Typically we look at the existing volume on the roadway segment and kind of take that as a starting point to do the trip distribution. I didn't see that. In my opinion, that particular roadway segment seems like they will have almost like an equal spread between the north and south. There wasn't any traffic reduction in that segment itself. So if you can move on to the next one. And as I was talking about the median openings and the driveway locations, the trip assignments typically become important on how the median openings are. So if your main access drive, which is that blue -- Great Blue Drive, you can only make a right turn from that driveway. You can't go left. There's a directional median opening. So if all your exiting traffic from the site is making a right, then back on that roadway segment is 100 percent. It's not 65. So those are the kind of things that have not been included in the Traffic Impact Statement to really assess the real impact of it. And then the commercial use, it wasn't very clear from the report whether the existing development is 64,000 square feet of commercial use or 130,000. It said existing is 130- and the proposed is 130-, so there is a net zero change, and I didn't quite understand what it was. To me I'm not sure whether the existing use is only 64,000, and they're proposing a maximum of 130,000, and if that's the case, then there will be an increase in traffic because of doubling of that use, which was not accounted for in the trip generation. And then the last point was, basically, the Great Blue Drive, there's no assessment of it. There's no evaluation of what is the existing traffic, how that driveway will get affected and what the operations would look like with the directional median opening that we have there. So those were the main points that I noticed. And this is just a bullet point of all the things that I talked about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Any questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I have one observation before Mr. Yovanovich, and that is I try to be meticulous in reviewing the AUIR before each and every one of these projects come forward. And, granted, the volume of traffic from 2020 to 2021 went down 5.77 percent, but we've heard testimony in other hearings from Mr. Sawyer and Ms. Scott that this is undoubtedly due to the COVID situation. I personally am not as concerned about the traffic impact in this particular case because there is so much capacity remaining in Segment 6 of Airport-Pulling. I think it may be understated in the applicant's material, but I personally am not that concerned about it because there is just so much excess capacity there now. Anybody else want to be heard on that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. December 2, 2021 Page 66 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FRY: While that may be true -- and I think part of our value here is to identify, I'll just say, areas where additional definition should be provided for the BCC so they have full information. And so in -- when Mr. Banks was testifying, he provided, I believe, 12 p.m. peak-hour trips added by the additional beds in the facility, but I did not hear, nor can I put my finger on in the application package right now, how many trips would result from the increase from the 56,000 actual square feet of commercial up to a potential of 130,000. And if that is specified, great; but if not, I do believe those numbers should be very clear when it goes before the BCC whether we approved it or deny it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think your point is well taken. And, Ms. Scott, did you -- would you be willing to relate the COVID experience to 2020 and 2021 and the reduction on Segment 6 of Airport-Pulling? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, deputy department head, Growth Management Code. I was not sworn in earlier. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not -- actually do need to be. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCOTT: I do. I do have some questions. I came in, actually, to cross the expert witness. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MS. SCOTT: Would you like me to proceed? Because it may actually answer some of your questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if it's going to answer my questions, go ahead and proceed the way you want. MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Pramod. How are you? MR. CHOUDHARY: I'm doing okay. How are you, Trinity? MS. SCOTT: Very good. Thank you. What AUIR was used for the TIS analysis; do you know what year? MR. CHOUDHARY: I think it was 2021. MS. SCOTT: Actually, the TIS that's in the packet used the 2020 AUIR. MR. CHOUDHARY: You may be right about that. MS. SCOTT: Just for the record, the 2021 AUIR was just adopted by the Board in November, so that would not have been used. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. MS. SCOTT: Are you aware of the dates of the traffic counts that are used in the 2020 in development of the 2020 AUIR? MR. CHOUDHARY: I know that all these counts are done during the peak season. I know that -- that has been the process, yeah. MS. SCOTT: Okay. So would you agree that the counts that are used for the 2020 AUIR would have been counts that would have been collected between April 1st of 2019 through March 31st of 2020? MR. CHOUDHARY: That I'm not absolutely certain about. I thought that the 2020 would have the data from the 2020 peak season. MS. SCOTT: It actually doesn't. Those are the dates that are used for the AUIR because it's a backward-looking document. Do you know when this application was submitted for review? MR. CHOUDHARY: I think it was somewhere around May of 2021. MS. SCOTT: Okay. MR. CHOUDHARY: Probably revised in June of 2021, yeah. MS. SCOTT: Okay. Can you clarify, your recommendation was that they should collect real-time travel data in May of 2021, wouldn't that have been impacted by COVID? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. And then that's where you would make the adjustment. December 2, 2021 Page 67 of 78 That's what we do here. You know, DOT requires consistently for us to do the traffic data and then look at the historic data and apply the adjustment that would make it look more recent. So all the traffic studies that have been done have been done with that procedure. MS. SCOTT: So the applicant utilized, for the AUIR, pre-COVID numbers, but you wanted them to collect other data that was during COVID and be adjusted? MR. CHOUDHARY: I'm talking about the trip generation from their facility, because we are making an assumption from the trip -- IT trip generation rather than using the actual data that we have on the site. That was my recommendation on that. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. I believe Mr. Yovanovich may have some questions, but if you had additional questions with regard to the AUIR numbers related to peak, or I'm sorry, with related to COVID impacts. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think the COVID issue is not significant on this stretch of Airport-Pulling because there is so much capacity there. So I'm not particularly concerned about the TIS argument. I think the TIS probably understates it but not in a significant enough way for me personally to object. MS. SCOTT: And so what I would offer to the Planning Commission is that the dates for the 2020 AUIR, the traffic counts that are utilized are collected between April 1st, 2019, and March 30th of 2020, and during that time frame, we were not having significant COVID impacts -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair point. MS. SCOTT: -- to our traffic counts. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fair point. Thank you. Anybody else have a question for Ms. Scott before she leaves? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Terri, the court reporter, is asking the witness to speak up a little bit. So when you respond to me, Pramod, would you mind speaking up a little bit for Terri? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And before we proceed, if we may, it's six minutes after 2:00. Ordinarily, we would -- this is when we would have a mid-afternoon break. I'm going to look at the court reporter and see if now should be the time or 2:30. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just have a couple questions. THE COURT REPORTER: Let him finish. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you familiar with the review process Collier County goes through for establishing the TIS criteria? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you would agree that there is a pre-application meeting with county staff and the applicant to determine the type of analysis that needs to be provided? MR. CHOUDHARY: Correct, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the TIS that was provided is consistent with the pre-application meeting with county staff, correct? MR. CHOUDHARY: That is correct, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Are you familiar with Tom Ross of the Jacobs Group? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes, I am. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you -- you would agree that Mr. Ross is a competent traffic engineer and traffic consultant? MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you aware that Mr. Ross also reviewed the TIS for this particular PUD? MR. CHOUDHARY: I'm not aware of that. December 2, 2021 Page 68 of 78 MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you aware that Mr. Ross agreed with county staff's analysis on the transportation impacts? MR. CHOUDHARY: No, I'm not aware of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes. If we could -- it's the last witness we have, and just a few points, and then to get to the point that Mr. Shea had. I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought you wanted a break after this witness; did you not? CHAIRMAN FRYER: How much time do you have -- I thought we were going to 2:30. How much time do you have? COMMISSIONER SHEA: She said after Rich. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We'll stand in recess for -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: She didn't know Rich was going to be so quick. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're in recess until 18 minutes after 2:00. (A brief recess was had from 2:08 p.m. to 2:18 p.m.) MR. BOSI: My apologies, Chair. You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Yes. If I may, Mr. Chairman. In conclusion, and the summary of objections and issues, we've gone through these. We had, at the beginning, outlined them. We heard the testimony of Cecelia Ward, the planner, and Pramod, our expert engineer and transportation engineer. And what we have -- and we had submitted and we had, like I said, a meeting, Steve Tilbrook on the phone, myself in person, with Wayne and Rich to try to resolve some of these issues, and it was a good meeting, but we did not resolve all the issues. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you resolve some? MR. PIRES: We resolved some. Subsequent to that, there's an email from Rich to me November 29th, and I'll read it into the record, if I could, and I have a couple items to read into the record. It said Tony -- Wayne, Tony and Steve. Wayne and I spoke to our client regarding the concerns you expressed to us at our meeting. Our client has agreed to the following conditions in order to get your client's support or at least to have your client not opposed to proposed PUD: Homeless shelters will be expressly prohibited on Tract B. Secondly, the warehouse facilities will be accessory uses only. They won't be -- we expressed a concern of we don't want an Amazon or a Wayfair, and right now, if it's warehousing, you can have Amazon, Wayfair, and any of the big box guys. Any new overhead doors will not face east, and that was a concern that we don't want those big bay doors on the east side of any building facing the apartment complex. Upon redevelopment, the landscape buffer that is currently 10 feet in Tract B will be expanded to be 15 feet. Delivery hours will be limited to be between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. And hopefully we have addressed your client's concerns. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. On November 30th -- excuse me. On November 29th at 5:15 -- that was from Rich on November 29th at 10:20 a.m. I replied back on November 29th, the same day, at 5:15. And it says, Richard and Wayne, thanks again for meeting and speaking with your client. We have reviewed and provided your email to our client. Our clients appreciate your client has agreed to the following conditions/limitations to be included in the PUD, which have addressed some of our concerns, and I just reiterated what I just mentioned. And I said, however, and in order to address our client's remaining concerns, the following conditions/limitations as noticed on the -- noted on the attached red-lined edited PUD document need to be included in the PUD: Homeless shelter, residential care and group facilities expressly December 2, 2021 Page 69 of 78 prohibited on Tract B. Exclude alcoholism counseling non-residential, offender rehabilitation agencies, probation officers, refugee services, and public welfares centers on Tract A. Eliminate warehousing and storage, refrigerated warehousing and storage as a principal use on Tract B. Permit warehousing and storage refrigerated warehousing and storage only as an accessory use to not-for-profit food bank and only on Tract B. Eliminate Deviation 1 that would otherwise reduce the minimum floor area for homeless shelter from 150 square feet per person to 100 feet per person. Traffic impact study, that sufficient capacity exists for added or additional trips on Great Blue Drive. That's the access road. Provide for enhanced landscape buffers at the time of redevelopment to 15-feet-wide Type B landscape buffer and to 20-foot-wide Type D for sections located within the activity center. Limit loading, unloading, and delivery hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and only on weekdays, and Rich replied that same day -- next day, excuse me, at 1:12. Tony and Steve, although many of the changes you made to the PUD are acceptable, there are several that my client cannot agree to make. My client cannot agree to the limitations you proposed as to SIC Code 8322. SIC 8322 is a permitted use on Tract A today. That's the SIC code that allows offender self-help agencies, offender rehabilitation agencies, refugee centers, and public welfares and probation offices. The requested deviations regarding square footage must remain 100 square feet. According to Jim Banks, the building code only requires 50 square feet per person. The use of the access road is covered by the easement agreement. There's a recorded easement agreement. My client will not agree to the language you added. We cannot agree to limit deliveries to just weekdays. The landscaping changes are not acceptable. We agreed to change the buffers adjacent to the apartments if the site is redeveloped. The way you wrote it is, we do an internal change on the building, the buffers must be revised. And then I submitted and what I would like to go through is -- again, and we had this conversation is -- and I have extra copies for the Planning Commission, but I will read them out loud or put them on the Elmo, if I may, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's see. I've got a question or two for the applicant, and then I'm going to see if we can't move to a point of essential agreement. And, Mr. Yovanovich, this may be most appropriate for your client. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Steve come on up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it just has to do with a set of facts, really. The word "security" has been mentioned a couple of times. I'd like to know more about what kind of physical security is provided at the present time and what, if anything, more you'd be prepared to do to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. MR. BROODER: Sure. We have added the controlled access fencing that I talked about and gates so that that protects mainly the residents from people coming in. We also have physical security staff that are on the property. We added some lighting which is in front of the shelter on the Airport Road side for added security. So those are those measures we've taken. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there something more that you could do to mitigate or even eliminate the tents that are being put up on the neighboring property? Is there anything that you could add by way of security personnel or anything at all could be done? MR. BROODER: Well, I think they've already stated that they've -- they engage law enforcement when those persons are encountered on their property, so I wouldn't propose that we would do anything else for their property. These are not residents if they're living in tents in the woods. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it -- I observed -- in my site visit, I observed people being buzzed in but being let out whenever they wanted to go out, and -- MR. BROODER: That's true. That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- frankly, I was somewhat concerned about that. Could you December 2, 2021 Page 70 of 78 address that, please. MR. BROODER: People are free to go. We don't lock them in at the shelter, so they are free to go at any point in time. But as I mentioned before, they have an assigned bunk and locker. So if they're going out, they're going to work. They're going to different appointments. That's what we allow them to do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you be willing to put on any more personnel to secure the premises? MR. BROODER: We have been considering it for our own premises, yes, but not offsite. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I understand. MR. BROODER: So as the need would present itself, we would certainly consider that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But we've heard some evidence that there is tenting taking place. We don't know for sure that it's your people, but I think probably some of them are. And I'd like to know if there's something further you could do that could mitigate some of these issues. MR. BROODER: I would argue that they are not our people. Why would they sleep in a tent or put up a tent on another property when they have a bunk? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Because there are only 104 bunks there. MR. BROODER: Well, then they aren't our people. Then they're homeless on the streets. We talked about the counts, which is 600 to 800, and that's about a third of the actual count. So there's a large number of homeless that are not sheltered. These are the chronic homeless. Many don't want to be sheltered. So we serve those that will come into the shelter, receive the transformative rehabilitation that we provide, and abide by our rules, but we can't enforce or police all the homeless that are in Collier County. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just so that -- it's my last question on this issue. Is there anything additionally that you'd be willing to do to provide security for the benefit of the neighbors? MR. BROODER: I would say that we have and we would continue to talk to the county about this. I just mentioned to Commissioner [sic] Eastman that there are HOT teams in other counties and cities. These are homeless outreach teams that go out and meet -- engage the homeless wherever they are. It could have several members, including a law enforcement person. We advocate that type of response and would participate in that if that's something Collier County would be interested in talking about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm on the same lines of questioning. Probably back to more basics. Were you aware that people were tenting on the neighbor's property? MR. BROODER: Not in particular, but as I think has been -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So nobody called you and told you about it and said -- MR. BROODER: I don't know of any calls that have come in about complaints at our shelter and, of course, I think we're all aware and it's already been mentioned that there are many tent encampments in Collier County and all over the country, so I don't know of those specifically. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So people that are in your shelters, for instance, they get fed and everything, and they have to be a member -- there's no way living in a tent would allow them to be fed and in with the rest of the residents? MR. BROODER: I just can't -- no, the residents are served in the shelter, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It just seems like an awful big coincidence that they're there. It would be nice if we could find a way to join -- I understand the legalities of the fact that it's not your property. MR. BROODER: Well, all you have to do is just drive around the county, and you'll find several tent encampments in several areas. So anyplace that there's woods or a lack of visibility, I think there's a chance for the homeless to be found there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that all, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. December 2, 2021 Page 71 of 78 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just to clarify again, any personnel [sic] who are in these tents or elsewhere, they -- do you accept dailies to walk in just to be fed and then leave, or they actually have to be residents? MR. BROODER: Not at the shelter, no; you have to be a resident. They have to go through the intake process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I'm -- yeah, I'm trying to make sure that the services you're providing are not attracting outsiders. They have to come in and agree to all the rules and regulations -- MR. BROODER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and go through the -- I guess, the deprogramming or whatever you do. Then, actually, they become residents, and then they're provided all the services that you offer. But it's not something that you -- somebody can walk off the street today and go in and have a meal and leave? MR. BROODER: No, no. They go through the intake process, and I think I mentioned before you came that it's a quite intensive process. We do background checks, drug screen, daily breathalyzers, and we screen out certain offenders from the population. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Isn't Justin's Place part of -- part of your organization? MR. BROODER: Justin's Place Recovery Program, yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So there's a soup kitchen there. And do the homeless people go in there to eat? MR. BROODER: That's at the firehouse, right. That's not part of this property. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's right next to it, though. MR. BROODER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's right next to it. MR. BROODER: It's separated by another parcel, yes. It's the old East Naples firehouse. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So one of the -- one of the main talking points today has been the reduction of square footage per resident from 150 to 100. The code from 30 years ago says 150. So I guess I have kind of a question of there are a lot of arbitrary numbers in our codes, and our challenge up here is to what weight do we assign those numbers, right? And that's what I'm struggling with here. So I guess I would consider you an expert in homeless shelters, something that Rich brought up before. You're the ultimate expert. You're running one, you know, a very large one. Please, put me at ease and, perhaps others, why it isn't a natural assumption that putting more people in a smaller place is not creating an adverse or less positive condition. I mean, it sounds like you're taking a common area now that's un-air conditioned, and you're converting it and taking part of that room for bunks, and you're reducing the amount of shared space for these 100, 104 now, now 150 with less shared space. So please explain to me why there isn't a legitimate concern about the reduction of square footage per resident. MR. BROODER: Sure, I can do that. Actually, there's no reduction in the individual space. We are -- we accommodate fire safety regulations with a separation between bunks, so that's what we maintain now, and that's what we will maintain in the future. But, again, through the renovation, we were able to carve out actually more usable floor space for the dorms. So we will maintain the separation that's required by fire and safety between the bunks. You have to be able to get a gurney in. You have to be able to access everyone. So we'll maintain that. We aren't crowding beyond that -- that requirement. And I will say that congregate housing was certainly a challenge during COVID, but we were able to maintain proper social distancing or really limit the number of cases both of residents and staff that experienced COVID, so we're very cognizant of what's required and very concerned about the safety of our residents and the accommodations that we would provide. So I wouldn't December 2, 2021 Page 72 of 78 characterize it as overcrowding or pushing them together or crowding them more. COMMISSIONER FRY: Perhaps not for their -- where they sleep. But, I guess, are we not reducing the areas where they can hang out when they're not in their bunk area? MR. BROODER: Not at all, no. We aren't impacting that at all. In fact, we've added space through the renovation. We created the courtyard, which is an ideal space for people to get outside, just have some time to meditate. And the dining space has not been impacted at all. That's still there. In fact, we weren't utilizing it as much now because we have Lulu's Kitchen servicing the meals. So we actually have more space in the dining facility. COMMISSIONER FRY: So is it your statement, then, that you're not actually reducing the space allocated to each resident. It's only -- it's really a math equation that you have more residents in the area, but they still have just as much shared space, just as much area to enjoy and use when they are not in their bunk area, and their bunk areas have not changed? MR. BROODER: That's correct, and that would be my correct statement. It's better utilization of the re-renovated space that we have. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So you've efficiently put more people in the same space by reallocating space -- MR. BROODER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- but they haven't lost a thing, in your opinion? MR. BROODER: That's right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. BROODER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I want to make sure I understand -- the answer to Karen's question is, if I was in a tent in the woods, I could walk in and get a free meal. MR. BROODER: At Justin's Place. COMMISSIONER SHEA: At Justice's Place -- MR. BROODER: Not at the shelter. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- which is in that -- it's in the same general complex which may be -- MR. BROODER: It is not. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No? How far away is that? MR. BROODER: It's a block -- a block away. It's the old East Naples firehouse next to -- MR. EASTMAN: It's not on the subject property. MR. BROODER: It's not on the subject property. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just on the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, but it's close. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just on the side of the thrift store. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How long -- I guess this is the wrong -- how long has this tent issue -- is this something new, or has this been -- I mean, we've been -- they've been there 20 years. MR. PIRES: It's been going on for a while, I understand from Kristi; is that correct? MS. SINNOTT: Yes, it was ongoing. MR. PIRES: It's been ongoing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I'm just getting to the point, it seems like it may be more related to Justin's Place than to the shelter for the homeless, the homeless shelter. MR. BROODER: And the firehouse, or Justin's Place as we refer to it, has been there since 1988. That's when we took over the old East Naples firehouse. So it's been in existence all that time. And I'll add that there's other agencies that also serve meals in the vicinity; Catholic Charities, St. Vincent DePaul, Salvation Army. So we aren't the only ones that provide meals. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's a good place to hang out? December 2, 2021 Page 73 of 78 MR. BROODER: Well, we don't allow that. We serve -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I mean in the woods near all these facilities where they need to be fed. MR. BROODER: Oh. We just know that people will do that when they don't want to come into a shelter; that's their alternative. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So just for clarity, who runs Justin's Place? MR. BROODER: St. Matthew's House. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And who works at Justin's Place? Are they residents of St. Matthew's that are employed at Justin's Place? MR. BROODER: We have case managers, peer mentors, and interns, which are the staff members. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So they're part of the residents? MR. BROODER: Yes. Well, they aren't residents there, no. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, but they residence [sic] at St. Matthew's that -- maybe on the rehabilitation or whatever, but are employed at Justin's Place? MR. BROODER: They could be an intern, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But to the general public, in all the years I've been in Collier County, I never delineated between the soup kitchen and St. Matthew's. To me they're all the same facility. Even though they're not part of this PUD -- MR. BROODER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- they're all managed by St. Matthew's. MR. BROODER: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I think the -- I have to say that the answer would be, yes, there is an attractor in the area providing food for the homeless on a daily basis that are not residents, and that would be Justin's Place but not St. Matthew's House. MR. BROODER: And Catholic Charities and Salvation Army and other agencies. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. I've handed out food at the church over there as well. MR. BROODER: East Naples. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But to the public it's all one organization. They don't delineate between the two. So I guess -- so when they see homeless hanging around that may be part of -- that are there for the kitchen, they don't know if they're part of St. Matthew's or not, so I think that's part of the problem. Just perception. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: I would agree with the perception problem, but the people actually taking you up and entering the program, they're not the Justin's Place eating meals. They're in your program being fed separately. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: I know that the school district has vacant properties which we hold for future sites, and we've had homeless problems. We've had to clean out those properties and remove the homeless camps. Some of the people are willing to enter a program like yours and potentially turn their life around, which is what we as a society want to have happen. Others were adamant about not going because they didn't like the curfew. They didn't like rules. They wanted to continue with their lifestyle of addiction, basically. And so, you know, the people that enter your program are not sleeping in the woods. MR. BROODER: Right. I can't imagine that they would be when they have a bunk. And we've seen a lot of the areas where the homeless did have encampments move around with the development. Every time a new area is deforested, trees go down, they start grading, and then the homeless are moving around. These are the people that aren't sheltered, the chronic homeless on the streets. December 2, 2021 Page 74 of 78 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just one quick question that just popped up. So of the 104 bunks that you have, can you break down for us -- you mentioned hunger, homelessness, and the third -- MR. BROODER: Addiction. COMMISSIONER FRY: Addiction, thank you. Can you break down, like, what percentage of the beds are filled by each of those groups? MR. BROODER: Well -- COMMISSIONER FRY: We're only talking about homeless; that's why I'm asking. MR. BROODER: Well, the subject property, they're all homeless. That's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, it's all homeless. MR. BROODER: That's that facility; that's to serve the homeless. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. BROODER: Now, the hunger is a distribution that we do for food insecurity at these different sites, remote sites, and then the addiction program, recovery program, those are different campuses. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, thank you. MR. BROODER: Not at the shelter. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just for homeless, okay. MR. BROODER: And not part of subject property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else wish to be heard? MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just briefly, again, in summary, because I think the questions were raised, what would be acceptable to our client. And as -- if I may, and bear with me while I do this, a little bit, because you-all don't have the copies in front of you, although I do have copies. One item that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't object, Tony, if you want to hand out -- if you're going to show them the strikethrough and underline -- is that what you want to do? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just hand it out. MR. PIRES: Well, thank you. It's up to the Planning Commission, I guess. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would like a copy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If the applicant doesn't object, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, I think this is where we're finally trying to get to. If you could put it on the visualizer. MR. PIRES: This is what I tried earlier, Rich, and you objected to that coming in. MR. YOVANOVICH: I objected -- MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Hold on one second. This is not a mediation, okay. In the past, we've continued items to give parties the ability to sit down and see if they can't hammer out a result and then come back, but this is not an active mediation where we're going over line over line what he likes, what I like, what he said I could do, what he said -- no, no, no. That's not how this works. I mean, you've presented your evidence, all right. The Planning Commission's heard it. If you two believe that there is some grounds that you can get together and hammer this out and be done with this, they can continue this. And if you don't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I want a vote. MR. KLATZKOW: -- that's fine. But we're not going to go through this is what we want, this is what we want, this is what we want. MR. PIRES: And again, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, the last slide is the requested proposed changes, and I read them out loud, and I thought this would be helpful in that discussion and consideration by the Planning Commission today as to whether or not to approve this, recommend it with approval, or recommend it with December 2, 2021 Page 75 of 78 conditions, or recommend denial. As you're reading it, one part on here that's on the landscaping where we talk about a 20-foot landscape buffer on Airport Road -- I appreciate it, Mike -- this is from the Land Development Code, and it talks about a Type D 20-foot buffer is required along Airport Road for properties within activity centers. And you heard a lot of testimony that this property is in Activity Center No. 6 [sic]. But the site plan that has been suggested by the applicant in this case calls for a 15-foot-wide buffer along Airport Road. And so that's one of the conditions we request. You'll see that in our strikethrough and underline. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's sixteen, isn't it? MR. PIRES: They have 15 on there. We suggest 20 by virtue of -- because it's in Activity Center 16. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I meant. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. And I don't know if staff disagrees with our position, but it says, any -- and developments within an activity center shall provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way. And so we would contend that a 20-foot landscape buffer is required along Airport Road in addition to the other suggestions. And so I don't know if the Planning Commission wants me to go through these items line by line or just read. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's talk about where we go from here. And I take the point that the County Attorney made; we're not -- this is not a mediation. If there were a substantial likelihood that we could reach an agreement in 30 minutes, I'd be willing to hang out here for 30 minutes and get it over with, but I haven't heard anything that suggests to me that the parties are anywhere near sufficiently together to do that, which points me to suggesting a continuance, and I'd like to hear from the other planning commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may, we'd rather just have you vote on our proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm sure you would, but I want to hear from the Planning Commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: Giving us a continuance, we're not going to resolve it. I just wanted to say that before you guys started discussing it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What do the other planning commissioners have to say? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Unfortunately, I happen to -- I don't think they are going to resolve it and -- I mean, I'm ready to vote on it, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And I think everybody else is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Rich, you indicated if there's a continuance, it's unresolvable. If we do the half-hour option, is it potentially resolvable? MR. YOVANOVICH: I doubt it. Based upon the list of things that are there, it may -- may I do my closing? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not quite yet. You'll have an opportunity. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Because I think it's important for me to explain why I don't think we're going to get there since Mr. Pires decided to make public negotiations back and forth in the spirit of trying to reach a compromise. He decided to make a public record of the email exchange. I should have wrote on the email, these are settlement negotiations not subject to public disclosures. Shame on me for not doing that. But -- so where we are -- let me just tell you where we are on this issue. Reducing the square footage is nonnegotiable. Changing the buffers prior to redeveloping an existing site is nonnegotiable. We agreed to eliminate some of the uses that we talked about. That's fine. We already agreed that the refrigerated warehousing is an accessory use. We never asked for homeless shelters on Tract B. We agreed to double commit we're not going to put it on Tract B. So the way -- where we are is his requirements to change the landscaping buffers at the December 2, 2021 Page 76 of 78 first development order, which a building permit's a development order, we have to now take out parking to meet the new buffers for an already-approved site. That is not acceptable to us. If he comes off of all of that to when we talk about truly redeveloping the site, knocking buildings down, putting new buildings in, we have something to talk about. But if it's really any type of development order, I've got to -- I've got to get rid of parking spaces, and I've got to put in buffers; that's why I said no. And in his letter, he said, you've got to do 150 square feet, and that's not doable. We don't want to put a second story on this building to move forward. So if those are his bottom line, we can't get to it, then a half hour's not going to do us any good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me tell you where my vote is going to come from. I'm concerned about things that others have not mentioned here, at least sufficiently for my purposes. I remain concerned about security. And I heard a categorical, no, we're not willing to do anything more. I would rejoin by saying, would St. Matthew's be willing to contribute a percentage toward the cost of security to protect the neighborhoods? Not indicating what the percentage might be, but would you entertain that kind of a concept? MR. YOVANOVICH: They have a fence. Why don't they maintain their fence -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I take that as a no. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to keep people out? I mean, my question -- what am I going to do? Am I going to pay a police officer? Because only a police officer can literally ask someone to get off the property. We're not going to go chase somebody off of somebody else's property, and for whatever reason, they're uncomfortable doing it as well. A police officer has to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: I would suggest a 10-minute break. Let these two get together. If they tell you, no, there's no way we can come to a compromise, take a vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That's what we'll do. We'll be in recess for 10 minutes until 2:58. (A brief recess was had from 2:48 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. I'm given to understand that the applicant and the representative of the neighbors have had a fruitful conversation, and we await with baited breath your report. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I have a question. I can't remember, do you guys have one more meeting this month? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're down -- and I'm not going to tell you what issue it is because -- we're down to one issue. And, in fairness to Tony and Steve, they're unable to reach their client to whether or not they can agree to that one issue. What we would like to do is come back at your next meeting, hopefully up first, and say, here's everything, we've resolved it, or it fell apart. I'd hate to put us both in a vote scenario. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I hate that you sat here this long, but it was fruitful. We're just struggling to find the decision maker for -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for the apartment complex. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, without objection from the Planning Commission -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. Hold on. Did you get him? CHAIRMAN FRYER: So the applicant is proposing that this be continued to a date certain, namely the 16th of December. MR. PIRES: Yes, to see if we can resolve the one remaining issue. And if not, then the Planning Commission will take a vote. If it is resolved, then have something for you. MR. KLATZKOW: No, what will happen is assuming it's resolved, okay, staff's going to December 2, 2021 Page 77 of 78 have to put together the PUD that -- MR. PIRES: We'll work on it. MR. KLATZKOW: -- you've both agreed to, okay. That will be presented to the Planning Commission. There won't be a need for a public hearing. There will just be, at that point in time, a vote yes or no. MR. PIRES: Well, I guess it would be a public hearing if we can't resolve it. MR. KLATZKOW: And if you can't resolve it -- well, this public hearing is done -- MR. PIRES: I know. I understand that. MR. KLATZKOW: -- you know. MR. PIRES: But it's public from the standpoint they have to take action. No more evidence, I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So if you're able -- MR. KLATZKOW: So we're closing the public hearing, I take it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, public hearing is closed. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't get a 30-minute close? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't get 30 minutes to close and rebut? MR. KLATZKOW: Man, life is short. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you wish. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I don't want to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me be sure I understand that this, then, will come back to us on consent. MR. YOVANOVICH: It can't. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We have to vote on it. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, they vote on consent, but we'll figure that part out. It will come back to you at your next meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But the public -- the public portion of this is now closed, all right. So if they've agreed to it, it's just a vote. If they haven't agreed to it, they'll get to make their closing arguments, and then it will be a vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Is that agreeable with both sides -- MR. PIRES: Yes, and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- or counsel? MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than I don't think Tony gets a close; only I do. MR. PIRES: No. I was going to say I was hoping Rich wouldn't catch that, but I'm just kidding -- being facetious. Thank you for your patience. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to continue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And this is a motion to continue to a date certain, December 16th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sixteenth, yeah. We can meet on the 15th. It will work for me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I know it would. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of continuance till that date, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. December 2, 2021 Page 78 of 78 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. That takes us to old business, of which there is none, I don't believe. New business, I don't believe there's any of that either. Any members of the public who wish to be heard on something that has not been on our agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands raised, then we will move directly to adjournment. We are adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:21 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 L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 2/17/22 ✔