BCC Minutes 10/12/2021 ROctober 12, 2021
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 12, 2021
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of
such special districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: Penny Taylor
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Rick LoCastro
Burt L. Saunders
Andy Solis
ALSO PRESENT:
Sean Callahan, Interim County Manager
Amy Patterson, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Derek Johnssen, Clerk's Office
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
October 12, 2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
October 12, 2021
9:00 AM
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 – Chair – CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; Vice Chair - CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District 1
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO
THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE
CHAIRMAN.
REQUESTS TO PETITION THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT
ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER
“PUBLIC PETITIONS.” PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE
PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
Page 2
October 12, 2021
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE
BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380;
ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE
AVAILABLE IN THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
Lunch Recess scheduled for 12:00 Noon to 1:00 P.M .
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Invocation by Rabbi Ammos Chorny of Beth Tikvah Synagogue
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended
(Ex parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent
agenda.)
B. September 14, 2021 BCC Meeting Minutes
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. EMPLOYEE
Page 3
October 12, 2021
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
4. PROCLAMATIONS (One Motion Taken to Adopt All Proclamations)
A. Proclamation designating October 2021 as Domestic Violence Awareness
Month in Collier County. The proclamation will be mailed to Linda
Oberhaus, Chief Executive Officer, The Shelter for Abused Women &
Children and copies to Kevin Rambosk, Collier County Sheriff and
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court.
B. Proclamation designating October 2021 as "Careers in Construction"
Month in Collier County. The proclamation will be mailed to Amelia
Vasquez, Executive Officer, Collier Building Industry Association.
C. Proclamation designating October 10, 2021, as Republic of China
(Taiwan) Day in Collier County. The proclamation was mailed to the
Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECO) in Miami, Florida.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Businesses of the Month for October
2021 to Ridgway Bar & Grill, Tony's Off Third, Bayside Seafood Grill &
Bar, and Sukie's Wine Shop.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This Item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. FCC Beach & Yacht,
LLC, filed an appeal of Official Interpretation INT-PL20210000943 that
food trucks are permitted uses in the Commercial Convenience District
(C-2) and Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) Zoning Districts.
Page 4
October 12, 2021
[PL20210002121], (Companion to Items #8B & #8C) (District 4, All
Districts)
B. This Item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. FCC Beach & Yacht,
LLC, filed an appeal of the administrative approval of the Site
Development Plan SDP-PL20200001903, pursuant to Code of Laws and
Ordinances Section 250-58, which authorized the development of a food
truck park in the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) Zoning District.
The subject properties are located at 300, 320, 322 Capri Boulevard and
218 Kon Tiki Drive in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. [PL20210001944] (Companion to Items #8A &
#8C) (District 1)
C. This Item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. Paul M. Grider and
Tametha Grider, as trustees of the Grider Revocable Living Trust filed an
appeal of Official Interpretation INT-PL20210000943 that food trucks are
permitted uses in the Commercial Convenience District (C-2) and
Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) Zoning Districts to clarify that the
Official Interpretation is not site specific but applies County-wide to all
properties designated within the C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts.
[PL20210002241] (Companion to Items #8A & #8B) (District 1)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) No. 21 -7923,
“Collier Beach Renourishment 2021-2022,” to Phillips and Jordan, Inc.,
in the amount of $4,987,323.21, authorize the Chair to sign the attach ed
Agreement, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism (Project
Nos. 90066, 90068, and 50126) (Andrew Miller, Manager, Coastal Zone
Management). (All Districts)
B. Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Strategic Marketing
Plan for the Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors
Bureau (CVB) and make a finding that this plan promotes tourism. (Paul
Beirnes, Tourism Division Director) (All Districts)
Page 5
October 12, 2021
C. Recommendation to approve the Immokalee Road Corridor Congestion
Study from Livingston Road to Logan Boulevard and authorize the
County Manager or designee to pursue the recommended improvements.
(Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner; Capital Project Planning) (District 2,
District 3, All Districts)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item must be heard prior to items 8A, 8B, and 8C.
Recommendation that the Board accept without comment four motions
filed by the owner of the proposed Isles of Capri Food Truck Park and
either (1) move directly to hearing the three publicly noticed appeals, or
(2) remand the appeals to the Hearing Examiner. (District 1)
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to
be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate
discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the board,
that item(s) will be removed from the consent agenda and considered
separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement for the sale
of an Access Easement over county property located on the
southwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Painted Leaf
Lane. (District 3)
Page 6
October 12, 2021
2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of
the private roadway and drainage improvements, and acceptance of
the plat dedications, for the final plat of Vincent Acres Replat,
Application Number PL20190001665 (f/k/a Vincent Acres,
Application Number PL20150002012), and, and authorize the
release of the maintenance security. (District 3)
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of
the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Palazzo at Naples, Application Number PL20130002119,
acceptance of County maintenance responsibilities for all sidewalk
easements (SW.E.) of Palazzo at Naples and authorizing the release
of the maintenance security. (District 3)
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water
utility facilities and accept the conveyance of a portion of the
potable water utility facilities for Rookery Bay – Goodland Field
Station Replacement, PL20210002089. (District 1)
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,
all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Euclid Estates (Application
Number PL20200002589) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security. (District 2)
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,
all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the amended final plat of SkySail - Phase
One, (Application Number PL20210000065) approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security. (District 5)
7) Recommendation to review and approve the Fiscal Year 2022
Capital Improvement Plan of the Big Cypress Basin (BCB), a part
of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
(District 1, All Districts)
Page 7
October 12, 2021
8) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of $37,562.03 for payment of $2,512.03 in
the code enforcement action titled, Board of County
Commissioners v. Peter A. Helff, Code Enforcement Case No.
CEV20120016482 relating to property located at 2080 21st St SW,
Collier County, Florida. (District 5)
9) Recommendation to terminate for convenience Agreement No. 17 -
7200S with eTitle Agency, Inc. for Real Estate Title & Closing
Services. (All Districts)
10) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of
Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 21-7900, “Design
Services for Stormwater Improvements for the BCG&CC/CCN
Areas”, Project Number 60102 and authorize staff to begin contract
negotiations with the top-ranked firm, Hole Montes, Inc., so that a
proposed agreement can be brought back for the Board’s
consideration at a future meeting. (District 4)
11) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for Amendment
1 to the TIGER IX – Immokalee Complete Streets Grant
Agreement with the US Department of Transportation/Federal
Highway Administration Grant Award #693JJ32040007 (District 5)
12) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment transferring
$290,000 from Fund (313) Project #60172 - Traffic Signal to Fund
(313) Project #60252 – VBR at Logan Blvd Intersection
Improvements (District 3)
13) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Department
Funded Agreement (DFA) FM# 437103-1-88-01, which was
renewed by the Board on June 22, 2021, between the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Collier County; to
unencumber remaining unused funds initially allocated, in the
amount of $18,375; to execute a Resolution memorializing the
Board's action. (All Districts)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Page 8
October 12, 2021
1) Recommendation to terminate for convenience Contract No. 17-
7208 with Ground Zero Landscaping Services, Inc. (District 4)
2) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and
bring back for future consideration an ordinance to amend
Ordinance No. 2006-60, as amended, to expand the Haldeman
Creek Maintenance Dredging Municipal Service Taxing Unit
(MSTU) boundaries of the unit to include two parcels within the
Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development. (District 4)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with 23-81 LNT,
LLC, for warehouse storage space to be used by Facilities
Management. (District 4)
2) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Agreement No.
18-7416 for Public Utilities Lime Sludge Pond Cleaning to adjust
the fee schedule rate during the remaining three-year renewal term
of the Agreement. (District 5)
3) Recommendation to approve an Assignment and Assumption of
Lease Agreement between L3 Harris Technologies (Assignor) and
the State of Florida Department of Management Services
(Assignee). (District 5)
4) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking and
authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with Johnson
Engineering, Inc., for Request for Professional Services (“RPS”)
No. 21-7904, “CEI Services for Hamilton Avenue and Danford
Street,” to bring a proposed agreement back for the Board’s
consideration at a future meeting. (District 4)
5) Recommendation to authorize the necessary budget amendment
from the Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund (318) to fund the Jail
Buildings J1/J2/J3 & Parking Garage 1 (PG1) Fire Alarm
Replacement project (Project No. 50237). (District 1)
6) Recommendation to award Request for Professional Services
(“RPS”) No. 20-7749, “Domestic Animal Services Facility Design
Page 9
October 12, 2021
Services,” to ADG Architecture, LLC in the amount of $578,508,
authorize the Chair to the sign the attached Agreement, and
authorize the necessary budget amendments (Project No. 50145).
(District 5)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign
two (2) Subrecipient Agreements between Collier County and (a)
David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc in the amount of
$261,466.60 and (b) Collier County Sheriff’s Office in the amount
of $845,280, for the Criminal Justice, Mental Health, and Substance
Abuse grant program. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
agreements between Collier County and the David Lawrence
Mental Health Center, Inc., in the amount of $1,315,066 and NAMI
Collier County, Inc., in the amount of $146,700 pursu ant to the
state-mandated local match requirement for mental health services.
(All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve the FY21-22 contract with the State of
Florida Department of Health for the operation of the Collier
County Health Department in the amount of $1,495,900. (All
Districts)
4) Recommendation to approve “After-the-Fact” contract
Amendment, Attestation Statement, and Budget Amendment with
the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., Alzheimer’s
Disease Initiative grant program for the Collier County Services for
Seniors to increase the allocation, revise Attachment II Exhibit 2
Funding Summary and Attachment IX Budget and rate Summary
and the supporting Budget Amendment. (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the chairperson to sign
two (2) mortgage satisfactions for the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership loan program in the amount of $38,250 and the
associated Budget Amendment. (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to approve one (1) Release of Lien for full
Page 10
October 12, 2021
payment of $27,907.45 ($22,325.96 plus interest), pursuant to
Agreement for Deferral of 100% of Collier County Impact Fees for
Owner-occupied Affordable Housing Dwellings. (All Districts)
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign
the Second Amendment to the Subaward Agreement between
Collier County and the Institute for Intergovernmental Research for
the Building Bridges Between Jails and Community-Based
Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder Demonstration Project. (All
Districts)
8) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment to fund the
restoration of Sugden Regional Park Dock #4 and recognize
insurance proceeds. (District 4)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts)
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize Lucia Martin, Growth Management
Department, Development Review Division as the September 2021
Employee of the Month.
2) Recommendation to approve the Federally Funded Subaward and
Grant Agreement with the Florida Division of Emergency
Management in the amount of $2,650 under the Federal Emergency
Management Agency Fire Assistance Program in the response to
the 36th Avenue Fire in May 2020 and authorize the County
Manager to execute subsequent modifications. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment totaling
$17,100 from Fund (178) reserves to Public Defender’s Fund (178)
to cover Purchase Orders for laptops and desktops that did not
Make it on to Purchasing’s Request to Carry Forward list. (All
Districts)
Page 11
October 12, 2021
4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance
proceeds) to the FY21-22 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to the long-
term lease and operating agreement for the Golf and Entertainment
Complex between CCBSG Naples, LLC (“BigShots”) and Collier
County to include an updated exhibit of the leased area for the
BigShots facility, and the remaining portion of the golf course
redevelopment project. (District 3)
6) This item continued from the September 28, 2021 BCC Meeting
Agenda. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman
to sign the Extension and Amendment of the Agreement with The
Partnership for Collier’s Future Economy, Inc. (“Partnership”) in
continued support of the established public-private partnership
designed to advance the County’s economic development efforts.
(All Districts)
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) No. 21 -7907,
“Marco Terminal Punch List-Grant Funded,” to O-A-K/Florida,
Inc. d/b/a Owen-Ames-Kimball Company in the amount of
$78,885.00, and authorize the Chair to sign the attached agreement.
(District 1)
2) Recommendation to approve the document necessary to convey an
easement to Florida Power & Light (FP&L) Company over
property owned by Collier County at the Marco Island Executive
Airport (District 1)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to authorize routine and customary budget
amendments appropriating carry forward budget in the amount of
$11,207,629.60 for approved open purchase orders into Fiscal
Year 2022. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20210001116, to
Page 12
October 12, 2021
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in
the sidewalk easement as recorded in Official Records Book 4523,
Page 3037 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located
in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County,
Florida. (District 5)
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) October 12, 2021 Miscellaneous Correspondence (All Districts)
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners,
the check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between September 16, 2021 and September 29, 2021
pursuant to Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts)
2) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of October
6, 2021. (All Districts)
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Golden Gate Estates
Land Trust Committee. (District 5)
2) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Golden Gate
Beautification Advisory Committee. (District 3)
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to execute a
Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit styled Paula Yoanys Alpizar
Gomez v. Collier County Board of Commissioners, (Case No. 19-
CA-3709), now pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, for the sum of
$65,000. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
total amount of $330,000 plus $55,358.75 in statutory attorneys’
fees and costs and expert fees and costs, for the taking of Parcel
Page 13
October 12, 2021
215FEE, required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project,
Project No., 60168, and delegate authority to the County Manager
or his designee to process payment of additional statutory
attorney’s fees for supplemental proceedings, if any, as authorized
by Ch. 73, Fla. Stat. (District 5)
5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $75,000 plus $15,820 in statutory attorney and experts’
fees and costs for the taking of Parcel 239FEE, required for the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project No. 60168. (District 5)
6) Overview of Agenda Item #7, Public Comments on General Topics
not on the Current or Future Agenda. (All Districts)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. SUMMARY AGENDA This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff,
the Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature,
all participants must be sworn in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance creating the Collier County
Public Art Committee to advise the Board on all matters relating to the
public art within the entire unincorporated area of the County, including
the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area. (All
Districts)
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
FY21-22 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
C. This item has been continued from the September 28, 2021 BCC
Meeting Agenda. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
Page 14
October 12, 2021
proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan,
Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District Restudy and specifically amending the Urban Mixed Use District,
Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District of the Future Land Use Element to require Transfer of
Development Rights for Comprehensive Plan amendments for increased
residential density; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Fringe Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on
residential in-fill and remove the requirement to use Transfer of
Development Rights within one mile of the Urban boundary; and
amending the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use
Element to change development standards and requirements, to increase
density on Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase
density on Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add Transfer of
Development Rights Credits, add uses in Receiving areas, and add a
conditional use for recreation in Sending Lands, and to amend
development standards for Rural Villages; and create the Belle Meade
Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and furthermore directing transmittal
of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
[PL20200002234] (District 1, District 3, District 5)
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA
SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
October 12, 2021
Page 2
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning, everyone. We have
Rabbi Amos Chorny of Beth Tikvah Synagogue with us today to give
us our blessing. And I would like to ask Commissioner McDaniel to
lead us in the Pledge, please.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Be happy to.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you all rise, please. Thank
you.
Item #1A
INVOCATION BY RABBI AMMOS CHORNY OF BETH
TIKVAH SYNAGOGUE – INVOCATION GIVEN
RABBI CHORNY: Good morning, everyone.
Our God and God of our ancestors, on this morning as we
gather, we pray that you will grant our country the will and the
wherewithal to fulfill its calling to justice, liberty, and equality. May
each of us fulfill our responsibilities of citizenship with care,
generosity, and gratitude ever conscious of the extraordinary blessing
of freedom, ever mindful of our duties to one another.
Bless those who volunteer to labor on behalf of all of us; that
they find the strength and courage to complete their tasks and fulfill
their dreams. May we each respond to the charge of the prophet.
For what does the Lord demand of you but to act justly, to love
kindness, and to walk humbly with your God. May the one who
brings peace on high bring peace and prosperity to our world and
keep us in safety as we all say amen.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With me, ladies and
gentlemen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
October 12, 2021
Page 3
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Deputy County Manager.
MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE
DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR
CONSENT AGENDA.) - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
W/CHANGES
That takes us to Item 2A, which is the approval of today's
regular, consent, and summary agenda as amended. Ex parte
disclosure provided by commissioners would be appropriate
following staff changes.
Staff does have several changes proposed to the agenda today.
The first is an add-on item. This is -- this will become Item 10A,
and that is a request that the Board discuss the current condition of
the parcel at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara
Boulevard which abuts the Boys and Girls Club of Collier County
and explore whether further action is appropriate. This item was
added at Commissioners Saunders' request.
There's a second add-on item that will become Item 10B. That
is a recommendation to accept changes to the U.S. Department of
Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance 1 and 2 programs to
streamline eligibility and add allowable activities for households
seeking assistance under the program to benefit all eligible residents
and those impacted by the sale of the Gordon River Apartments.
That is being added at Commissioner Taylor's request.
A few continuances. We're going to continue item -- or we're
going to propose to continue Item 17C to the October 26th, 2021,
October 12, 2021
Page 4
BCC meeting. That is a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth
Management Plan related to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District
restudy and specifically amending the Urban Mixed-Use District,
Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, and the Rural Fringe
Mixed-Use District of the Future Land Use Element.
We're also proposing to continue Item 16F6 to the October 26th,
2021, BCC meeting. That's a recommendation to approve and
authorize the Chairman to sign the extension and amendment of the
agreement with The Partnership for Collier's Future Economy in
continued support of the established public/private partnership
designed to advance the county's economic development efforts.
That's being continued at the request of Commissioner Taylor.
And also, finally, continue Item 17A to the October 26th, 2021,
BCC meeting. That is a recommendation to adopt an ordinance
creating the Collier County Public Art Committee to advise the board
on all matters relating to public art within the entire unincorporated
area of the county including the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Area. That's being continued at the
request of Commissioner Taylor.
There are a few time-certain items on your agenda today.
Item 12A is to be heard prior to Items 8A, 8B, and 8C related to the
Isles of Capri Food Truck Park motions, and then Items 8A, 8B, and
8C are to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. This is an appeal of
food truck official interpretation, appeal of the administrative
approval of SDP-PL2020001903, an appeal of the official
interpretation for a food truck park in the C-2 and C-3 zoning
districts.
One note: That Items 8A, B, and C will require that ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members, and should a
hearing on these items be held, all participants are to be sworn in.
October 12, 2021
Page 5
And that is all the changes we have from staff today, Madam
Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
So I'd like to start with Commissioner Solis. Do you have any
ex parte to declare on today's agenda, omitting the discussions this
afternoon -- or any changes to the agenda, please.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, just -- on the consent agenda,
summary agenda, no disclosures and no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have no disclosures on the
consent agenda, but I do have a question, if I might.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And Mr. Callahan knows,
because we spoke prior. It concerns 16C2. So it's a -- it's a renewal
of a contract, but it came to my attention last night that this renewal is
with a 44 percent increase. And so I know one of the things I always
say is these aren't county contracts. These are taxpayer contracts.
So I guess my question is, did we increase the scope of the contract?
Did expenses just go up? And if none of those things are true, did
we consider putting it out for rebid to see if there's a more
competitive, you know, contractor? So it's not throwing any rocks
or anything, but 44 percent increase is a big jump, but it's not unheard
of. I was just curious if we could, you know, maybe get some more
information on it.
MR. CALLAHAN: Commissioner, I think it would be
appropriate to pull that item from the consent agenda and make it
11D on today's agenda.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. CALLAHAN: We could do that with your blessing and
hear that as a regular item and have staff available.
October 12, 2021
Page 6
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. Just for our info.
MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, sir. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you repeat that item number
again.
MR. CALLAHAN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It was 16C2.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CALLAHAN: And that will become 11D, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you. Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no ex parte, but I do
want to add one item just for a quick discussion under Board of
County Commissioners. We had a visit with the folks from
Tallahassee with the veterans department there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I see John Mullins in
the audience. I want to have just kind of a brief overview of how
that went for the Commission. So that -- I assume that would be
10 --
MR. CALLAHAN: That would become Item 10C if you want
to put it on the regular agenda, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I have no other
changes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No other changes, no ex parte?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Same; no changes nor any ex
parte on consent or summary.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I have no changes and no ex
October 12, 2021
Page 7
parte on consent or summary except what we talk about this
afternoon. So thank you very much.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
October 12,2021
Add on Item 10A: Request that the Board discuss the current condition of the parcel at the intersection of
Davis Blvd. and Santa Barbara Blvd.which abuts the Boys & Girls Club of Collier County and explore
whether further action is appropriate. (Commissioner Saunders' Request)
Add on Item 10B: Recommendation to accept changes to the U.S.Department of Treasury Emergency
Rental Assistance 1 and 2 programs to streamline eligibility requirements and add allowable activities for
households seeking assistance under the programs to benefit all eligible residents and those impacted by the
sale of the Gordon River Apartments. (Commissioner Taylor's Request)
Continue Item 17C to the October 26,2021 BCC Meeting: A Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan,Ordinance 89-05,
as amended,relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the Urban
Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the
Future Land Use Element to require Transfer of Development Rights for Comprehensive Plan amendments
for increased residential density; amending the Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on residential in-fill and remove the requirement to use
Transfer of Development Rights within one mile of the Urban boundary; and amending the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to change development standards and requirements,to
increase density on Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road,increase density on Receiving Lands for
affordable housing,add Transfer of Development Rights Credits,add uses in Receiving areas,and add a
conditional use for recreation in Sending Lands,and to amend development standards for Rural Villages;
and create the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and furthermore directing transmittal of the
amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. IPL202000022341 (District 1,District 3,
District 5) (Staffs Request)
Continue Item 16F6 to the October 26,2021 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve and authorize the
Chairman to sign the Extension and Amendment of the Agreement with The Partnership for Collier's
Future Economy,Inc.("Partnership")in continued support of the established public-private partnership
designed to advance the County's economic development efforts. (All Districts) (Commissioner Taylor's
Request)
Continue Item 17A to the October 26,2021 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to adopt an ordinance creating
the Collier County Public Art Committee to advise the Board on all matters relating to the public art within
the entire unincorporated area of the County,including the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area. (All Districts) (Commissioner Taylor's Request)
Note:
Items 8A,8B,and 8C-These items require that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on these items,all participants are required to be sworn in.
Time Certain Items:
Item 12A to be heard prior to items 8A,8B,and 8C—Isle of Capri Food Truck Park motions
Items 8A,8B,and 8C to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm—Appeal of Food Truck Park Official
Interpretation,Appeal of Administrative Approval of SDP-PL2020001903,and Appeal of the Official
Interpretation for a Food Truck Park in the C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts
11/2/2021 9:49 AM
October 12, 2021
Page 8
Item #2B
BCC MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 – APPROVED
AS PRESENTED
So hearing no changes to the agenda, I would like to see if
there's a motion to set the agenda as stated plus approve the minutes
as submitted on September 14th, 2021.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you.
MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
That will take us to Item 4, which are your proclamations today.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2021 AS
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER
COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO
LINDA OBERHAUS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE
SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN AND COPIES
TO KEVIN RAMBOSK, COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF AND
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT –
October 12, 2021
Page 9
READ INTO THE RECORD
Item 4A is a proclamation designating October 2021 as
Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Collier County. This
proclamation will be mailed to Linda Oberhaus, chief executive
officer of the Shelter for Abused Women and Children, with copies to
Sheriff Rambosk and Crystal Kinzel, the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2021 AS
"CAREERS IN CONSTRUCTION" MONTH IN COLLIER
COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO
AMELIA VASQUEZ, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COLLIER
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION – READ INTO THE
RECORD
Item 4B is a proclamation designating October 2021 as Careers
in Construction Month in Collier County. This proclamation will be
mailed to Amelia Vasquez, executive officer of the Collier Building
Industry Association.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 10, 2021, AS
REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY.
THE PROCLAMATION WAS MAILED TO THE TAIPEI
ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL OFFICE (TECO) IN MIAMI,
FLORIDA – READ INTO THE RECORD
And, finally, Item 4C is a proclamation designating
October 12, 2021
Page 10
October 10th, 2021, as Republic of China Day in Collier County.
This proclamation was mailed to the Taipei Economic and Cultural
Office in Miami, Florida.
Item #16F1
RECOGNIZING LUCIA MARTIN, GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION AS THE
SEPTEMBER 2021 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH – READ INTO
THE RECORD
And then, finally, on your consent agenda today, there was an
item to announce Ms. Lucia Martin as the September 2021 Employee
of the Month. So if you'll bear with me, I want to read a few words
about Ms. Martin.
Lucia is an associate project manager in the Development
Review Division in Growth Management and has been with the
county since 2017. Lucia was instrumental in a
process-improvement effort for the Growth Management and Public
Utilities by taking a lead on the final acceptance completion of past
projects. In addition to balancing her existing workload, she
performed endless hours of research and coordinated the organization
of past due projects across multiple divisions. Her efforts resulted in
the final acceptance of over 300 outstanding utility projects and their
associated security.
Due to Lucia's commitment, these projects' closeouts resulted in
several hundred thousand dollars of final acceptance obligation cash
bonds to Collier County Public Utilities.
Lucia's ability to challenge the existing process, encourage
change, inspire the vision, and lead the change resulted in a
monumental project closeout of the backlog, and for this reason
October 12, 2021
Page 11
Lucia is selected as the Employee of the Month for September 2021.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESSES OF
THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER 2021 TO RIDGWAY BAR &
GRILL, TONY'S OFF THIRD, BAYSIDE SEAFOOD GRILL &
BAR, AND SUKIE'S WINE SHOP – PRESENTED
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you do have one
presentation on your agenda. 5A is a presentation of the Collier
County Business of the Month for October 2021 to the Ridgway Bar
& Grill, Tony's Off Third, Bayshore Seafood Grill & Bar, and Sukie's
Wineshop.
Turn it over to Troy. You have a video ready?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
(A video was played.)
MR. RIDGWAY: Hi, I'm Tony Ridgeway, and I'm with my
business partner and lifelong friend and associate, Sukie Honeycutt.
We're in the private dining room at Ridgway Bar & Grill just off
of Third Street in Olde Naples, and we'd like to take this time to
thank the Naples Chamber of Commerce and the Collier County
Commissioners for selecting us as the Business of the Month.
MS. HONEYCUTT: It's really an honor.
MR. RIDGWAY: It's an appropriate time in that as of Monday
the 4th of October, we will be celebrating my 50th year in business
and, Sukie, you are what, 78 years behind that? Seventy-nine?
MS. HONEYCUTT: Actually, I was in the business up in
Connecticut.
MR. RIDGWAY: But I mean in -- for here, yes.
October 12, 2021
Page 12
MS. HONEYCUTT: With you.
MR. RIDGWAY: But she's been in the business almost as
long.
We're excited about celebrating our 50th year in business. And
it's a wonderful thing because, even though it's a lot of years, every
year's always a new year.
MS. HONEYCUTT: There's a new wrinkle.
MR. RIDGWAY: And kind of tell them some of the things that
we've done at Bayside and Ridgway and why we're better this year
than we were last year.
MS. HONEYCUTT: Well, we've made a lot of changes at both
places. We try to do that -- pretty much every one of our goals is to
try to be better than we were the previous year. It's not always easy,
but we managed to come up with a lot of new things this year. At
Bayside we replaced their point-of-sales system, we modernized it,
we modernized our surveillance system, we bought a lot of new
equipment, we're putting in new side stations, we bought new chairs
for our private dining room. I mean, I could go on and on. All
worthwhile expenditures, and a lot of things that our customers will
notice. So it's really important that the customers see that you're
reinvesting what I'll call their money.
MR. RIDGWAY: I can't think of many places I would rather
be. I've been in Vermont in the past month, and most restaurants are
operating five days a week versus seven because they can't staff. We
went to a restaurant in Vermont, and they sort of announced when
somebody asked to order a drink, well, our bartender went to Europe
for two months, so we closed the bar.
Naples is a great town and, yes, we're all going to have trouble
hiring people, but I'd rather be here working through all the problems,
because this is a great community. We get great support from our
Chamber. We get great support from our County Commissioners,
October 12, 2021
Page 13
and this is a marvelous community to do business.
(Video concluded.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good?
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, that will take us to Item 7,
which is public comments on general topics not on the current or
future agenda.
Troy, I believe we have several registered speakers.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. We have six registered speakers. I'll
remind our speakers you can use both podiums. Your first speaker is
Victoria Redstall. She'll be followed by Desre Buirski.
MS. REDSTALL: I didn't want to go first. I wanted Carol and
her husband to go first.
Hi. I'm here to speak about assisted living home and memory
care homes in Collier County. And I really would like to
know -- I've done a lot of research on these homes, and I feel that it's
not -- it's -- these elderly people who have Alzheimer's, dementia, or
whatever are getting neglected and abused, seriously abused in these
facilities. And I think it's getting overlooked because everyone's
focused on the children. I think that's great; they're our future. But
who gave us life are the elderly.
And I've done a lot of research in different assisted living places,
and there's excrement on the walls, they are people sitting there like
vegetables, and I thought they were tired or bored, but they're
actually being drugged up. And I have personal experience because
this happened to my father. He was almost killed within four days
October 12, 2021
Page 14
of an assisted living place I believe in Penny Taylor's district. It's
south of here. I don't want to say the name just yet.
But I've done a police report. I've done an elderly abuse report.
Now I've got a lawyer involved. Thirteen doctors prescribed my
father terrible medication, including morphine, and he almost died
and aspirated on his food. But we rescued him within four days.
So there's a lot that needs to be researched, and I just wondered
if the commissioners are able to do anything about it. Have you
done anything about it? Do you know about it? Is there something
I can do to back you up on this? Can I give you videos? Can I meet
with any of you alone, show you videos of what they're doing to
these people? I just think we should be more aware, because they're
our elders. Do I wait for an answer or just go? I'm kind of new to
this.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You filed a police report.
And, generally, we don't have a communication directly with folks on
this. But just for your information, my nephew is involved in that,
the healthcare industry, and advises that whenever there's a report
made to the Department of Health, that they are very responsive in
the nursing home. So I don't know if you've taken that --
MS. REDSTALL: I've done that as well, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Did you get any response at
all?
MS. REDSTALL: Yeah. I've got a case number. They went
to the place, to the facility where my father was. I just feel they
should go to all the facilities, because this is happening everywhere.
We put him in the best home that we thought. But that was just four
days, four days. They wanted us to come back in six days. He
would have been dead on the sixth day.
So, I mean, I just wanted you to be aware, and I just want to
know how -- what we can do about it. I don't think I wait for
October 12, 2021
Page 15
answers, do I? I don't wait for answers. I don't think I wait for
answers, do I?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know that we have
any answers.
MS. REDSTALL: Okay. No, I just wanted to make you
aware, and maybe when I meet with you, we'll talk about that. But
I'll have the reports with me. Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Desre Buirski, followed
by Chantal Sherer.
MS. BUIRSKI: Hi. Good morning, everybody. Thanks for
the opportunity to address you and my colleagues and friends.
I'm here to highlight a sensitive subject, election security and
integrity. We all know that elections and the results of the elections
are as important as financial public company results, and both need to
be audited.
If big financial companies were to say today that they were
dropping their annual audits, people would be concerned. And I
think that the whole of the United States election process should be
audited in counties everywhere every year at every election or at
every election that takes place.
There have been some issues that have been highlighted right
here in Collier County, and most people are probably not aware of it
because it seems that, you know, the Republican party won, so that
means there's not any insecurity that is happening, but there is. And
we've contacted certain officials who just want to turn a blind eye to
this and hope that we're going to go away.
So I head up part of a group that is looking into election security
and election integrity here in Collier County but also representing
Florida on the whole. And we certainly believe that an audit needs
to take place, a forensic audit. And without audits being done, the
outcome of elections can never and will never be free and fair.
October 12, 2021
Page 16
And the question that I always kind of come away with these
days is, why is this such a hushed-up topic? Why aren't we -- I'm
not saying here, and I appreciate the opportunity. But the media is
definitely dead on the subject.
And I won't stop. And the group that we've put together won't
stop. And that's just it because, like I said last night to a group that I
addressed, it's as important as breathing, and we have to sort this out.
And I just wanted to make you aware that Jennifer Edwards is not
giving us any opening.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Chantal Sherer. She'll be
followed by James Rosenberger.
MS. SHERER: Good morning. I'm going to make mine quick
and sweet.
We had a friend of ours that checked into NCH, and they were
bent on giving him Remdesivir, and we all know what Remdesivir
does. It attacks the kidneys and then attacks the other organs in your
body.
What are we doing about this? Because NCH and NCH North,
that we know of, are administrating this drug pretty much on arrival,
and it's the death shot. In my evaluation and in speaking with other
people, we have two of our own death camps here.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is James Rosenberger.
He'll be followed by Rob Tolp.
MR. ROSENBERGER: Good morning, Commissioners,
county officials, and my fellow Collier County residents. For those
of you who don't know me, I am James Rosenberger, a Marco Island
resident.
I'm going to take you back in time. I remember being in
Catholic grammar school and being smacked by Sister Rita because I
October 12, 2021
Page 17
wasn't sitting up straight. I remember that she was going to give my
friend, Teddy McVey, a haircut.
I remember when class mothers brought in cupcakes when it
was someone's birthday. There were PTAs that resolved any issues
that presented themselves in Sacred Heart Grammar School. That
was in the 1960s. Here we are today, 60 years later, and so much
has changed and not for the better.
I recently learned that the National School Board Association is
asking Joe Biden for help. Why? Because school boards across the
country are being confronted by angry parents. Why again?
Because the parents who trust teachers and school boards with their
children are concerned over what is currently going on in our
educational system, parents fed up and exercising First Amendment
rights to express their displeasure.
After all, isn't it our children who are our most precious resource
in the future of our country? These concerned parents are now
labeled domestic terrorists and now need to be controlled by law
enforcement including the FBI.
We have so many issues in this country presently, and the
administration deems that the soccer moms are a priority. You
can't -- it's a funny thing. You can't make this stuff up.
Now let me turn the clock back three months when I stood here
along with Byron Donalds, Bob Rommel, and Sheriff Rambosk
asking for an ordinance protecting Collier County by making it a Bill
of Rights Sanctuary County, and it was denied. Maybe it's time to
revisit this issue. Obviously, passionate parents are being denied
their First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. It's quite
obvious that we do need this ordinance. This administration
continues to trample over the rights of all of our citizens, and I'll not
stand for it.
Today I would like to extend an invitation to the commissioners
October 12, 2021
Page 18
who voted down the ordinance several months ago. So I'm asking
that Commissioner Andy Solis, Commissioner Burt Saunders, and
Commissioner Penny Taylor attend a lecture by KrisAnne Hall on
October 14th at the Silverspot Theater as my guest. She is a
constitutionalist, an attorney, a military veteran, and a true American
patriot.
I look forward to seeing you there on Thursday evening so you
can get a better understanding of what our Constitution and Bill of
Rights mean and, furthermore, what it means to be an American.
God Bless America.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rob Tolp. He'll be
followed by Daniel Francis Cook.
MR. TOLP: Good morning, Commissioners. I come before
the Board today to highlight the egregious dereliction of duty of
several members of this body.
As Jimmy just highlighted, a short time ago Collier residents
demanded the Bill of Rights Sanctuary ordinance be passed. In
violation of their oath of office, three members of this body rejected
the passage of that ordinance. Now the Biden Administration and
his Attorney General are attempting to intimidate and are now
branding parents as domestic terrorists who confront their school
boards exercising their First Amendment rights.
I would add, that they have also labeled veterans for years as
one of the most potential domestic terrorists within our nation, so
much so that even a Missouri state patrol training class video that
leaked back in the early '90s was teaching their state patrol officers
that our founders were the original and very first domestic terrorists
in this country, their exact words, quote-unquote.
Academics and those in constitutional think tanks have often
opined about what a communist or despotic takeover would look like
in a constitutional republic. We're watching it take place on our
October 12, 2021
Page 19
television screens and our digital screens every day today. We now
know. We are watching it unfold before our very eyes. We have a
federal government that has weaponized federal law enforcement
agencies against its own population. That, by definition, is tyranny.
Our founders would have immediately arrested those in the
Biden Administration and the Republican traitors who are aiding
them for sedition against the United States and treason. This is no
light or trifling matter. This is our liberty we're talking about. This
is not some conspiracy theory. There's evidence of all of it.
They are, in fact -- we conclude -- what can we conclude about
the members of the body who dropped the ball on this? Well, we
know that they lied to the residents of Collier County when they ran
on the Republican ticket because their voting record shows that they
are leftists.
That's willful deception. Deception is the exact opposite of
being forthright and honest. It is offensive to anyone who
understands and loves liberty. It is a reproach on the character of
those who engage in it. You have left Collier residents at the mercy
of a tyrannical administration.
Three emperors on this dais have no clothes. Their weakness,
self-serving motives, desire to exert power over the people is
reprehensible and despicable.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on public comment is
Daniel Francis Cook.
MR. COOK: Madam Chair, Board, thanks for being here
today. It's always hard to follow Rob Tolp. I echo everything he
says there.
I think I'll -- I think maybe I'll speak about this audit that one of
the speakers brought up. I was reading through the state statutes
yesterday about the elections, and I was reading that a particular
October 12, 2021
Page 20
statute -- I don't know the particular statute, but I know it does say in
there that there's an automatic audit after the elections, and I think
election oversight board has something to do with that. Maybe we
can make a public records request to get that audit and maybe in
writing. I think that would be helpful for us to see what the
Supervisor of Elections has done as far as an audit, and maybe we
can go from there.
But last week I was at the City Council meeting, and, Madam
Chair, you gave a presentation on water and how the City of Naples
and the County Commissioner work together. It was really
enlightening and brought a lot of new things to my mind, so I wanted
to thank you for that presentation.
But the subject, maybe, of inter-government interaction, I think,
is -- could be considered something of a solution for what -- you
know, the people who are speaking publicly here today. And as
we've been speaking publicly about our rights being violated, you
know, sometimes by the federal government, sometimes by the state
government, you know, a lot of times we come here because this is
the microphone that we have available. We have your ear available.
So we come to you with a lot of problems. And I'm not sure that
you have the answers for us. I'm not sure that I have the answers for
us. I'm not sure what I'm rambling on really, to be honest with you.
But -- because what Rob was talking about is right. It does feel
like we're at a crosshairs right now. It feels like there's so much
division. It feels like we have so many problems, but maybe that's
because we're focusing on the problems. We're not focusing on
solutions.
So I've got one minute and eight seconds here left to ramble
about some solutions. Last time I was here, we were talking a little
bit about the Tenth Amendment, and Commissioner Saunders
suggested that I meet with the attorney about discussing this proposal
October 12, 2021
Page 21
was thinking about of creating a Tenth Amendment advisory board
which the purpose of this board would be to recommend to the
County Commissioners what things that we the people, I guess,
would consider as a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which we all
know the Tenth Amendment is the barrier between federal
government and state's rights.
So with only -- with only 30 seconds left, I think I'm going to
come back to Article I, Section 8. If we as citizens, if we as
commissioners, if we as state representatives, as Congressmen, as
governors, if all of us had a better understanding of those 17 or 18
things that are listed in Article I, Section 8, maybe we could start to
come together on some solutions and just figure this whole thing out.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: And that was all your public comment speakers
for today, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Well, before we go to the agenda and start our meeting in that
way, I'd like to talk about the October artists of the month. And
Jennifer Edwards' office, the Supervisor of Elections, for the last six
years has a contest of all the students -- open to all the students in
Collier County, and the -- their challenges give us an example of art
for democracy. And on the wall you'll see the winners of this year.
So thank you very much, Supervisor of Elections, for making this
available, and also for moving democracy into our students and
youth. Thank you very much.
MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Item #10A
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD DISCUSS THE CURRENT
CONDITION OF THE PARCEL AT THE INTERSECTION OF
October 12, 2021
Page 22
DAVIS BLVD. AND SANTA BARBARA BLVD. WHICH ABUTS
THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COLLIER COUNTY AND
EXPLORE WHETHER FURTHER ACTION IS APPROPRIATE.
MOTION FOR STAFF NOT TO ISSUE ANY NEW PERMITS FOR
CONCRETE CRUSHING FOR TWO WEEKS – APPROVED;
MOTION FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK A SHORT-TERM
MORATORIUM ORDINANCE AND THE ISSUANCE OF SDP
PERMITS – APPROVED
That takes us to Item 10A on your regular agenda, which is a
request that the Board discuss the current condition of the parcel at
the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard,
which abuts the Boys and Girls Club of Collier County and explore
whether further action is appropriate. This item was added to the
agenda by Commissioner Saunders. And I believe Ms. Cook, your
director of Development Review, and Mr. French, your deputy
department head of Growth Management, will also support any
questions that are necessary. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, while they're
approaching the microphone --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course, please.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- I've asked them to give us
a report, and I've asked the County Attorney to take a look into this.
I think five or six months ago Bobby Cadenhead stood at one of
these podiums and said that this would all be finished by October,
November. Clearly, nothing has been done to clear that site or to
crush the cement. It looks like it will be another undetermined
amount of time before that site is fixed.
And I want to make sure of a couple things. One is that we're
doing everything we can to either force compliance or shut the site
down and, number two, make sure that no other sites in the county
October 12, 2021
Page 23
can be developed this way until we've developed an ordinance to
regulate it. So I'll be working with the County Attorney on an
ordinance to prevent this type of eyesore from cropping up in other
parts of the county.
So with that introduction, I've asked staff to make a presentation
on where we are and what our options are.
MR. FRENCH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Jamie French. I'm your deputy department head for Growth
Management on the community development side of the house.
With me today is Ms. Cook. Jaime Cook is our director of
Development Review for our department. Jamie can get more into
the detail.
But just so you know, Commissioners, I was on the site
yesterday personally. I met with Mr. Cadenhead. There were two
crushers that were operating. The site is much cleaner, not that that's
to say much. It's cleaner than it's been in the past.
Mr. Cadenhead is working. He had staff out there. Trucks
were rolling. We did identify a few things, nothing so egregious that
we could actually shut the site down. And what I'm talking about is
dust control.
Yesterday was not a bad day, not a lot of dust. But we're going
to have to address -- and he was out there today. I drove by the site.
They're working on it, to take the dust away from the trucks as they
enter the road, Santa Barbara, from the site.
And then, again, it is currently under an active Site Development
Plan. That Site Development Plan would expire in March of '22.
And then with regards to the land development regulations on
potential sites in the future, there is an item being brought to your
Development Services Advisory Subcommittee on October 20th that
will address this, and we anticipate being back in front of you. We'll
go to the Planning Commission after that and back -- and back in
October 12, 2021
Page 24
front of you with that item before the first of the year is what our goal
is.
And with that, I'll ask Ms. Cook to provide you any details. I
know she is working with the State of Florida with regards to the
permits that are required for this site as well.
MS. COOK: Good morning. Jaime Cook, your director of
Development Review.
Two things: So first our engineering inspections team has been
out there. They were out there early this morning. The site is
currently in compliance with construction standards, so the workers
are making sure that the dust is being kept -- not being tracked off
site. They're sweeping sidewalks, sweeping at the entrance. The
silt fence is in place and per the approved plan, and the crusher was
operating this morning as well.
So our engineering inspection staff will continue to monitor the
site and go out every day to ensure that it is being -- the site is being
operated in accordance with that approved Site Development Plan.
We've also been trying to work with the State of Florida. So
they also have an Environmental Resource Permit from the South
Florida Water Management District. That permit is actually under
review for renewal with an expected date of next Friday,
October 22nd, for their findings. If they were operating -- if that
permit were to not be renewed and they were operating without that
permit, then we may have cause to shut them down and would do so.
But we don't have any updates from the District yet on the status of
that permit.
MR. FRENCH: And, Commissioners, so you know, the -- you
know, by my direction, I've got -- I've asked engineering staff to be
on that site every day in addition to Code Enforcement. So you've
got -- you know, for lack of a better term, we've got two different
resources from two different divisions that are on that site every day
October 12, 2021
Page 25
to monitor the site to make sure that there is compliance.
Mr. Cadenhead was -- he was not apprehensive. He was -- I
don't want to say jovial, but, I mean, he's been in front of you before.
But he was agreeing to everything that he and I spoke about. He
recognizes that this is causing great community concern. He's
received a great deal of feedback from the neighbors, which is not
unexpected. We've received that same feedback as well. So we're
working this site the best to our ability within the statute and within
the code that we have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. Yesterday when we
spoke about this, Jamie, you mentioned something about a start date
on the crusher. And I said that I -- when I went by yesterday, I saw
the -- I saw the hoe loading the crusher right up there at Davis and
Santa Barbara. There's been crushing going on for quite some time.
What's the trigger date with regard to the crushing?
MR. FRENCH: Jaime can answer that, sir. But just so you
know, the crusher is a -- in order to operate that, he'll receive a permit
to operate that from the State of Florida through the DEP. And there
is a limited window of time that he's allowed to operate that crusher.
So he started the crusher, so that portion of his permit has
commenced.
MS. COOK: Correct. It has -- he has started crushing. He
was crushing this morning. I believe that he said his anticipated
completion date was the end of the year to finish all the crushing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And I don't know the
dynamics with regard to the timing on that, but there was crushing, in
my recollection, earlier than yesterday, when he was on the south end
of the property when they first started -- when they first started
in-hauling. So I don't know, is there a -- who renders that trigger?
MS. COOK: I believe there was previous crushing. I do know
October 12, 2021
Page 26
he had mentioned that he was having some equipment issues and that
the crusher has not been operating -- operable for a while.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I see those things just
because. But it was in there for a while, then it went away, and then
it came so I just -- that time frame on the -- on the DEP permit could
have, should have been started before yesterday certainly.
MR. FRENCH: And we can provide you with a copy. We've
obtained a copy of that permit, sir. So we'd be happy to obtain
that -- or provide a copy of it to your office. But when I was out on
the site yesterday, he had two crushers. They were not operating,
but he was running his buckets and running trucks and his backhoes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and the long answer
is -- or short answer is, certainly, we don't want this to happen again,
and how do we mitigate the negative impacts of what's, in fact,
transpiring theoretically under the codes that we have and, as
Commissioner Saunders suggested, having some adjustments to our
code so we have better control. This is the answer, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just a quick question. On the
SDP, you said there's an expiration date in March of 2022. I mean,
what -- so is that a hard expiration date in the sense that if the site
work isn't done, I mean, what happens then? And can he continue to
extend that somehow? And, I mean, when is the end date that he has
to have all this stuff done by is my question.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, sir. The -- typically what happens
during a construction project is that they can seek an extension. I've
made it exceptionally clear to Mr. Cadenhead that staff and -- we
have no intention of extending that --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: -- Site Development Plan. In fact, they have
filed for extensions through his engineer of record, Gary Butler, and
October 12, 2021
Page 27
we're not going to process it. So we're going to rely on the help of
our partners at the County Attorney's Office to give us good
guidance. And at this point because of, you know, neighborhood
concerns and just simply because of what's gone on with this project,
we're going to be exceptionally careful but yet a little apprehensive
on granting any extensions.
Now, in the event, much like the pandemic or the -- we'll say a
hurricane or natural disaster, if the State of Florida comes through
and they extend a tolling ordinance, then we have no ability to
prevent that, and that would --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
MR. FRENCH: -- almost automatically, on every development
order, to include building permits -- what happens with that is that it's
extended for that period of time upon request of the contractor, of the
permit holder.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Understood. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have two questions.
First, Jamie, if he's sort of, quote, promising or maybe assuring
us that he would be done possibly by the end of the year, then I don't
why he'd simultaneously ask for an extension, so I'm glad to hear that
we're not going to entertain any extensions. But I'm sure all of us
would really like to hold him to work as hard as you can and get done
by the end of the year. I think it's already gone long enough.
Like Commissioner Saunders said, he stood at that podium and
promised us a four or five-month, you know, finish, and that's already
almost come and gone. So that's more of a statement, but I'm glad to
hear we're not giving an extension.
The second thing I just wanted to mention -- and I talked with
Mike Ossorio about this because we've gone around District 1 and
written up quite a few violations of things -- all kinds of things that
October 12, 2021
Page 28
have just been old and neglected and dusty and people that aren't, you
know, following code, and we're finally, you know, enforcing things.
But one of the things I would say is when we give somebody a
violation and there's a fine involved -- and this is a generic statement,
not necessarily at this site, but it could be -- I really would like to see
us hold people to those fines. It just seems like all too often we're
way too generous, way too, well, you know, they wound up taking
care of it, so we wrote it off. I mean, if I get pulled over for
speeding tomorrow and I promise the police officer that I'll never do
it again, you know what, most of the time you still get the ticket.
And I just think that the word's kind of out that if you get a
violation or, you know, you get some sort of fine or whatever, you
know, if you take care of it -- we just had this issue in District 1
where a field that had a lot of homeless people in it was filled with
trash, and even though we took care of the homeless situation, the
landowner has a responsibility to, you know, pick up the trash, and if
they don't do it in a certain amount of time -- I mean, you know, it's
good to be good neighbors and neighborly, and I know we do that a
lot. Hey, they're working with us, so we're not trying to penalize
them.
But in the case where people are really taking some liberties,
you know, let's just make sure -- and like I said, I had the same
conversation with Mike, and he didn't disagree either, that we could
be a little bit more sort of stringent in the cases where people are
taking liberties.
So I just say that as a generic statement. I don't know if -- I
think he's gotten a few violations. I don't know if it came with a
fine. But, you know, sometimes the signal you send is they write a
check, and all of a sudden we have their attention. And, you know,
that check goes back to the taxpayers' bank account and so, you
know, I don't think we want to be too -- we shouldn't be too quick to
October 12, 2021
Page 29
just write things off because they promise, you know, to do the
right -- especially when it's a repeat offense.
So I know you're in the business. This isn't the one example.
And Mike had several examples of where we were maybe a little too
generous, a little too kind. So I just say that as a generic statement.
If this case -- in this case, if you're going out there every single day
and we're constantly making corrections and we're sort of doing his
job for him, you know, that costs us money as well to send staff out
there.
So, you know, I just say that as a statement of, you know,
stronger oversight, if that's the case. But thank you for all you're
doing on that site.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
A couple things, and then I am going to make a motion on this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We do have a public speaker, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Before I make the
motion, I'll listen to the public speaker.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I do have a comment for
our staff. First of all, I want to thank you for getting out there and
making sure that there are no violations.
We're at the end of the rainy season, and that's one of the
reasons why I brought this up, because there will be dust, and I want
to make sure that this is kept to an absolute minimum; that there are
no violations, and if there are violations, the lack of dust control,
they're not cleaning the sidewalks, doing all the things that they are
supposed to do, I want to make sure that they're cited immediately for
that, and also that the state department is advised of any of those
October 12, 2021
Page 30
types of violations.
And then, Madam Chair, I do want to make a motion, but I want
to ask a question of the County Attorney, and then we'll hear the
speaker, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow, right
now if someone came in with a Site Development Plan to do this type
of activity, staff really has very few, if any, weapons to -- if you will,
to prevent this type of thing from happening again. And I know
you're developing an ordinance to address this issue.
My question to you -- and I'll give you a few minutes to think
about it as we listen to the speaker. My question is, can we impose a
short-term moratorium on any of these types of projects going
forward, until after we have an ordinance in place? Now, we'll have
an ordinance in place in a few months, so we'd be talking about a
very short moratorium. But I want to make sure someone doesn't
come in tomorrow with an application to do this type of activity and
leave staff without any weapons to deal with it.
And so, Madam Chair, I'll make that motion after we hear the
speaker.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have one registered speaker.
Cathy Novy.
MS. NOVY: Hi. I'm going to need a lot more than three
minutes, but I'll start. You call this a site development. I call it and
our neighbors call it a toxic dump. I could write a Bible verse in
what is on the top of my lanai table. And I appreciate that you want
to stop this from moving forward in other areas. I'm not concerned
about that. I'm concerned about what's happening and what's been
happening for the past 18 months.
Six months ago we sat here in this room and listened to Mr.
October 12, 2021
Page 31
Cadenhead promise the Board of County Commissioners he would
end the concrete rubble processing at Davis and Santa Barbara.
Today is October 12th, and his property is littered with unprocessed
concrete rubble of which he is carting in, from we don't know where,
that will take months to process.
Firano at Naples and other nearby communities, which include
the Boys and Girls Club, which is adjacent to this toxic
dump -- Seacrest Daycare is down the block and Naples
Heritage -- have already endured the noise, health risk, and unsightly
mess for almost two years.
Today we are here hoping to get some answers to questions the
owners of Firano keep asking. Number one, when will this concrete
rubble process stop? Why is Cadenhead being allowed to continue
processing when he agreed to end it October 1st?
We are told his activities are permitted by code regulations.
What regulations? We would like to see those regulations, who
created these regulations, and what do they say. If the concrete
processing is permitted under current regulations, who can change
this misguided statute? We suspect Cadenhead is exploiting the
loophole in the regulations, and why can't this loophole be closed for
this site, not future sites?
It is a fact that grinding concrete causes microcrystalline silica.
Silica -- and I am a nurse -- if inhaled can cause silicosis of the lungs,
a debilitating and deadly disease. Has anyone measured the amount
of microcrystalline silica that reaches our community? I have a call
out to Jon Iglehart, and maybe the DEP at the State of Florida can
answer that.
We would hope that everyone in this room would be concerned
about children, with the Boys and Girls Club being next to this, are
being exposed to the dust. Silicosis usually presents itself 20 to 15
years after the dust has been inhaled. Most of us in this room won't
October 12, 2021
Page 32
even be here when people who may have inhaled the dust would
become sick.
I'd like to know how to find the answers to the questions posed.
I hope some of you today will help us with this, but most of all I hope
the Board of Commissioners will take the action to stop the concrete
processing in residential neighborhoods.
We need help there. This man is trucking -- bringing in
concrete from we don't know where. Site development is one thing.
It was my limited understanding that you develop the site. Why is
he bringing in truckloads and truckloads and truckloads and
truckloads of concrete for the past 18 months grinding it up?
Everything is in the air, decimated the southern side of our
development, and you folks are letting it happen.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I hope that some of the
questions you posed were answered by our discussion today, and I'm
sure Mr. French and his department will be able to answer the other
questions.
MS. NOVY: Mr. French is, again? I know, I know, but his
title.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's deputy --
MS. NOVY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Growth Management.
MR. FRENCH: I'm the Deputy Department Head for Growth
Management, ma'am.
MS. NOVY: Thank you. All right. Lastly, we want this to
stop.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You understand that when someone
has a contract --
MS. NOVY: How compliant is he with his contract? Where is
he getting all this stuff from?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think the testimony this morning
October 12, 2021
Page 33
was that he is compliant. We feel that we have made a mistake. I'm
sorry about that, but we have made this mistake.
MS. NOVY: I respect you saying that, I do, but let's correct the
mistake.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm wondering, is it possible -- and I
don't know, and I'm going to depend on my colleague Mr. McDaniel
for this also.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Uh-oh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: When we have dust coming from
construction, can we not insist that it is wet down three times a day?
I'm very serious about this.
MR. FRENCH: Again, Commissioners, for the record, Jamie
French.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we?
MR. FRENCH: There is -- there is a requirement for dust
control, but on air quality that is regulated at the state level. So
there's not much we can do, and that's where his permit would be
issued.
What the speaker spoke of was Jon Iglehart, and we have
reached out to Jon's office. He is the district director for the
Department of Environmental Protection, which would be the agency
representing the EPA with regards both on a state and national level.
And that's -- that's where that permit has come from on air control,
but that's not done at any local level, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just to answer your question,
it's quite accomplishable on a fixed crushing unit that stays in one
spot. You can put a -- I did it. You can put a sprinkler system on it,
and it mists and keeps the dust down and takes care of it.
But this particular site has mobile crushing units that actually
have remote control operators that move it from pile to pile to pile to
pile to pile, and there's virtually no way to hook that up to a hose and
October 12, 2021
Page 34
sprinkle it.
So it's done. It has been done, can be done, but on a mobile
unit, it's virtually impossible.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. NOVY: My last note, just for conversation sake you
know, I live here. I've been here for 10 years. I just sold my house
in Jersey. Jersey has issues. Naples should not have these issues.
Do what you guys and ladies need to do, all right? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
Then I guess just a quick comment. And, Mr. French, in terms
of the dust, we're -- as we said, we're getting out of the rainy season.
Dust will be a problem, and I understand the mobility of this unit, but
that doesn't eliminate the need to control the dust and the necessity to
wet this down. And if that means having a water truck there or some
other type of way to wet this material down, that's what has to
happen. And if it doesn't, then I want to make sure that we're doing
everything we can to correct that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And if I might, just so you
know, from an operational stand -- a water truck will not control the
dust that's emitted from the crushing; it won't. It will take care of the
dust that's on the perimeter and on the site and so on and so forth, but
it -- unless the truck were to sit there and spray right at the crusher --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm confident that there has
to be a way to control the dust.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. Have you had a
conversation with Mr. Cadenhead -- I'm being educated this
morning -- about the difference in crushers and, therefore, why isn't
he using the one that minimizes the dust considering he's surrounded
by residential and children?
October 12, 2021
Page 35
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's not one that
minimizes the dust.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The one that not -- that's not mobile.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, right, but those -- those
fixed units are great big plants. It comes with a whole --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- operation. It's an entirely
separate operation than the small mobile units.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: And, Commissioners, so you know, the actual
crushers that are being used on the site, the make, model, year
everything about that crusher is identified on his permit through the
State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: So it is an accepted apparatus that is used for
this type of work by the State of Florida, and that's what his permit's
issued on. And, yes, Commissioner, I did have conversation
yesterday with Mr. Cadenhead about having water trucks on the site.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And?
MR. FRENCH: Again, ma'am, there was no argument. There
was -- it was -- he was agreeable. He understood. He knows
we're -- to Commissioner Saunders' comment is, yes, he recognizes
that we're coming out of rainy season and that he's going to need to
start to supply more water on that site.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Then, Madam
Chair, my motion would be to direct staff to come back with an
ordinance to make sure that we don't have this type of a problem
again and to impose a short-term moratorium on any types of
issuance of permits for this type of activity, whether it be via Site
Development Plan or any other process, until we have that ordinance
in place, and Mr. Klatzkow is --
October 12, 2021
Page 36
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I will come back at your next
meeting with an ordinance. There will be an executive summary for
the Board to consider a moratorium pending the Board's final review
of the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you don't mind, qualify it
to SDPs. That's the number -- I'm totally in favor of doing what
you're doing. But if we include all operations, it may become
prohibitive on someplace that actually has the -- but SDPs is where
we end up in trouble. This is an allowable use to raise and elevate a
site, and it used to be -- and I think we can probably cite locations
that have used this type of methodology to raise their site and not had
this issue.
I think we -- so I'm in support of what you're talking about, but
just -- if you hold it to the SDP parameter for the moratorium till next
meeting, I'm --
MR. KLATZKOW: I will give you an ordinance for the
Board's consideration as well as whether or not the Board wants to
impose a moratorium so that there will be no new sites like this, and I
will also prepare something so that we'll be able to shut this operation
down if it continues this way.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's fine. And for public
consumption, we are drafting an ordinance to deal with the issue to
prevent this from happening. So if someone comes in with a permit
application between now and the time we impose the official
moratorium, they're on notice that no permits will be granted --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. That's right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- during that interim period.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. Zoning in process.
Do I have a second, is that -- do I have a second to that?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis looks
troubled.
October 12, 2021
Page 37
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just one thought comes to mind,
and that is -- I mean, I know of instances where in a development
they're digging lakes, and they pull up rock and they crush it for use
there. So I'm just raising that issue that we need to be -- and I'm in
agreement that we need to avoid this situation again, but I think
there's -- there's -- and I think in almost any development there's
some of that. So I just want to make sure that we really fine-tune
this to take care of just this issue that we're dealing with.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I think we're dealing
with cement that's delivered to sites.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: And to my knowledge, we're the only
county that allows that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and just from a
semantics standpoint, you folks understand that this is -- this is -- this
is a practice that helps reduce your site -- and, again, it's not going to
make anybody feel any better, but they are being paid to bring in this
concrete. When you -- you don't just come and dump for free. You
get a fee when that truck comes with recycled -- or concrete to be
recycled. So this is a -- this is an expense reduction that the
contractor is currently using. It doesn't make it right. I'm just -- for
your brain, there's more to it than just receiving concrete debris and
crushing it on site. And then there's actually magnets on the crusher
that extracts the steel, and the steel is sold off for additional revenue.
It's quite an operation.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just want to make sure we
don't have this situation again, and that's the intent of it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I think, just from a
comment standpoint -- I'll second your motion if you'll hold it to the
SDP process. I don't want to -- I don't want it to spread, unintended
October 12, 2021
Page 38
consequences, because I know there are developments that have
crushing on site and utilization of that material on site, and I don't
want to negatively impact normal development process where rock is
being extracted and so on and so forth, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just want to make sure that
we don't have someone listening to this discussion who comes in and
applies for an SDP and then is under the old rules during this interim
period because the public's on notice now that we're going to deal
with this issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to declare here and now a
temporary moratorium until I can come back?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I want to do.
MR. KLATZKOW: You'll need a motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're talking about two
weeks, basically.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's -- I'll tell you what,
let's -- unless the moratorium is -- it is incorporated in your motion,
so let's put your motion aside and see if we have support to declare a
temporary moratorium right now until we come back with the
ordinance in two weeks. Do I have a motion? Do I hear a motion
to do that?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I want to ask Jamie a
question that could affect that.
I know there's other sites doing this right now; they're just in less
visible places. So this isn't a one-time thing.
I think it would be beneficial when we come back at our next
meeting if we're going to have -- you know, if we're going to vote on
an ordinance, to get a list of other places. And I'm with
Commissioner McDaniel, not trying to stop progress some places,
because there might be some places where it's a much smaller
operation; they're doing everything right. But people who are also
October 12, 2021
Page 39
watching this, this isn't a one-time thing. This just happens to be in a
very visible spot. It's a very large lot. But I know just driving
around in my own district, there's smaller operations doing the exact
same thing; we just don't get as many complaints because it's hidden
behind trees or it's a small operation. But being able to define this a
little bit and realize how many permits are out there right now that
are authorizing rock crushing to build up elevation, which isn't illegal
or anything, but to make sure everybody's aware that this isn't just
one type of thing. And if we're going to do something that's going to
affect current operations, it won't just affect this one lot.
So I know you probably don't know that answer right now,
Jamie, of how many permits are out there right now allowing rock
crushing in different lots, but I know it's more than one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's concrete.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm sorry. Concrete.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And if we did do a
moratorium, it would not apply to people that are crushing.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Currently doing it, correct,
correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're talking about a
two-week period. I just don't want someone to come in -- just as an
example, I had heard through the rumor mill that Mr. Cadenhead may
be looking at doing the same thing at another site. Well, if I was
Mr. Cadenhead listening to this discussion, I'd come in tomorrow
with an application for a Site Development Plan to do this, and I want
to make sure that doesn't happen.
MR. KLATZKOW: So the motion is to direct staff not to issue
any permits for the next two weeks involving rock crushing activities.
It would be listed as new permits.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Concrete crushing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Concrete crushing.
October 12, 2021
Page 40
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That would be the motion. I
want it limited, but I just don't want anybody sneaking in the back
door here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you like to make that motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just did.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would, too.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we have a motion on the floor and
a second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I would like you to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. We have another motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The second motion is just
simply for the County Attorney to come back with the ordinance to
deal with this issue globally so that we don't have to have this kind of
a discussion going on for months and months.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I note Commissioner Solis' concerns,
Commissioner McDaniel's concerns, and the ordinance will reflect
those concerns.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that was seconded by
Commissioner McDaniel --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- that motion.
October 12, 2021
Page 41
Okay. So we have a motion on the floor and a second. All
those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. I just wanted to add,
you know, even if it's just for my own edification, I would like a list
of the other sites that have this permit. Because even though we
might not have complaints, they still need to comply. So if they're
not watering things down, if they don't have a silt fence or whatnot,
you know, at least our consideration to make sure that they're
following the rules as well. It's not just that we're being really hard
over on something that's visible and everyone's complaining. You
know, we have 12 other sites that are doing the same thing and
getting away with sort of a sloppy process.
But I know in my district, there are several sites. It's a smaller
operation, but they're crushing concrete, you know, as well to do the
same thing. So I would expect that's a list that we could pull so we
could get an idea of how vast this request is to use, you know,
crushed concrete.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. We could bring that back to you in
two weeks. And just -- my apologies. What staff is understanding
is that we're talking about bringing concrete to a site, crushing on
site, and using it as aggregate material.
And also, to Commissioner McDaniel's comment, he is
October 12, 2021
Page 42
absolutely right. This is a very well-defined process. It does
prevent quite a bit of material from ending up in our landfills or in
other landfills. The state looks at this through their permitting
process. But at the end of the day, there are processes that should be
followed, and we echo the community's concern. It does create a
great deal of distraction and noise and dust. So we'll come back to
you in two weeks with a list of all those properties that are currently
doing this.
And so you do know, after this concrete is crushed, it is required
to be certified by their engineer that it can actually be used in
construction material such as to raise the elevation for stability where
they're going to pour concrete and build buildings over. So, again, it
is a widely used practice throughout the country.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If I might; I did hit my button
there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I apologize.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick -- no, no, no, no.
Just one quick -- and to clarify -- because that was all moving fairly
quickly, we're not going to interrupt ongoing businesses today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This is just to stop issuing
permits for any concrete crushing for two weeks, and then we'll have
a -- because there's more than 12 permits that are going on out there
right now with some kind of crushing activity. So I just wanted to
clarify that in case a couple of my buddies start on me about what
we're doing up here.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But, I mean, you would agree
that even if it's not as visible place, they still have to abide by the
current county --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely.
October 12, 2021
Page 43
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So -- and I'm not sure we go
by the other places every day. So, I mean, in fairness, we've got to
make sure they're following the rules, too.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis brought
up a really good point, and that -- it is a common practice to utilize
crushed aggregate to raise and elevate a material. And sometimes
it's not concrete. It is rock that's extracted from your lakefront
community. And there are rules that have to be abided by. But on
the same token, our staff's limited from an enforcement capacity
because that's all regulated by the state.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT CHANGES TO THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY EMERGENCY RENTAL
ASSISTANCE 1 AND 2 PROGRAMS TO STREAMLINE
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ADD ALLOWABLE
ACTIVITIES FOR HOUSEHOLDS SEEKING ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE PROGRAMS TO BENEFIT ALL ELIGIBLE
RESIDENTS AND THOSE IMPACTED BY THE SALE OF THE
GORDON RIVER APARTMENTS – MOTION TO ACCEPT
CHANGES AND REQUEST THE CITY OF NAPLES CRA
ASSIST WITH FUNDING – APPROVED
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 10B,
which is a recommendation to accept changes to the U.S. Department
of Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance 1 and 2 programs to
streamline eligibility requirements and add allowable activities for
households seeking assistance under the programs to benefit all
eligible residents, those impacted by the sale of the Gordon River
October 12, 2021
Page 44
Apartments. This item was added at your request, Madam Chair.
Ms. Sonntag from -- the director of our Community and Human
Services Division is available to answer any questions that there may
be about this item as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let me give you a little background
why this is so critical. These apartments -- the City of Naples had an
opportunity to buy these apartments. They felt the price was too
high. It went back out on the market. It has now been sold to a
private investment firm. There are 90 apartments and families living
not with Title 8 but living with fairly reasonable rents that were
administered by the former owner.
The former owner refused to renew any leases as -- two months
before the lease was up. Refused to. Said the new private
investment firm was coming; that they would manage it.
This private investment firm sent a letter to the city, also sent a
letter to the management and basically said we are going to have a
tenants meeting. That never happened.
A letter went out. People -- five people have been evicted from
their place right now. They took over in September. Five people
have -- they have reasons to do it. Those reasons are questionable.
One is a man who's been there for 26 years, but, however, that's
where it is. People still have not been able to establish a lease there.
And so I went and talked to the city, but I also spoke with
Ms. Sonntag. We had a meeting with Deputy County Manager
Callahan about what we as affordable housing and our department
can do to assist in this effort.
And I think I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Sonntag.
MS. SONNTAG: Good morning, Commissioners. Kristi
Sonntag, your Community and Human Services director, for the
record.
The ERA2 program, Treasury issued guidance August 25th that
October 12, 2021
Page 45
allows us to expand and streamline the program, and this particular
program, of course, is open to all residents, but the uniqueness
associated with the Emergency Rental Assistance 2 program, which
is the agenda item in front of you, it will allow us to pay for
hotel/motel costs associated with residents who've been evicted. So
if there are, you know, any resident in Collier County who's been
evicted who would meet the eligibility criteria of 80 percent and
below of the area median income, we could house them, and we
could assist them in paying their hotel/motel until they were able to
secure housing.
In addition, the ERA2, if a tenant is evicted for back rent, we
can pay that landlord and make them whole. And so that would, in
essence, assist the tenant as they search for another property with
some credit repair. Of course, we're limited in time by 18 months in
ERA2. So if I pay your back rent for 10 months, I can only pay your
prospective for eight months, but it would allow us to assist.
In addition, it does change the wording for eligibility, and it's a
really unique clarification. It says that we can assist those who have
experienced a financial hardship during the pandemic rather than due
to or indirectly or directly due to the pandemic.
So it is a slight nuance, but it does open our applicant pool.
And, again, you know, it is limited by -- they have to show financial
hardship. They can do so by an attestation or other documentation.
So that's the essence of the executive summary and the increased
activities and streamlining.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And it has never been my intention to
hand over money so that they can stay there and not do anything.
This is to give this building and the inhabitants or the residents of this
building some stability, because I can tell you the word gets out
without a meeting, and there has been a refusal. There's a
CRA -- CRA meeting of the city on Thursday. It was -- there was a
October 12, 2021
Page 46
letter written by the owners that they were going to attend. They
chose not to attend. Now, apparently, they might attend.
So it's one of those at a distance we're going to do what we
always do. We really take care of apartments. We're going to
spend a lot of money and bring it up to what they consider a B
building and throw people out.
So I just -- I think the writing's on the wall for everyone. I
think they're aware of it, but to bring some stability into that
neighborhood, I think, is very important right now.
So, Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I have several
questions. First of all, I have no objection to these changes. This
whole CARES Act and all the funds that we received are to help
residents of Collier County and businesses in Collier County. And,
obviously, these folks are residents of Collier County and are
deserving of the assistance that we can provide them. But I've got a
couple questions, because there are a couple things that trouble me
about that.
Did the City of Naples get these same types of funds? I know
the county's got funds, but I thought the process was that the state
was appropriated a certain amount of money, then the counties were
appropriated a certain amount of money from that fund, and also the
cities. So did the cities receive funds for these same types of
purposes that we receive funds for?
MS. SONNTAG: The emergency rental assistance funding was
only appropriated to counties --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
MS. SONNTAG: -- who had a population size above 200,000.
So we received those funds; however, the State of Florida also
received emergency rental assistance.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So none of those funds were
October 12, 2021
Page 47
given to or provided to the City of Naples as --
MS. SONNTAG: Directly, no, sir, they were not.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then the other question I
have is that this property, I assume, is within the CRA.
MS. SONNTAG: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can the CRA provide those
funds? The CRA is extremely well funded, and, I mean, I don't
know how much money they raise each year, but I suspect
it's -- maybe Mr. Callahan has that number in the top of his head
because we talked about it.
MR. CALLAHAN: Commissioner, I think the answer to your
question is that, yes, there could be a possible use of CRA funds to do
this activity, but the Emergency Rental Assistance, which, as
Ms. Sonntag just said, it's separate and apart from things like the
American Rescue Plan and the CARES Act funding that we received;
this was a specific grant from HHS to address these types of
activities.
So we think this is a good use of those funds and what those
funds were actually intended to. And while the executive summary
does mention the Gordon River Apartments, this would actually
streamline the process for the entirety of Collier County as well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I understand that, but
we have a lot of folks that need this type of assistance, and we have
limited funds. And the purpose of my question is, is there a way to
work with the CRA to help maybe split the cost so that we have more
funds for more people? Just a question because, like I said, the CRA
generates quite a bit of revenue.
MR. CALLAHAN: We'd have to reach out to the CRA and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I did.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
October 12, 2021
Page 48
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The head of it, and that's the first
thing I said. You need to -- the CRA needs to come and supplement
these rents. And it was, well, we haven't got a meeting, and the
meeting is now Thursday. So that is going to be a topic of
discussion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that's very good,
because I think, perhaps, our staff should be at this meeting --
MS. SONNTAG: Yes, sir, I will.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and to suggest that we are
very cooperative. We want to help alleviate the burden on those
folks, but we have a lot of people in this county that need this same
type of assistance, and so the CRA should participate with us.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I agree.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would suggest a 50/50
split, quite frankly, so I would hope that our staff will be there and to
carry that message.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. Thank you.
MS. SONNTAG: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think what we'll do is take a motion
on that, but let's finish this.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, thank you.
I just -- and I agree with Commissioner Saunders. We need to
do everything that we can, but I want to -- I want to caution you, the
property has come out of its affordable status that was originally
designated way back in the day. We can't compel -- to my
knowledge anyway, we can't compel an owner to do leases with
anybody if the property is being moved to a different status. We
have to be careful on the -- Kristi.
MS. SONNTAG: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's all right. That's all
October 12, 2021
Page 49
right. I think I was texting while you were talking, too, so...
MS. SONNTAG: No, I was reading. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We have to be careful about
paying back rent because a default is a default is a default. And if
you pay someone's back rent, it doesn't necessarily mean that the
landlord is then obligated to continue on with that tenant either.
MS. SONNTAG: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So those are -- these are,
necessarily, unintended consequences. And I also -- yes, it's not a
very good picture for what's actually transpiring for those folks that
are in the Gordon River Apartments, but as Commissioner Saunders
also said, there is -- there are a lot of people, not just there, that are in
requisite of these funds.
And so if we can induce the CRA to participate and it's legal, I
think that would help elevate the amount of money available for all of
Collier County and the folks that are in despair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. And know the manager of the
building has been in conversation with Ms. Sonntag and has been
very -- and has given some documentation not only to the city but to
Ms. Sonntag about the evicted tenants and her cooperation to allow
back rent which will reinstate them, but they have to have a lease.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But you've got to remember,
I mean, this happens a lot. A couple of years ago, Whistler's Cove
over on the East Trail was held in affordable status for 15 years, for
15 years, and day one it sold to an investment bank and firm, went to
market rent, and there were 400 families that were moved into an
elevated rental status. This is not new for us, which is one of the
reasons why we've made some amendments to our whole period, then
the requisites that we're doing to award density bonuses for
affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And know that Habitat for Humanity
October 12, 2021
Page 50
is also very much involved so -- and they have a very long reach into
the community about getting assistance, but I think right now the
issue is the -- is the folks I know that do not have a lease, even
though they were under former management, they would have had a
new lease as of October, are paying their rent under the old amount
that -- without a new lease, so just know, I mean, this is up close and
personal. This is what's happening.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Paying the rent doesn't keep
them in compliance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Do we have any idea exactly what
the numbers are in terms of these folks that don't have leases?
Because if they don't have a lease, then they're month to month, and
the owner doesn't have to accept a payment. I mean, they can give
them a two-week notice if it's paid -- not to get too much into the
details, but they can give them a notice that they're going to terminate
the month to month at the end of the month, and it doesn't matter
whether the next month rent is offered up or not. And so I'm just
trying to figure out how much -- how many people can we actually
help in this situation?
And two, I totally agree with Commissioner Saunders; this
is -- this is a city issue as well, and the CRA should be involved or
the city should be involved, and we shouldn't be necessarily attacking
this on our own.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Good.
MS. SONNTAG: Commissioner, to answer your question, I'm
not sure how many at this point. We are establishing an on-site
presence at the River Park Community Center certainly for anybody
from Gordon River Apartments, as well as anybody in the county,
next Tuesday and Thursday to take applications. My staff will be
there from 9:00 to 6:00 to assist anyone.
October 12, 2021
Page 51
So at this point I don't have a firm number on the number of
residents from that complex who do not have a lease arrangement.
The ERA2 program does state that if someone has a rental obligation,
even if they don't have a lease but we can see in their bank account
that they're paying their landlord $200 a month, we can assist them
for a period of time, a limited period of time, if they have a rental
obligation, and as we can see the evidence of such but --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MS. SONNTAG: -- of course, that means that the landlord
doesn't have to accept the money.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: He doesn't have to accept it for the
next month if it's on a month to month because there's no obligation
to actually enter into a lease.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, yeah, I mean, I'd be curious to
know how many people are actually in that situation where they have
a -- currently have a lease but are in default, and, you know, most
leases have an acceleration clause which means it's all due, not just
the past month.
So I'm just curious as to what the numbers really are, if we can
find that, because I think we might find that we might want to focus
on some alternative to trying to pay that landlord, because I'm not
sure that that's really a solution that will work for the majority of
those people if they're just not renewing the leases and they're all
coming up.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, again, I don't know how many,
but supposedly now -- supposedly as of yesterday, the owner, or a
representative of the owner out of a northern city, is going to be at
this meeting on Thursday, so I think that's where we address it very
clearly.
And perhaps even the County Attorney's Office could send a
October 12, 2021
Page 52
representative so that we have some legal backup in terms of
the -- whatever Commissioner Solis said. I mean, that's the legal
part of it, which -- you're going to do this. Well, how can we
guarantee that this is going to happen? The whole point is to give
these folks stability in order to relocate and not to be confronted with
a month-to-month mentality in the height, by the way, going right
into the season. That's just not right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, those are nice
intentions, but those aren't -- those aren't -- those aren't things that
we're going to be able to help with, as Commissioner Solis already
said. It's -- all we can do -- all we can do is offer up the -- and I
really am happy about these adjustments to be able to help people,
but you're talking about compelling a private property owner to do
things. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. I'm not compelling. Just
asking. It's different. I'm not compelling.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For whatever it's worth, one of the
issues is our landlord/tenant statute is all about the landlord.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It is.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, again, I mean, I hope we can
work some of this out. I'd love to hear the CRA be involved, and a
50/50 split seems reasonable to me. But I think we should be
looking at also what else can we do to provide some stability, and
maybe not there, because I just -- I mean, thinking the details
through, I'm not sure how much change we can effectuate if the
owner isn't really interested in doing this anymore and wants to do
something else.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I'd like to make a motion, if
you would allow me to, that we accept the changes to the U.S.
October 12, 2021
Page 53
Department of Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance as
recommended by staff and that we respectfully request that the City
of Napless CRA meets us on a 50/50 split with the money that's
brought forward.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would second that motion
if you'll just take out the word "respectfully." We just need to
request them to assist us. I don't know, what would Commissioner
LoCastro say about that?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I wouldn't say
"respectfully," no. And it's with respect, but I think --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're always respectful.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- being more directive, I
mean, I think we're meeting them halfway, I think, you know, in a
cooperative effort. I mean, I think our request, they should expect it,
and they should -- I'd be flabbergasted if we got pushback, and I'd be
very disappointed. We all would. So I think we should say it's our
request, period.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well, the motion maker
agrees to strike the word "respectfully" because she's been outvoted.
Do I hear a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I already seconded --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, you did?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- with that condition.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We have a motion on the
floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
October 12, 2021
Page 54
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Thank you.
MS. SONNTAG: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, that will take us to
Item 10C, which was an additional add-on item today for an update
on the state veterans nursing home, and Mr. Mullins, your director of
Communications, Government, and Public Affairs, will make a
presentation.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, if I may make
a quick comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Well, yes, my goodness. Give
us a little background. Why are you interested? Give us -- I think
it's important.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I'm going to let
Mr. Mullins give --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, but why you are interested.
What happened? You were in this -- you were in the legislature,
right?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, and the legislature has
funded veterans nursing homes around the state. There's a trust fund
that's been established, and Mr. Mullins can probably give more
detail if necessary. But there's a trust fund for operating new
veterans nursing homes. And when that trust fund reaches a certain
level, then the state works with the federal government to establish a
location for a nursing home.
And so what we've done in Collier County is we've done
something very unique. I think it's probably the first time, and it will
likely be the only time that this has been offered up, and that is, we
put $30 million into the sales tax referendum, and we have a really
great site that's offered up as well at the Golden Gate Golf Course.
October 12, 2021
Page 55
And so we had a meeting with two representatives from the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Mullins and our staff put on a
really first-class presentation. I think we would have all been very
proud of that if all of you had seen it in terms of the quality of the
presentation.
The Department, I think, was equally impressed. And I'll be
having some meetings next week with the director of the Department
of Veterans Affairs. His assistant was down here for the site visit.
But we'll push that.
And then Senator Passidomo, who is incredibly busy right now.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Actually, she was in
California for a few days. So at 9:30 or 10:30 or so she called us to
discuss with the Department of Veterans Affairs how important this
project was to her, how important it was to the county and to the
veterans that we have here in Collier County.
Just so everyone on the Board knows, Collier County was
actually ranked number one in the state for the need of a veterans
nursing home, but several years ago the county presented a location
to the Department of Veterans Affairs that simply was not acceptable,
but we've corrected that issue. That was back -- I think, back in
2014.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was more than several.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, it was quite a while
back.
So what I wanted to preface the comments from Mr. Mullins
with is that we've put up a site. We've put up the $30 million. We
may have to make a few other financial commitments. And I've
made it pretty clear that that would be fairly limited.
So, for example, there are building permit fees, there are impact
fees, and there may be some things that we can do to deal with that.
October 12, 2021
Page 56
There are operational expenses that are pretty high, and we may be in
a position to -- that I would not suggest this officially in any way.
But if it got to the point where that became an issue, there may be
some opportunity to loan a certain amount of money for operations
with the guarantee that we'd get paid back very quickly. So there are
things that we may have to do, and I wanted to alert the Board to that.
And with that, Madam Chair, I'd ask Mr. Mullins to kind of give
us a briefing on --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's a tough act to follow, correct?
MR. MULLINS: To be honest with you, I don't think I have
much more to add to that, for once. John Mullins, your director of
Communications, Government, and Public Affairs.
And with the leadership of Commissioner Saunders displaying
the Golden Gate Golf Course property in his district, I think DVA
was very receptive to what we had to offer. They focused in on the
northwest corner of the property, which is housed between a couple
of residential areas, and then the southern component has a cell
tower, a wastewater treatment facility, and partial golf course view at
that end.
Now, one of the things the DVA is going to have to do to move
this process forward, in addition to review any other counties'
proposals for a nursing home -- it's not like we're in this all by
ourselves -- they have to consult with the VA to make sure that any
design that is approved by the VA will fit into the acreage provided at
that northwest corner, which right now is about 9.7 acres as laid out.
It could be expanded a little bit greater if needed.
And Bob Asztalos, who's the deputy executive director of DVA
who came down, and he's over the nursing home program, said that
he would be in contact with the VA in the next 30 days to discuss
potential site allowance, you know, designs for that area.
The VA, a few years back, incorporated what's called the small
October 12, 2021
Page 57
home design model, which is a little bit of a change from your
traditional nursing home construct. It requires a little bit more space
than the traditional nursing home construct. But we feel pretty
confident that with proper designing, that it would still fit in this
acreage.
So along with an acceptable design, acceptable property,
$30 million from the graciousness of Collier County's citizens and
veterans, we think we have a package that is going to be hard to beat.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I just want to add a note. When
Commissioner Saunders was elected, I think within the first meeting
or second meeting, sir, you talked about a nursing home. So this has
been a task that you have put before you, and you have risen to the
occasion, because look where we are.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So that's it, right? Okay. So I
think --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I wanted to mention
something.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, John's doing incredible
work behind the scenes. He and I have talked a bit as well just, you
know, on veteran issues, and his ability to get multiple people all
paddling in the same direction, I mean, I couldn't summarize it any
better than Commissioner Saunders, because he's, obviously, the
force in the acceleration, you know, behind this project, and it is
moving forward.
But as John and I have discussed, and just for the Board's
information, there's a couple of retired general officers that are very
instrumental in this moving forward, and it just so happens that John
brought them to my attention. And I know them and they know me,
I think, even better than I know them. You know, John was very
October 12, 2021
Page 58
astute to say, they name dropped you a little bit.
So we are going to burn this candle at every possible end and
not do it in a vacuum, make sure that we're not stepping on each
other's toes. But that general that you mentioned actually called me
yesterday. So I missed the call. But it's really just to say, hey,
congratulations on being a County Commissioner and, of course, I'm
not going to miss the opportunity to say we've got incredible
commissioners here. This county is so, you know, veteran friendly
and to say all the positive things to make sure we continue to be, sort
of, number one.
So I appreciated the tipoff from the meeting that you had. It did
bear fruit. I did get a call. I do know, you know, those folks, you
know, involved. So like I'll stress -- and I definitely won't be -- you
know, we'll all work together. But I think this is going to be a great
cooperative effort, and we've got to just keep the acceleration, you
know, moving forward, and, you know, good things have the
opportunity to happen here.
But thanks for all your work behind the scenes and all the
information that you gave me to prepare me to be able to connect
with some of these senior leaders that might just be the difference in
us getting something or not. So thanks, John.
MR. MULLINS: And the materials from that meeting were
provided to each of your offices. And if you have any questions
about those materials -- because they may lack a little context from
page to page, given they were put together kind of quickly -- I'm
happy to do that at your convenience.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Well, I think we'll break now, a 10-minute break for lunch [sic].
Let's come back at -- so that would make it -- let's come back at
10:45.
(A brief recess was had from 10:32 a.m. to 10:44 a.m.)
October 12, 2021
Page 59
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. CALLAHAN: And that will take us to Item 11A on your
regular agenda, which is recommendation to award Invitation to Bid
No. 21-7923 for Collier Beach Renourishment 2021 to 2022 to
Phillips and Jordon, Incorporated, in the amount of $4,987,323.21;
authorize the Chair to sign the attached agreement; and make a
finding that this item promotes tourism.
Mr. Miller, your Coastal Zone Manager, is here available to give
a short presentation or answer any questions that the Board may have.
Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Andy Miller with Coastal Zone Management. I'm the
manager.
And our presentation this year is for our annual beach
renourishment project on Vanderbilt Beach, Naples Beach, and
Pelican Bay Beach. And I have in front of you -- or up on the board
the project map. You can see Vanderbilt Beach, which starts at
Bluebill Avenue in red and goes down to Vanderbilt Beach or just
south of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and you'll see in green the area that
we're going to renourish in Pelican Bay, which is our Monument 34
to our Monument 36, which is just north of the beach club, and then
in blue down in Naples we have the area from just south of
Lowdermilk Park to just north of Naples Pier.
Now, you're looking at the truck haul map, and we bring in our
sand, as you know, on trucks from the mine at Stewart Materials in
Immokalee, and we go down Corkscrew Road to Alico and then to
the Alico Road exit on I-75 down to Golden Gate Parkway over to 41
down to Banyan and then to Third Avenue North to get to the Naples
Beach. And, obviously, the route you see in green goes to the
Immokalee exit over to Vanderbilt Beach Road, and the access to
October 12, 2021
Page 60
Vanderbilt Beach is Vanderbilt Beach Road itself.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Miller, would you repeat that.
In terms of the city in the north going into Lowdermilk, you go
straight down Banyan to Third Avenue North?
MR. MILLER: We go, yes, down 41 to Banyan, Banyan to
Gulf Shore Boulevard --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good.
MR. MILLER: -- Gulf Shore Boulevard to Third.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good. Thank you. I missed
that. Pardon me.
MR. MILLER: Sure. And these are, essentially, the
financials. The design and permitting was approved back in May of
11th of '21 to the tune of $524,595.50. The construction, which is
this item to Phillips and Jordan, in the amount of $4,987,323.21.
The sand supply comes from, again, Stewart Materials, and that
contract was approved on May 11th of '21 as well.
The Naples and Vanderbilt Beach project sand amounts to
$2.6 million, and the Pelican Bay portion of the sand is about
$330,000.
CEI is done by our staff. The Naples and Vanderbilt Beach,
which is the county's responsibility for funding, was approved back
in May for a not-to-exceed cost of $7,302,924.50. And the Pelican
Bay portion is approximately $900,000.
And the notation at the bottom just says that if we get to a point
where we have -- or are getting close to that $7.3 million
not-to-exceed budget, we can cut back on the sand and the hauling,
stop the project, and not go over.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that so wise?
MR. MILLER: Well, the amount was approved by the Board --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But wouldn't you come back to the
Board?
October 12, 2021
Page 61
MR. MILLER: We could. We could if it was an urgent
matter, but we're going to be so close, Commissioner, that I don't
think it will be an issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But if it is urgent, you would come
back?
MR. MILLER: Yes, we would.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And for folks who are listening who
are maybe not quite familiar, will you explain -- Pelican Bay's out
there and it's a private beach. So will you explain that just
succinctly. Who pays for what with Pelican Bay?
MR. MILLER: Right. Pelican Bay Services Division, which
is an entity of Collier County, is responsible for the maintenance and
renourishment of their own beach because it doesn't have private -- or
doesn't have public access. It's a private beach.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so we have an arrangement with
them where we coordinate with them when their beaches need
re-nourishing, and the sand source is from the same sand source, but
they pay for their share.
MR. MILLER: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Yes, we have a great relationship with Pelican
Bay Services Division and the folks in Pelican Bay, right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then I have one other question.
Will you please explain to the folks that may be watching why the
pier -- around the pier is not being renourished. It did come up in a
city council meeting last week.
MR. MILLER: Yes. The area south of the pier -- and let me
go back, because the way we approach these projects on an annual
basis, we're required, by our permit, to do an annual beach
monitoring, which is essentially a survey of the beaches, all the way
up and down Collier's beaches, and we rely on our consultant who
October 12, 2021
Page 62
does the survey to make a recommendation on which beaches have
eroded, which beaches can use the sand, and that recommendation is
taken to the County Manager's Office, and he directs us to move
forward with the recommendation if he so desires.
In this case the recommended beaches were Vanderbilt Beach
and Pelican Bay -- or Pelican Bay Beach and Naples Beach, but on
the area of Naples Beach, the area that needed sand was north of the
pier. And so you have to weigh the impacts of 200 trucks a day
versus the benefits of a little bit of sand, say, to the south of the pier,
and we made a decision to eliminate that third mobilization and the
impacts of the trucks south of the pier and just concentrate on the
north, get into Naples Beach, do that project in between
November 1st and Thanksgiving, and eliminate the impacts to Naples
Beach and move up to the north.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Was that -- was that discussed at the
Coastal Advisory Committee?
MR. MILLER: It was.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And how many
representatives from the city are on the Coastal Advisory Committee;
do you know?
MR. MILLER: I believe there are two.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just one quick comment on
that. I just -- I just wanted to compliment our staff and the Board;
that $11 a ton price for processed beach sand is very, very equitable.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're in a difficult spot with
our beach renourishment, as we all know, because we're relegated to
specific offshore facilities to get comparable beach sand from by
dredging through a mechanism they utilize called a hopper dredge,
October 12, 2021
Page 63
and it's very, very expensive. So considerably more than the truck
haul, there is a -- there is a disruption of quality of life because of the
dump truck traffic, but it has -- it has to do with the necessity of
re-nourishing our beaches in relationship to the DEP's relegation to
these sand sources, and the only mechanism that's allowable at this
time is the hopper dredge. And trucking in upland sands is really the
only way to accomplish the renourishment that's necessary.
And I just wanted to acknowledge our staff. I was really
pleased -- I don't know, it's a couple years ago when we entered into
that contract to acquire the sand for our beach renourishment. It's, as
we know, very, very much needed, and this is -- this is -- this is good
for our community.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I want to just ask a
couple of questions. You know, we've seen the cost of construction
materials and whatnot over this past year, you know, increase
significantly due to COVID and lots of other things. I was just
curious, the cost here, how is that compared to years past? I mean,
I'm glad to hear it's a competitive price, but, you know, over the last
few years, has this -- have we seen a significant jump in the increase,
you know, price of sand that we use for beach renourishment?
MR. MILLER: Well, as far as the sand goes, the price has
increased maybe a couple dollars a yard. Actually, it went from
$9.80 to $11.00 a ton this year.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. But nothing that was,
like, out -- I mean, that doesn't sound outrageous compared to some
other things we've seen for, you know, cost increases. So I think
you've answered my question there.
The second thing I was just going to say is, has this been the
same contractor we've used sole source, they're always great, they do
October 12, 2021
Page 64
it every year, or do we always go out for competitive bids, we've
changed contractors, you know, to make sure that we're getting the
best bang for the buck? What can you tell me historically that we've
done, and who's done the work?
MR. MILLER: We do put it out every year for bid if it's a large
enough project. Obviously, anything over a certain threshold has to
go to invitation to bid. But last year we used Earth Tech so -- and
this year we used Phillips and Jordan. Phillips and Jordan did a
project fairly recently. But in the past couple years, Earth Tech has
been our contractor. So we're pleased to be working with Phillips
and Jordan this year, and they've got a fine reputation.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick point on that, if I
can.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just for your edification,
there is the supplier that we're using, Stewart Mining, now that's
considerably closer than where we used to go. We used to bring in
sand from Ortona way back in the day, and the large expense here is
Phillips and Jordan, but that also includes the in-haul. So just for
edification purposes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And in-haul is --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The trucks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- contractor speak for bringing
something in as versus out-haul.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You used it before. I just had to say
it.
All right. So do we have a motion to approve the beach
renourishment as presented?
October 12, 2021
Page 65
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor and a
second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Did we skip Item 10D that
was added?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Which was?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: 10D.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we did, and what was 10D?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was the sludge contract;
that was taken off consent.
MR. CALLAHAN: Commissioner, we moved that to Item 11D
on the County Manager's report, yes, sir, since it was on the consent
agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 11D. Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A matter of fact, I would
have bet a lot of money you said 10D, but I won't check the record.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I wrote it down 11D.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, did you?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
October 12, 2021
Page 66
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, you wrote it down
wrong.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I might have, or I hear
properly.
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-
22 STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN FOR THE NAPLES,
MARCO ISLAND, EVERGLADES CONVENTION & VISITORS
BUREAU (CVB) AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS PLAN
PROMOTES TOURISM – APPROVED
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 11B,
which is a recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2021/'22
Strategic Marketing Plan for the Naples/Marco Island/Everglades
Convention and Visitors Bureau and make a finding that this plan
promotes tourism.
Mr. Paul Beirnes, your tourism director, is here to make a
presentation, and I believe Ms. Barbara Karasek from our advertising
agency is here as well. Mr. Beirnes.
MR. BEIRNES: Good morning. For the record, Paul Beirnes,
your tourism director. And it is an absolute pleasure to be here and
the opportunity to present to you today, an opportunity the first time
to meet a lot of you in a presentation.
Since I have joined the county 11 months ago, it has gone very,
very fast. The development of a marketing plan, a strategic
marketing plan was one of the very first things I embraced upon my
arrival, because it is absolutely mandatory to any organization to
really be highly strategic.
My background, if you do not know, I started and have actually
October 12, 2021
Page 67
been 35 years in the destination marketing industry, 12-plus years
with Disney in marketing, followed by leading the global marketing
for Visit Orlando for 16 years and Hilton Corporate. So I am
definitely in my wheelhouse and very excited about some of the
opportunities I had.
With that said, what we are going to present today is really
going to be an abbreviated version of the plan in the respect for
everyone's time today, but there is a lot of detail. And I'm going to
focus on more of the strategic elements and some of the new
elevations that are presented.
But before I do so, I think it's really, really important that I share
a little bit of accolades that the county and each of you-all received
just a month ago. We attended the Florida Governor's Conference,
and we actually as Collier County received the highest esteem and
accolades with the Henry Flagler Award. This is -- is truly the
pinnacle for all of Florida. Every tourism destination from the
Disneys right down to other CVBs.
This one was received for tourism advocacy local tourism
impact campaign and, basically, this right here, in addition to two
bronze awards for campaigns that occurred in just the last year, are
really the testament of what you-all supported us and pushed us as a
CVB to pursue and elevate our tourism advocacy to the locals and
really gave us a great shot in the arm.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Most important, during COVID.
MR. BEIRNES: Absolutely right in the peak of it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We were closed down.
MR. BEIRNES: Absolutely true. And I've got to tell
you -- and I'll hit on a couple of those celebrations of what occurred
during that window that absolutely showcased that, so absolutely well
placed.
And, Troy, I'm just going to advance over here if I could.
October 12, 2021
Page 68
There we go.
Just as a little bit of a level set, as we look at some of the
numbers, certainly, as we entered into 2019, we were setting all-time
records. It was a mind-blowing pace on all accounts. We all know
what happened in 2020. But one of the things that you're going to
hear me say time and time again is being strategic and being nimble
and the strength of that. In fact, just a testament to that, if you recall
pretty much the country, if not the globe, was sent home the second
week of March in 2020. Just two weeks later, the CVB was already
on the air nationally with a TV campaign saying, we're not going
anywhere, and when you're ready to travel again, we will be waiting.
That nimbleness and being strategic and really keeping our ear
to the ground is and was a very great strength for us, and it was really
a guiding post for us going forward. And as we went into 2020, into
2021, record breaking numbers were set even to the point that as of
July we had already recognized 97.5 percent of the 2019's economic
impact. We're now just waiting almost by the hour for the year-end
numbers to come in, but just absolutely astounding. And you'll see
some of that as we go forward.
You know, in 2021 the tourist tax collection showed in the
orange here set an all-time-level high. And while there are a lot of
numbers on this sheet, the one thing you just need to realize that if
you see orange, it's good. With that said, everything from -- in
April, over 10 percent increase in tax collection, second quarter of
2021 marked a 24 percent growth in tourist tax collections. Whether
it's economic impact, whether it's your average daily rate revenue per
available room or even the growth in traffic through RSW, and that
continues to grow. In fact, we just got some numbers the other day
that RSW numbers in August were 647,000 passengers. Put that in
perspective. That's 23 percent higher than 2019's month, which was
a record setting, and comparing it to last year, only because it's fun to
October 12, 2021
Page 69
see triple digit numbers, that's 170 percent increase from last year.
And I will tell you, and it will come up in a couple of slides, the
amount of increase that is going to continue at RSW is absolutely
astounding. And that's a great trigger to remind us of what the
sentiment is to visit the destination.
So what is important to note is that what worked to navigate the
pandemic definitely will work for us going forward in our journey.
That necessity to remain nimble, to remain strategic is really our core
goalpost. And as we develop the plan, we remain really focused on
the strategies and goals with the understanding that we needed to
remain just as nimble going forward as we did in the last two years.
We also applied an even more elevated commitment to being
strategic and implementing best-in-class marketing practices
throughout this entire plan.
So let's take a look at the current situation and some of the key
factors that were considered we were -- when we were developing the
plan. So without any question, over the course of 2021, the
destination has recognized a surge in visitation setting all-time pace
records.
With welcomed announcement just a couple weeks ago that the
U.S. is going to be reopening the international borders in November
was absolutely astounding. The -- European tour operators,
depending on who you were talking to, were telling us that they
received between a 300 percent increase to a 1,700 percent increase
in call volume the day that announcement was made. What that
means, there is pent-up demand. There is desire, and they're not
going to wait for whenever they normally would have traveled.
They want to get on that next flight. So it's pretty exciting.
It's also a little challenging. And you'll see in a couple slides
how that all comes together. And with the strength in the average
daily rate, it's going to be really important that we compel our visitors
October 12, 2021
Page 70
to plan ahead. They don't want to -- you don't want them waiting,
because they will be disappointed. We have a limited amount of
hotels, and -- to try to drive them in early.
Based on some of the compression over the course of the year,
we are even aware that there may be some prudent reason to pause, to
pace, to pull back on media because it might not be necessary. So
we are keeping all of our nimbleness really sharpened at all points.
And, of course, it will be absolutely essential that we remain
nimble as we keep on saying and keep on reminding ourselves.
Now, taking a look at the sports as an example, we do recognize
that with the elevation of the average daily rate in setting those crazy
numbers that we're recognizing and celebrating, that it will be a little
bit of a challenge to some of the sports planners as they seek those
low rates for some of their events, especially during those peak
windows. So we are really going to be focusing on driving those to
the shoulder seasons where they will not dismiss our destination as a
viable opportunity.
And, of course, one of the key learnings over the last couple of
years has been the importance to really focus on research, believe in
it, and have the best research available to keep our ears to the ground.
One of the things that you'll hear from us is the importance of
our value proposition, and that is our value proposition to the visitors.
It's extremely important that we focus on the overall visitor
experience and the quality of the -- of what we deliver as a
destination to -- to our visitors.
Group meetings, certainly we've -- we continue to monitor that
almost to the minute. There was a surge there in the summer, and
then all of a sudden a bit of a tap of the brakes. There was a couple
weeks where sentiment dipped, and there were some cancellations.
Now there's a little optimism. It's kind of like playing dodgeball
every single day. Meeting planners, companies are all watching the
October 12, 2021
Page 71
same news as all of us, and their Magic 8-Ball is about as reliable as
the rest. But we're not -- we're not frightened. We're just really
monitoring it. It's not going away. It just will morph and move
around a little bit.
We particularly identified a seasonal spike that is going to
happen in early 2022. Now, what I'm going to show is not an actual
numerical graph but really just a sentiment application. The
lighter -- or blue on the far left-hand side, that really represents the
domestic visitation and sentiment. Everybody got vaccinated, their
optimism shot up, summer surged in visitation, of course, kids went
back to school, a little bit of level off seasonally as we always see.
We expect there's going to be that continued spike of visitation
domestically.
We've actually seen research saying that snowbirds, over
90 percent have dedicated that they are taking back their winter
travels. That compares to 30 percent one year ago. So there's
definitely going to be a surge there.
The lighter line at the bottom, you'll see that is the
group -- group and meetings pace. Definitely it is increasing. It is
happening. It is coming out of the park mode, if you will. But it is
a little questionable as to how exuberant it will be in Q2, but it does
press a little bit of compression.
And then, of course, the middle one where the box is is -- now
timing is a little more certain, which is our international travel. The
pent-up demand, I've never seen research show just how crazy and
exuberant that is. The only challenge and the reason there's a block
in the timing is how quickly the airlines can get the flights back out
of the desert, into the air, and book. But they're certainly going to do
so quickly.
What you will see is a -- definitely a compression that will occur
in early 2022, but it is -- it is a great -- a great problem to have and
October 12, 2021
Page 72
one that we are monitoring very closely.
Visitation over -- over the last couple years has been interesting
to watch. No real massive shift, Northeast, Midwest; Georgia is a
hot spot. Of course, Florida -- this graph right here is those outside
of Florida. Florida has really discovered us. We are in their
backyard, and Florida resident visitation just spiked over the last
year.
Talking about research and the importance, as you see this graph
2019, '20, '21, there's a little bit of a horse racing between first,
second, and third's movement here and there. I wouldn't focus too
much on that. You kind of get fixated in the numbers too much if
you over -- if you give too much credit to it.
Chicago has definitely spiked, but during that spike of numbers,
it actually occurred when New York was in a lot of the lockdown, so
there -- you know, there was a lot of converging influences that were
happening. But we're watching this by the day, by the hour, and
how it -- how it impacts us going forward. We can rest assured on
that.
Our mission, vision, and value statement remain the same. That
is something that never truly changes for a destination unless there is
a massive adjustment.
What is very new that I was really, really adamant about this
year is applying a unique value proposition, and this took months of
development through our partners, internally, our agencies. And this
is -- really defines the core skeleton of who we are and what we
provide to our guests as an experience, and that is -- and it's very
wordsmithed. Naples, Marco Island, and the Everglades promises
an elevated coastal, culture, culinary, and ecological paradise to those
with an expectation of excellence. And if we can deliver on that
through and through, that is -- that is definitely going to be our -- our
goal.
October 12, 2021
Page 73
Marketing goals. As we navigate to some of the marketing
goals, most of these will really not surprise you as they -- as we
increase tourism tax collections, positive economic impact,
maximizing the visitation, increasing visitor awareness, interest and
loyalty to the destination, driving an awareness and consideration as
well as bookings to the new Paradise Coast Sports Complex is really,
really going to be important moving into next year.
It's important that we sustain and expand our groups across the
destination. And it was important that we identify how we engage in
our local tourism partners more in what we do. It is really important
that it is not just us working a silo; that we are integrating everyone.
And, of course, establishing a positive perception of the region to the
local residents and their businesses.
Overarching destination strategies, taking a look at that, we will
implement an omnichannel approach to engage consumers through
the entire customer journey, and that includes when they're
considering the destination as well as right through to afterwards.
Now, when I say "an omni channel approach," really what that means
is it's a seamless touchpoint, whether it is digital, whether it is
through our communications, it is that same -- same feel and tonality
through the entire process.
We'll seek to inspire and educate our target audience by
allowing them to discover and learn everything there is to do in the
destination. And through the entire plan, I coined a phrase that I
kept using, and that is "content is king." People, when they're
looking at destinations, want to be educated, they want to be inspired,
they want to know the breadth and depth of the destination, and we
need to do a much better job of that, so we already baked that into the
plan itself.
Brand is key throughout the entire step. And then we'll elevate
our creative and our messaging to reflect that unique value
October 12, 2021
Page 74
proposition that we have spoken about.
As we demonstrated earlier, we do expect some compression
and possibly even some sudden weaknesses -- let's hope
not -- throughout the year, but we aim to be nimble and strategic, as
we keep talking about. We mentioned earlier that we will utilize
research extensively to really confirm what we're seeing at every step
of the way and, actually, we have a brand-new very, very
well-esteemed research company that is taking -- taking over
next -- next month, Downs and St. Germain, that is really baked in,
detailed research, intercept surveys, customer sentiment, and
definitely committed to technology at all levels. So that's a great
strength we have coming in.
We'll be extremely surgical in our approach to maximize our
budgets and resources. We all know that time of day is just as
important as budget, so we want to make sure that we are committed
there.
We're going to be -- we will create, deliver, and sustain tourism
value for visitors, partners, and our residents. And, of course, we'll
develop that omni channel commitment to the sports complex.
And then, you know, we're also -- we have always been a really
great destination as far as inclusiveness, and we're adding one more
to that, and that is incorporating accessibility inclusion. I felt that
that was very, very important. Fifty percent of all boomers consider
themselves to have some form of accessibility challenges, and we just
need to add that as one more thing that we need to be able to talk
about in our content and our showcase.
And then, finally, we will actually be -- and we already have
done so, created a partnership, a working partnership with Florida
Gulf Coast University. Just up the street a couple miles away,
17 miles away, we have a business and hospitality school which are
inspiring our future leaders in the industry. It will be a true shame
October 12, 2021
Page 75
after four years of deciding that South Florida is where they wanted
to live for their schooling to have them move back to Chicago or
Bowling Green. They are -- they are here, and we just need to give
them that guidance, that inspiration and integration within our
destination. So we've already started forming that relationship.
Now, a true value -- or a true value of a destination marketing
organization lies within this pretty simplistic overview of the
customer journey. The upper funnel is really that awareness, that
positioning driving the demand and awareness to the consumer. The
mid funnel is more of the conversation. Now, yes, sometimes it is a
one-on-one conversation through social media, but to the most part, it
is really that brand -- or that "content is king" element, which is really
trying to overcome any challenges, barriers that may exist.
Lower funnel becomes really the focus where our partners, the
hotels and restaurants, they actually close the deal. But our role as a
DMO or destination market organization is that upper and mid
funnel.
Now, understanding and focusing on the customer journey is
really important. We're not talking about the travel of miles. The
actual journey is really more in their mindset, to their touch points.
The consumer travels when they're interacting with our brand,
whether it's through website, through our ads. The team really
embraced a mapping of the customer journey that allowed us to really
optimize that.
Now, what this really turns out is that we need to be successful
in presenting our message through the entire journey at every touch
point. And what's really important is we have to deliver that right
level of message and the content at exactly the right time when the
consumer is considering it. So that's kind of the sweet spot.
Now, something I've said for years is that the chaos, if you will,
and the craziness of the traveler's journey is really an opportunity for
October 12, 2021
Page 76
the marketers. And if we just do it right, we're much more strategic,
we can really crack that code.
And this is a passion of mine, developing the customer journey.
This right here is a table that was developed to identify the customer
triggers, the mindsets, the various levels of the customer journey.
And, you know, what those barriers are, what the opportunities are,
what the emotions are.
So this is actually something that everybody on the entire team,
from the creative to the PR, every single person will have right there
on their desk, because it's very important that we all are playing the
same game with the same chess pieces, understanding what those
triggers are, and there is nothing saying that certain things may be
added or removed as we continue in 2022. Again, we need to
remain extremely nimble on all accounts.
Now, in 2021 we recognize that we had developed a pretty
strong -- actually extremely strong creative strategy that really
resonated with our audience. Now, the exact words weren't this, but
basically they were that when you're ready and able to travel again,
don't settle for just any other vacation. Reward yourself with
something exceptional, Florida's Paradise Coast. And we all know
that that translated to the "only paradise will do" campaign. It
was -- it was subtle. It said a lot. It said a lot to every one of our
target audiences, whether it was groups, whether it was millennials,
seniors. It just really resonated in a time where people are saying,
yeah, I mean, I'm not going to compromise.
We do see that this has some legs with it, and we see it carrying
into 2022. We are not about deviating. We will watch that for any
consumer sentiment, but we have implemented that with whether it is
the leisure campaign, which shows a lot of -- in fact, every one of
these showcases a lot of wide open spaces, eco, and some shoulder
space, to even our groups creative, to this is an example of in the
October 12, 2021
Page 77
fall -- or sorry -- spring of this year, we called it our vaccinated
seniors campaign. It was going after those in the Northeast,
Midwest, targeting those that just wanted to get out and start
embracing the travel once again.
Now, the digital marketing journey is really, really important on
how we capitalize on it. We'll focus on the visitor lifetime cycle
recognizing that the engagement with the visitor is not linear. It is
very cyclical. You want to engage with them. They come, they
visit. You want them to reengage with you post visitation. They
become the advocate. We want to increase the awareness so they
keep coming back. That repeat visitation. It's that -- it's tougher to
get new customers than it is to retain the ones that you already have.
Similarly, this right here is really focusing on our database
acquisition strategy. Very, very important for 2022 where we're
going to commit to developing a very robust database that we
can -- we can collect, we can scrub, we can maintain, and all of this is
going to be applied -- implemented, rather, with the best-in-class
database practices and protocols. That is absolutely mandatory at all
steps.
We'll drive traffic to the website yielding consumer engagement.
And, again, as I keep saying, content is king. Now, that's important
to every one of our audience segments, whether that is the leisure
travelers; domestic; Florida resident; travel trade; LGBTQ; our
international leisure travelers, which I'll hit on in a second; our
groups, and that's meetings, weddings, sports. Locals, extremely
important. I'm going to hit on that as well about including the locals
and, you know, going back to how we started it all off. It's
important to include them as advocates as well. And then, of course,
film professionals, which bring a significant amount of opportunity
for economic spend within the destination.
Let's take a look at some of those activities. On the leisure and
October 12, 2021
Page 78
domestic and in state, within the leisure segment, we're going to
really drive our visitation to the region really on a year-round basis
but really applying a focus on the shoulder seasons. As we said, we
need to recognize where the compression is and make a difference on
the shoulders.
We're going to increase our awareness in our intent to visit the
destination, and we're going to increase our visitor spending in order
to generate that positive economic impact which is a key -- KPI,
rather. We're going to seek to increase that length of stay. We're
going to capture and expand the consumer database. Again, once
they're here, we need to know who they are and how we can reengage
with them and, really, showcasing the breadth and depth of the
destination at all opportunities.
Turning our attention to the leisure and LGBTQ, we'll position
the region as a top destination that's open and welcoming, seeking to
further increase awareness and engagement and interest among this
audience. And we're going to grow this database as well.
The leisure travel trade, we're going to increase the awareness
and intent to visit the destination, and we're going to do that by
actually developing our very first ever travel agent community, travel
agent academy that we're working with North Star to really educate
those that are selling the destination on our behalf.
We are looking to -- as if seeing other segments, we're going to
expand that database as well.
As far as the group meetings goes, we're going to increase the
awareness. We're going to drive those meeting planner database so
that we can engage in the conversation and increase qualified leads
back to the level that we had in 2019, and we're already seeing that
and doing that.
On the group side of things, it's going to be really important to
generate that awareness and education about the sports complex as
October 12, 2021
Page 79
well as sports facilities across the entire region. We're going to
focus on generating a significant growth in the leads and inquiries to
the destination as well as to the sports complex. It's going to be
important that we drive those incremental visits and those events to
those shoulder seasons, because that's really where we're going to be
receiving the best impact out of that. Driving that database, it's
going to be king.
And then we're going to do all this while developing regional
and national events occurring at the sports complex as well as other
ancillary locations such as Sugden Park.
Groups and weddings: Weddings really performed extremely
well for us over the last year, so we're going to increase the
awareness and consideration of the destination for weddings,
honeymoons, and increasing those leads to the destination.
International. This is where, again, it gets fun. We have been
watching a lot of zeros on numbers for now 17 months, and it's great
to hear some of those exuberant numbers coming out of the
international side.
So we're going to be collaborating with the travel trade. We're
going to be tapping into the OTAs or the online travel agents really
for us to be able to target those younger travelers, and we're going to
conduct familiarization trips and opportunities to attract journalists to
create that content awareness.
We have not had a concentrated effort within Canada. We see
that as being a great opportunity, especially given their ability for the
fly/drive capabilities once the border's open. Specifically, Southern
Ontario, the Golden Horseshoe region, is going to be our sweet spot.
And we'll continue to market aggressively overseas as we have.
We were at IPW just a couple weeks ago, and what was incredibly
rewarding is that while it was one-third of the attendees, those that
were there were noticeably there. And the announcement of the
October 12, 2021
Page 80
borders opening occurred the morning of the start of the conference
one hour before. And I'll tell you, it was almost like a stream that
went to our booth because their statement was, your brand, your
assets that you have, that wide-open spaces, that eco adventure, the
arts, the culture, all of that is exactly what my clients look for. Well,
we welled up hearing that time and time again. So it's great
telegraphing of where I believe we're going.
Really looking at that locals and the residents, it's going to be
really important to establish a positive perception in the value that
exists within tourism in our destination across the board within
our -- or by our locals. Increasing that positive local news coverage,
the impact and strength of tourism, and what it brings to the
destination.
And then becoming a valuable and critical resource for all of our
partners, our hotels, our businesses. We want them to look to us as
the marketing resource. We are going to have the data, the rich data,
the market research, sentiment research that we can all share, and
really amplifying the voice with our partners.
And then film professionals, embracing the ability to really
showcase the destination within unique platforms and showcasing our
destination in a way that, one, it drives an economic engine into our
destination. And we're going to work with that not only bringing
back repeat productions that have happened in the last couple years,
because there has been a slowdown, but look to ways to increase the
amount of activity, and really pulling this all together in a bit of a
graph to show you here.
We've included this as a bit of a timeline oversight of what we
see. We've featured some of the high season, some of the low
seasons. Even the low season, as we've -- just went through is not as
low as we have previously seen. We have set all-time levels, but it's
really going to be important that we stay really focused on the timing,
October 12, 2021
Page 81
the tonality, and when we can drive that visitation.
So, really, in summary, our marketing budget in 2019/2020, we
were at $5 million of marketing funds. Last year we saw a reduction
to four million, but I will also put a little asterisk there: Due to the,
you know, very strong support of every one of you encouraging us to
be able to tap into CARES Act funding to be able to elevate this, that
was really -- that was an incredible buoy and lifeline that was
absolutely instrumental in seeing the numbers that we have -- what
we've achieved in 2020 and 2021.
And then, of course, 2021, back to our regular pace 2019
numbers is extremely exciting. We really believe that we've got
wind in the sails without being too pollyanna about it. Certainly, the
positivity that is out there, the pent-up demand, the desire to visit is
extremely encouraging, and then the numbers don't lie, and we've
seen them continue to be stronger even when we expected them to,
you know, significantly slow down, and -- you know, four-wheel
lock slowdown, if you will, and there was nothing less than maybe
just a tap of the brakes, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I would just like to, again,
congratulate Paul and the team on an incredible job. And I'd just
like to point out, you know, sitting on the TDC and seeing how the
staff is working with the marketing partners and, you know, the
hotels, it wasn't only the nimbleness that Paul is talking about but
also the creativity, because at the height -- at the worst part of the
pandemic, we did something that was kind of out of the box. Most
of our competitors decided to stop advertising, stop marketing the
destination, even spend money to kind of discourage people from
going there, and we did the opposite.
I mean, this -- I think the award speaks for itself for the
October 12, 2021
Page 82
visionary, I think, aspect of what this marketing campaign was, to
double down on the brand, to keep the brand in front of all of
the -- you know, the professionals in the industry so that when people
were ready to travel, you know, our -- Collier County was right there
on everybody's mind, and the numbers are showing that that's -- that's
exactly what's happening.
I was just going to share that on the -- on the tourist tax
collections for August -- August is the last numbers we have -- for
August it was up 122 percent. In the midst of -- you know, there
was a lot of probably anxiety about traveling then because there was
somewhat of a spike going on. And then year to date, 33.65 percent
up from the 2019/2020, so in the midst of everything we've had to
deal with, the proof is in the pudding. And it was a great, great
marketing campaign, and I think -- I think the award was well
deserved because none of our competitors that we have competed
with over the years have the numbers that we do. And so
congratulations on a job well done.
MR. BEIRNES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I was just going to say, when
you got the job and I saw your bio, I was very excited just because, I
think, the diversity of your background and where you come from.
So the statement I would just make is please make sure that we are
capitalizing on every piece of experience you're bringing to the table.
You know, when I see slides that say "budget," I really don't
look at it as budget. I look at it as investment. But on the flip side,
you know, this is real -- these are real dollars. So I like -- you made
one little comment where you said, hey, if we're spending money on
TV and we think it's a waste or any kind of media, we're going to
jump on that right away and redirect it.
I would encourage you to come in front of us whenever you
October 12, 2021
Page 83
want so that we're educated on what you're doing different, what
you're doing new, something that maybe you heard, you know, that
you're expanding our aperture across the country and maybe taking
other ideas or doing something that maybe hasn't been done before,
because I think you're going to bring a lot of that to this job. We can
already see that.
And then I'm going to make one little observation, because it's
come up in a bunch of my town hall meetings from citizens that live
here. And if you look at your slide slow after this, go back and
check. Almost 100 percent of the photos on here are people 40 years
old and younger. Don't forget to put seniors on thing. Don't forget
to put grandchildren on things. And I only say that because I just did
a bunch of town hall meetings in a row, and I actually heard that from
multiple unrelated people who all said, it was pretty amazing that
we've advertised things when other people haven't, but they noticed
that. You know, it's great seeing a bunch of 40-year-olds running
down the beach, but a lot of our focus area, a lot of, you know, our
clientele, are seniors, are our grandkids.
So just finding balance. And if you actually look at this slide
show, it sort of does make the point. Flip through it. It's a bunch of
really pretty models that look a heck of a lot nicer than us. They're
all 40 and younger. And that's part of our demographic.
But I just say that to pass on what I hear, you know, from
citizens. Don't forget the, you know, throwing that -- a lot of people
come from Chicago who are retired, and this is a great spot and
whatnot.
But I think you're off to a great start, and you have a very
impressive background that I know is going to pay big dividends for
us. So, you know, keep at it and keep us informed of what you're
doing so we can be disciples of, you know, your team.
MR. BEIRNES: Thank you. And just as that point and some
October 12, 2021
Page 84
of the things that -- I definitely commit to bring you up to speed on
some of the things we've been doing. Some of it is fast and furious
coming out off the pike. In fact, just last TDC meeting, I reported on
a celebration that was a passion of mine. It was one of the first
phone calls I made because I had a relationship with a nationally
syndicated radio broadcast that we brought down, and it was
broadcast an entire week here in destination to 90 markets. We
partnered with Visit Florida, and I will say up front, it was an
infinitely small investment. It was more sweat equity than anything.
Truly a rounding year down to zero, and we had them be measured
by Nielsen Sports on the media value, and what came out is that
one-week exposure generated $11.9 million in equivalent media
value to the destination alone with next to nothing. Less than a
resale car on --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: More of that.
MR. BEIRNES: Exactly. No, I'm extremely frugal and
creative, and I enjoy doing that. But we really have got some great
opportunity. And we've been working with the agency on doing
some really unique groundbreaking, engaging, cut-the-clutter efforts,
and there's a campaign that is going to be shared a little wider that
will be in Chicago that is really going to take some notice. So it's
pretty exciting.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, sir.
MR. BEIRNES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
First of all, great presentation. I really appreciate the
thoroughness of it. And I was flipping through the pages of the
booklet as you were talking, and it's really well done. I do agree
with Commissioner LoCastro; maybe there needs to be a senior or
two in some of the photos.
October 12, 2021
Page 85
I do want to mention to the Board, I think it was almost two
years ago, about a year-and-a-half ago I had mentioned to the
Commission that Lee County actually appropriated a couple hundred
thousand dollars, and the message that they were sending was, don't
come to Lee County. Now, that was at the beginning of the COVID
thing, and that's what we got in very effective advertising about, well,
come to Collier County and feel safe. And so I want to kind of
publicly thank the folks in Lee County for that advertising, because
they drove people here. I'll probably get a few nasty calls from some
commissioners before the day's out.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, my goodness.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I do want to ask -- again,
congratulations and thank you. And I do want to ask Mr. Callahan a
quick question.
We have a $5 million budget for our advertising for 2021/'22
time frame. What percentage -- we have five cents in local tourist
taxes. And I don't know the exact amount of money that we are
anticipating generating in that time period. But what percentage of
that 5 percent tourist tax does the five million reflect?
MR. CALLAHAN: I believe we're planning on generating
about 32 million this year in tourist development tax, and you have
five million.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So about a sixth of --
MR. CALLAHAN: Roughly about a sixth, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'm assuming, from
everything that you've said, that the hotel/motel industry that likes to
claim these dollars as theirs, I assume that they're pretty satisfied with
ratio right now; there's not a whole lot of pressure on you to increase
that; is that accurate?
MR. BEIRNES: That's pretty accurate, and that's pretty
reflective across the industry. Of course, other destinations are more
October 12, 2021
Page 86
or less. But I think we are adequately funded right now. In fact, if
that's where you're going -- I think, 2021/'21 we do have wind in our
sail. A marketer is rarely a person who says they don't want more
money. I am frugal, very prudent in focusing on what the strategy is
and what's goes on.
I do believe we've got that wind in the sail, we've got pent-up
demand. I believe that we've got the right message, and I think that
we can cultivate that through some of our strategies to really benefit
us.
I do think that 2022/2023 could throw us some curveballs.
There will be some Florida fatigue. The people who have come here
three, four times decide I'm going to the UK or elsewhere. People
have come back here once or twice and not willing to -- or not
interested in coming back and maybe look at something different.
So -- and then as I've said often, competition's going to be fierce, and
it's going to get even more fierce because everybody will want that
piece of -- piece of the pie in market share going forward.
So I think '22/'23 is going to be one where we need to really
keep our eye on the prize, but I think we're adequately funded for this
year, and I think that we're going to do some big and exciting stuff.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: One last question for
Commissioner Solis, because he's obviously our representative on the
Tourist Development Council. Have you heard any complaints from
the hotel/motel operators concerning this ratio of --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have not. I have not. I think
these numbers reflect their business, and they're all doing extremely
well. You know, they have the challenges of staffing. But, no, I
have heard nothing but great satisfaction with the marketing plan and
the way that the staff came up with the Paradise Pledge, which didn't
only relate to hotels. It really brought the whole community, the
restaurants, the stores -- it brought the whole business community
October 12, 2021
Page 87
into this marketing plan for Collier County as a destination. So, no,
I haven't heard any of that, and if I did, I will bring that forward.
But I have heard nothing but just a lot of gratitude and a lot of
congratulations on what they've been able to accomplish this year.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, and then I'll
make some remarks.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, no. I said what I was going
to say, so thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And I'm just going to -- a
couple of things I'm going to follow up.
Paul, do you feel that we're being as innovative as we can be in
our marketing?
MR. BEIRNES: Yeah, I think this is -- this is a year that -- and
I certainly won't claim it all. I think we really said there's no sacred
cows. We were really throwing everything on the table.
The conversation early was that we had to be innovative. This
was not a time to rest on our laurels. It was not going to be a repeat
of 2018 and 2019. We had to be well advanced. That was the best
research, the best marketing principles and practices.
Even as early as, I believe it was, January or February, I had
conversations with our agency saying when we get to 2020, we're
going to have a digital focus and presence. And part of that
conversation led them and challenged them to bring on an
incremental vice president of digital just to really double down.
So we were asking and challenging ourselves that far in
advance, and that person is now, you know, helping us lead the
charge of the right database acquisition and scrubbing and recontact
strategy. So it gets pretty exciting when you see it all coming
together.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What about video? Are you going to
October 12, 2021
Page 88
increase the video content?
MR. BEIRNES: Yeah. I mean, that's definitely a great
question. Content is king. Video always resonates, tells the picture
extremely well. We are definitely going to increase that, and then
just how and where we integrate it with very targeted messaging to
our market segments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BEIRNES: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You made a remark, Commissioner
Solis, about bringing the whole business community into the
marketing debt. And I would respectfully disagree with you. I
think the business community brought the CVB, because in March
when we closed down over the summer, we compiled two or three
meetings of business leaders in this community, and they were virtual
meetings where we talked to them. And again and again they said, if
we go through another March, another April like we have gone
through, we will have to close the doors.
And the restaurant association -- the hotel/restaurant association
were part of it. They brought their membership. Major mall, for
lack of a better word, leaders were part of it, and they -- they made a
list of what they -- tell the people it's safe to come back, please,
please.
And Jack was part of those meetings. And from there, it
evolved into what -- and I'll never forget the marketing that Paradise
showed us, that film, that short film to market this destination. So
I'm going to turn it over to you, if you could announce to our business
leaders in our community that this is theirs --
MR. BEIRNES: Yep.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- because they came to the table and
they said, we're not going to survive unless something is done. It
would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
October 12, 2021
Page 89
MR. BEIRNES: I completely agree. We could not do any of
this without any of us here or any of them. So it's a team effort,
absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Okay. One thing before we leave, and it has been suggested,
and I'm going to turn to our leader of the Tourist Development
Council, we've never had a workshop with the TDC as a commission,
at least I don't ever remember it. And I'm wondering if you would
agree to it just to basically talk to them. It doesn't have to be a long
workshop, but what do you think about that concept?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, I think -- I'm there, so I
understand the intricacies of what-all they're doing with the
marketing plan, but I think it would be a great idea. The more we all
understand -- and I've learned a lot. You know, this -- the old days
of just taking out ads in print media and ads on television, we're so
far beyond that that I think it would be good for everyone to
understand how data driven it is. That's the other amazing aspect
of --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- what's been done is it is so data
driven, and the data is reviewed on an ongoing basis, that things can
change -- you know, which settings are being focused on in any given
day can change at any time. So if it's the will of the Board, yeah, I
don't think that could hurt anything.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear any yeas? Nays?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I'm thinking perhaps, only
because this has been such a banner year -- and I'm suggesting that
perhaps we'll have a workshop in December. We do have a -- have
an opportunity early December. It is not a full day by any means,
but it kind of leads us into the -- to the season, if we're all in
October 12, 2021
Page 90
agreement.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I just -- I'm just kind
of thinking out loud, so this may sound kind of stupid. It won't be
the first time for me to do that, but hopefully it will be the last.
But the Tourist Development Council meets once a month.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Once a month.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why don't we just, on their
regular meeting, have a joint meeting with them as opposed to setting
up a separate workshop where they would have to come to an
additional meeting just to save --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because their meeting is the day we
have the meeting before the meeting. It's always the day before our
meetings.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's on a Monday. Yeah, it's the
first --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But we could have our meetings on
Friday and then meet with them on a Monday. That would work.
You know, our meetings before the meeting; our meetings with staff
before the meeting day.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we can't always
change that around, but I was just thinking that as a convenience to
the Tourist Development Council.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How long do their meetings
last? Just a couple hours?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: About an hour and a half.
We've --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So there would be a longer
meeting, but I think that would be more efficient than having a
separate workshop. Just a thought.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm very --
October 12, 2021
Page 91
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask you, I mean, what's
the -- what's the -- what do you want to hear? What's the goal for
that? Because --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think -- I think it's actually for them
to hear from us and for us to hear from them.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: From the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- the board members?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Or the council members?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, given the presentation and this
is -- to see what their concurrence is, to hear their ideas where they
expect us to go.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I do -- I will say that -- and I'll go
out on a limb and speak for Clark Hill and Amanda Cox, who runs
the JW Marriott -- or with JW Marriott, and Clark Hill who runs the
Hilton, you know, if we could combine that and not make them spend
a whole 'nother morning, especially during the season, I think would
probably be a wise thing. You know, they're extremely busy even
now, and this is usually the slow period, so I would --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do it now before the season.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Before the season starts, sure.
MR. BEIRNES: Yep, support that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's do that, if there's concurrence
here. All right. Yep.
Okay. So it's going to be probably December, probably is the
best -- maybe -- wait. That's the first -- that would be, what, the
last -- December -- I don't know when your meetings -- it may have
to be November, perhaps.
MR. BEIRNES: It might need to be, now that I'm thinking
about it, because of the compression with the holidays, yeah.
October 12, 2021
Page 92
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. CALLAHAN: Commissioners, we can bring back a
suggestion --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: November. I would say if we're
going to do this, let's do it after the season. We can talk about what
happened in the season, because we're talking about the holidays,
getting ready for the holidays. The season's probably going to start
early. It seems to have already started. I just think out of -- out of
deference to their schedules and their --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, if we do it on the same day,
though. I mean, I'm thinking your idea of doing it on the same day
that they'd have to be here for --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: They meet anyway.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, so. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We have -- when is the next one?
MR. BEIRNES: In November.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're having one in November.
MR. BEIRNES: Yeah --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. BEIRNES: -- I don't have that at the top of my --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: We just attend that one and
sit in the front, sit in the back, whatever.
MR. BEIRNES: And what I can commit to you even a monthly
update of what we talk in the TDC so that you have that transparency
of some of the numbers and progression as well on just an ongoing
basis.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just evolving so much as a
community.
MR. BEIRNES: Sure, it's true.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And with offering so much more, I
mean, soon we'll have someone that's going to be part of the CVB for
October 12, 2021
Page 93
arts and culture. I mean, I think it would be very helpful to talk and
to talk these things through and --
MR. BEIRNES: Great.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- so that's -- so let's maybe look at
November, if we could.
MR. BEIRNES: Perfect. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. CALLAHAN: And Madam Chair, if we could have a
motion approving this item just for the finding of tourism promotion,
that would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second.
There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor,
say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you.
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE IMMOKALEE ROAD
CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY FROM LIVINGSTON ROAD
TO LOGAN BOULEVARD AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO PURSUE THE RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS – APPROVED
October 12, 2021
Page 94
MR. CALLAHAN: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11C
on your regular agenda, which is a recommendation to approve the
Immokalee Road corridor congestion study from Livingston Road to
Logan Boulevard and authorize the county manager or designee to
pursue the recommended improvements.
Ms. Lorraine Lantz, principal planning from your Capital
Project Planning Division, is available to give a brief presentation or
answer any questions that the Board has.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MS. LANTZ: Thank you. Again, my name is Lorraine Lantz,
Transportation Planning.
And I am here with our consultant from Jacobs Engineering, Bill
Gramer. We can go through the presentation. We can do it very
briefly. I do know -- I recognize that it is close to a lunch break, but
we can do the presentation or answer questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What's the pleasure of the Board?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd like to go through the
presentation, because there are a lot of people watching this that are
interested in what happens on Immokalee Road, and this is all the
good-news things. And it may take a few extra minutes, but I think
it's important mostly for the public to hear this, but also for the
Board.
MS. LANTZ: Perfect. Thank you. So with that Bill Gramer,
from Jacobs Engineering.
MR. GRAMER: Okay. Thank you. Good morning,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MR. GRAMER: Okay. So I'm going to go through the agenda
very fast. We're just going to give a project oversight, discuss the
purpose and need, go through an explanation as what analysis we
actually used to evaluate the corridor, discuss our findings, and then
October 12, 2021
Page 95
review what the next steps are going to be.
So as you know, Immokalee Road's a critical network, east/west
network roadway for your overall, you know, roadway network that
connects the western part of the county to the eastern part of the
county and is also your northernmost connection to I-75.
The project limits were from Livingston to Logan Boulevard,
and those limits were chosen for a few reasons. Most of all, there's a
lot going on in this two-mile stretch of roadway. You've got
Livingston Road on the west-hand side which also acts as a reliever
to I-75, and then Logan Boulevard on the eastern side which, you
know, once that's four-laned, it will be a nice connection to
Vanderbilt Beach Road as well. And so it was good -- it was a good
breaking point for the project, and we'll get into each of the
intersections as we go further on the presentation.
So we studied nine intersections within the project limit from
Livingston Boulevard on the west-hand side to Logan Boulevard on
the east-hand side, and we went through what the issues and
constraints were for each of those intersections as well as what the
opportunities are for improvements.
So the project purpose was to analyze existing and future traffic
demands that -- you know, the current traffic that's out there and what
the future demands are going to be.
And then the project need is obvious. We've got some delays
already we're experiencing on Immokalee Road. And with the
growth projections in Collier County over the -- from between now
and 2040, which was the project traffic limit that we looked at at the
time, that capacity is going to be reaching critical levels.
Something's going to have to be done at these intersections. And so
the goal is to look at traffic levels in both 2025 as well as 2040 and to
come up with opportunities and alternatives that would alleviate
some of those concerns. And we looked at those from both the
October 12, 2021
Page 96
near-turn opportunities as well as long-turn opportunities and when
those projects needed to come on board.
So the corridor study not only dealt with -- you know, it
identified and recommended improvements that dealt with not only
congestion but also dealt with some safety issues because that's, you
know, paramount to a roadway facility such as this, and also looked
at ways to enhance our local mobility and, you know, freight
management along the corridor. Like I mentioned before, it's a
critical connection to I-75.
But Immokalee Road also acts as a bookend for those
north/south routes in Collier County that connect up to I-75, that
connect up to Immokalee Road and eventually to I-75.
So from an overview, before we started, we had to get our team
familiar with what was actually out there. You know, Immokalee
Road, as you're aware, is a six-lane facility. It's constrained on both
the north and south sides by, you know, extensive development, both
residential as well as commercial. It's served by Transit Route
No. 27. It's got bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. The
sidewalk runs the entire length on the south side, and a shared-use
path runs a portion of the corridor. And there's a portion that's
missing but has been already studied in the planning phase, and it
will be implemented as part of one of Collier's future projects.
The corridor constraints, obviously we've got the Cocohatchee
Canal to the north as well as the residential and commercial on both
the north and south. And there's very few limited -- very few parcels
available for future development. And we took all that into
consideration when we did the growth projections for the traffic
between now and 2040.
So this is from the 2045, the Collier MPO 2045 Long-Range
Transportation Plan. And one of the benefits our team had by
working on this project is that we were also working on the Collier
October 12, 2021
Page 97
MPO 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan, which gave us some
in-depth data to use --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Stay up on your mic.
MR. GRAMER: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Stay up on your microphone.
MR. GRAMER: Sorry. And also made coordination with the
Florida Department --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Please.
MR. GRAMER: -- of Transportation very easy. Thank you,
Commissioner.
From a safety standpoint, like I mentioned, before we went
through the alternatives analysis, we also looked at the corridor from
a safety standpoint and analyzed each of the different intersections
based on traffic crashes over the past five years.
And so you can see here what the total crashes were. It may
look like -- it is a big amount, 1,267 crashes over a five-year period.
But relative to similar roadway facilities in other places in Florida,
it's not drastic, but it's more than zero, right? So it's more than our
vision zero. So we wanted to take that into consideration and come
up with ideas and solutions that would improve safety along the
corridor.
So when we're developing the alternatives, we -- obviously we
looked at, you know, the first and foremost is no-build alternative.
What if we just sit back and do nothing? And that became apparent
and should be apparent to everybody here that that's just not a
possibility.
So then we looked at how are we going to evaluate all these
intersections? And so what we did is we used the Florida
Department of Transportation's, you know, intersection control
evaluation process, which is, you know, nicknamed ICE. And what
that does is provides a verifiable and a quantitative evaluation of each
October 12, 2021
Page 98
of the different intersections and so they can be studied
independently. Looked at, as a whole, with regards to the whole
entire corridor, and it's a defendable approach.
And we also looked -- we looked at conventional improvements
with this process as well as innovative improvements, which we'll get
into in a second.
So why ICE? You know, like I mentioned, it's consistent and
it's defendable, okay. It's a quantitative result. You put in the data,
and it gives out numbers data to look at. It's consistent -- it's
consistent with the purpose and need of the overall project, takes into
consideration safety of the intersections, because you get a separate
safety and a multimodal score as part of the process.
And so the alternatives are ranked in a quantitative measure, and
then you take that data, and then you put your qualitative to it. So
you look at it and you say, okay, well, this is great. It scored well on
the ICE process, but can I actually fit it? Does it actually work in
this scenario based on the constraints of the roadway that we're
looking at?
So just as an example here, you know, this is for the Livingston
Road intersection, and the data on the left side is a capacity analysis
based on the different types of intersections. So based on the
intersections, how many lanes can you put in there for each of the
different scenarios that you're looking at, whether it's a traffic signal
or, you know, one of the innovative intersections.
And then the table in the upper right looks at the overall
volumes that you're going to have to be dealing with. And when you
put those two together, the two tables at the bottom give you scores in
both the a.m. and p.m. of a volume of traffic to the capacity of the
actual roadway in the intersection. It basically tells you how it's
going to function.
It also gives you a multimodal score. So it says, how is it going
October 12, 2021
Page 99
to function not only for the vehicles, but how is it going to function
for the pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor?
And for Livingston Road, you can see in this scenario, although
it didn't score No. 1, it actually scored No. 2 in the a.m. and No. 1 in
the p.m. This is a scenario that fits into the overall geometry and
constraints along the corridor. And for this situation, it's an overpass
at this intersection. And we'll get more into the intersection as we
get further into the presentation.
So we didn't do this in a vacuum, okay. And due to COVID,
we realistically had to reach out into the community to get input on
these things. So we used a variety of methods. Both online, you
know, through Twitter, Facebook, Nextdoor. We had a virtual
public meeting for the project where we had good attendance. We
had over 173 registered; 93 attendees. And we did an online survey
through Survey Monkey where we had 829 responses.
So it was pretty -- we were pretty specific as to what we were
asking, and so we made sure everybody was aware of what we were
doing at each of the individual corridors. And in addition to that, we
had numerous meetings with local homeowner’s associations and
representatives of different businesses out there to address any
concerns that they might have had, you know, in a one-on-one-type
basis. And then, obviously, we attended some of the commissioner
coffee houses and townhomes, and then sent out newsletters in other
areas.
So the feedback was pretty good for the overall project. Most
people understand there's a need out there, and they understand
something has to be done. We got some good data as to who's
actually using the roadway, where they live, where they work, and
how they get to and from, you know, both work and home. And we
had some pretty good -- for the innovative intersections at the bottom
for the overpasses, the diverging diamond, and the partial displace
October 12, 2021
Page 100
last, we had some good support for those projects. Either they
supported or they were neutral about it. Not too much opposition.
They know something needs to be done. It's just a matter of what.
So, again, we looked at three different categories. Minor
improvements, kind of like the quick-fix things that we can start
doing immediately to alleviate some of these concerns. Then we
looked at more conventional improvements. That's what we started
with and said, is there something that could be done without these
overpasses and innovative intersections? And then, obviously, we
looked at the innovative intersections for a few of the
interconnections that nothing else could be done on.
So one of the first things we came up with is this adaptive traffic
signalization, and what this does is it ties the signals in this corridor
section. And in this case you can see there's seven traffic signals
within the corridor limits. It ties them together, and this way you
can adjust traffic in real time, you know, as opposed to pre-program;
this is when the light turns green, this is when the light turns yellow,
this is when the light turns red. This way if there's an incident at one
of the intersections, the system can, you know, change on the fly, and
things can be made to eliminate delays as part of the corridor.
So a recent Collier County study that has been done by the
traffic operations department, you know, indicate a significant
amount of benefit costs that can be achieved by doing this, and it's
one of the first projects that will be moved forward, if approved by
the Board, as early as this November they want to get started. And
so it's proven in other areas of the county that it works. It works
extremely well, and it's something that we want to be implementing.
So the first thing, just as an overall corridor that we looked
at -- and it's one of those low-hanging-fruit quick projects -- well, it
will have to be done in phases, which we'll get into -- is changing the
existing right-turn lane shoulder areas in the westbound direction on
October 12, 2021
Page 101
Immokalee Road into a through right-turn lane, the entire lane, and
that takes advantage of the existing infrastructure that's out there.
And so you, realistically, will have four lanes moving in the
westbound direction, which will help out considerably.
Portions of it are easier to do than other portions, like the first
phase will be from Valewood to I-75, which is an easier portion to
do, and then the other portions will be programmed and moved into
the -- moved into design and construction in further -- in further years
out there, because each of them has, you know, permitting and other
issues associated with it.
So let's get into the intersections. We start at the Livingston
Road. We'll start at the west-hand side. And like I mentioned, we
looked at various alternatives. Conventional intersection
improvements are not going to work at this intersection. And one of
the things I'd like to point out with the Livingston intersection is we
coordinated with the Florida Department of Transportation for this
intersection as well as I-75 because this acts as a parallel reliever to
I-75. So they were very much interested in what we were planning
on doing out there.
And so they ran an independent study and an independent
review of the intersection, and their data corresponded pretty much
spot on with ours that an overpass would be required for this
intersection, which is good news.
And so besides the overpass here, you can see some of the
improvements that we have -- we have proposed. And besides
taking four lanes up and over Immokalee Road, we're also going to
allow local access by a northbound and southbound through
movement at grade, and that was done primarily after discussions
with the stakeholders in the area who said, you know, we really want
access local. We don't want to have to make U-turns at various
locations to get to our homes or get to our businesses or get to our
October 12, 2021
Page 102
residences. And so those are some adjustments that we made as part
of the study based on input from stakeholders.
The next intersection, Strand Boulevard and Juliet. This is
more of conventional intersection improvements where we're adding
lanes, adding turn lanes, adding through movements, creating storage.
And one of the -- one of the items that made this possible is you can
see on the right-hand side of the screen we're increasing the left-turn
lane storage going into, you know, Juliet Boulevard and Walmart and
everything else that's in that -- in the south part of that intersection
because of what we're doing at the I-75 intersection.
So when we looked at these intersections, we couldn't focus just
on one intersection and how it was going to work. We had to focus
on the entire corridor and how the nine intersections were going to
work together from both an operations and a traffic modeling
standpoint, so we did that.
For the I-75, what you see here is the diverging diamond, similar
to what was recently proposed and approved by you for the Pine
Ridge Road/I-75 interchange. The DOT was very involved in this
review. They also came up with the conclusion that a diverging
diamond was the answer at this area. Although it looks -- it looks
strange --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Challenging.
MR. GRAMER: -- it functions very well. And for those of
you who have been up in Sarasota and have gone to the University
Parkway or looked online at how these things function, you
realistically don't realize you're driving on the wrong side of the road
until, you know, you kind of look out your window and it's like, wait
a second, something happened, you know.
But it works very efficient. It doesn't take up very much
right-of-way room, and it's actually pretty cost effective. It's one of
the most cost-effective solutions you could possibly move forward.
October 12, 2021
Page 103
So the next is the Northbrook/Tarpon Bay Boulevard
intersection. This is an intersection we wanted to focus on because
there are a lot of accidents at this intersection; we wanted to know
why. Now, the fact that there was -- you know Hodges University
was up there. It had a lot of morning traffic moving in the eastbound
direction. It's no longer functioning as a university right now.
Unfortunately due to COVID, they're going more online, so that's
going to change. That will actually be better for the intersection, but
it still won't change some of the improvements that we're planning for
the intersection.
And so this also starts the area where we're going to do the
combining through -- the through-right-turn lane from -- it will
eventually go from Logan Boulevard all the way to I-75. Initially
from Valewood to I-75.
So we'll make some changes. We'll widen the bridges a little
bit, adding left- and right-turn lanes. And on Tarpon Bay Boulevard
we'll add another northbound left-turn lane.
On Oakes Boulevard, a conventional intersection. We're
realistically just going to increase some left-turn-lane storage, get a
little more capacity in the roadway. Because traffic will be moving
more efficiently in the east/west direction on Immokalee Road, you'll
be having a little bit more time in there to wait to make a left turn.
You know, left-turn lane to get up into Oakes Boulevard. And so we
wanted to make sure that we had proper storage in those areas to take
that into consideration.
Valewood Drive, again, we're adding a dedicated left-turn lane
in the southbound direction, re-striping one of the southbound lanes
as a through right, and then we also look forward into the permitting
and design phase of the project as to what opportunities are out there,
and you can see in the lower right part of the intersection that's a
county-owned parcel out there that's got a pond out there that we'll be
October 12, 2021
Page 104
looking -- whoever designs this will be expanding that pond to take
into consideration the existing and the proposed improvements out
there, because it will have to be permitted. We will have to treat and
attenuate the water. And so we want to look for opportunities.
Executive Drive, you know, this one's pretty boring
besides -- there's nothing going on actually at the intersection that
we're going to make improvements on. It has what it needs. This is
one of the areas, you know, again, they added -- the through
right-turn lane in the westbound direction will be what goes on in
front of this area.
Last but not least, Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road.
We're looking at -- we looked at conventional, and conventional will
work for a while but eventually traffic gets too great, especially when
Logan becomes a four-lane facility south of Immokalee Road.
And so we're looking at something which is basically a
displaced -- partial displaced left-hand turn lanes, which it's partial
because we're only doing the east/west movement, not the
north/south movements, and that will take -- although, again, it looks
odd, it will be -- well, it will be the second one in Collier County
because the Pine Ridge Road project will be the first one. It looks
odd. It functions very well. And it's something that -- you know,
it's not going to be one of the immediate projects. It will probably
be one of the last projects to come online.
That's it.
MS. LANTZ: Thank you. We did run through this, so if there
are any questions, we can take them. But our staff recommendation,
as long [sic] as the recommendations in the report, are to approve the
study as presented and then to implement the traffic control adaptive
signals basically immediately; to move forward with the Immokalee
Road westbound through right-turn movements and to include those
modifications in a phasing plan with your -- as your budget allows;
October 12, 2021
Page 105
and then to do the conventional improvements, again, as budget
allows; and then to pursue the overpass at Livingston and Immokalee;
to pursue a diverging diamond with FDOT coordination at I-75; and
to pursue the partial displaced left turn, also known as the continuous
flow intersection, at Immokalee Logan.
And with all of this, we are recommending continued public
involvement and coordination through all the additional phases of
design and construction.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll make that motion. I won't try
to restate all that, but I'll make that motion to approve what she said.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second the motion. I do
have a couple comments.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I do, too.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We have some discussion,
and I believe we have public comment. How many speakers?
MR. MILLER: Just one.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
It was in February of 2020, so just before COVID created a big
problem in terms of public meetings. We had a meeting, and I think
I told Commissioner McDaniel that we had 420 people there, so we
had more people than you had at one of your meetings.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I lost that dollar bet, yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I still have the dollar on my
desk.
But our transportation staff was there, and Nick Casalanguida
was still with us and was part of the presentation. I remember
Trinity Scott, I think, went through most of the detail. But we
October 12, 2021
Page 106
promised the audience that we would encourage and start a corridor
study for Immokalee Road, just like we had done with Pine Ridge
Road, and that fixes were going to be on the way.
And so I want to start off by just thanking staff, because they -- I
think you've done a tremendous job. Obviously, we have consulting
engineers that are working on this, so they've done a great job as
well. But it's really our staff that got this moving. And I just want
to thank you for that.
The reason I wanted to go through this presentation is that I
think there's a lot of good news here. As was indicated, by
November the traffic light signalization can be underway, so that's an
immediate fix. And then some of these little lane improvements,
striping improvements, I think we're already ready to start some of
that as well. Some -- obviously, there's going to be some budget
issues for the 2022/2023 budget to finish a lot of these interim
projects. And then, of course, there's going to be a tremendous
amount of expenditure for the overpass and things like that.
But these are things that have to be done, and I wanted the
Commission to hear all of the details, because this will be a project
that affects -- directly affects three County Commission districts, but
it indirectly affects, obviously, all of us.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All of us.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And it's just like Pine Ridge
Road. This is just a very, very important corridor. This congestion
study, I think, was extremely well done. I just want to thank you,
thank staff for moving this along as quickly as you have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: My question isn't really about
the recommendations, but because I have the experts here. I was just
looking for a quick update on Logan Boulevard. We talked about it
so much in here about the trucks and the noise and the congestion,
October 12, 2021
Page 107
and I know we made quite a few improvements. I was wondering if
you had feedback on, you know, did everything work? I mean, I
haven't gotten any e-mail. It's not even my district, but we all got
e-mails from people about Logan. It seems like it’s, you know -- let
me turn it over to you. So what's the report card?
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, deputy department
head, Growth Management Department.
Commissioner, no news is good news. Our phone calls
have -- are nonexistent. So hopefully our signage and working with
the mining operation up in Bonita, we haven't had any issues.
Commissioner Saunders, I --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I go up that road a lot.
As a matter of fact, I take my motorcycle up there. I'm waiting to do
a little ride with Commissioner LoCastro and Commissioner
McDaniel sometime soon. Go up that road. I haven't seen a dump
truck on that road in months. There's signs at the -- in Bonita
Springs that -- "no through trucks," and there's signs in Collier
County. I haven't gotten a single call or complaint, so that worked.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Great.
MS. SCOTT: We'll make sure we direct them to you now that
you opened up Pandora's box.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just one. I wanted to, again,
thank staff, especially for the re-striping right there at the intersection
coming up on I-75. That's going to -- we've all been using those
stripes, and it will just keep people from turning in in front of me that
don't -- that abide by the stripes, so I'm -- and you're going to have all
these improvements done by the end of the year? That's a joke, by
the way.
MS. SCOTT: We will start the adaptive traffic signals, and
October 12, 2021
Page 108
then during our upcoming budget cycle, we'll start bringing in the
phasing of the interim striping. And we do also already have the
design for the intersection on Immokalee and Livingston Road within
our five years.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just so we have a little bit of
a concept, do you have a monetary amount if you had a wish list of
cost?
MS. SCOTT: Well, our estimates right now for the re-striping
is approximately $10 million, so we will try to -- for the entire
corridor.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For everything on this list,
plus/minus what's the expense in total?
MS. SCOTT: I can't --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You need new glasses?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In the 80-something-million range.
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was just adding it up over here in
my head.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: More than 80 million, yes.
MS. SCOTT: Upwards of $80 million but well over a 20-year
period for some of these improvements.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did that encompass the
flyover on Immokalee as well?
MS. SCOTT: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: My comments are going to be a little
more holistic. If we keep increasing intensity over what is
permitted, we're going to have more problems, and we're going to
have more expenses.
So I would ask my colleagues to keep that in mind as we go
forward with approving LDC amendments or suggestions of staff or
even individual developers who come in.
October 12, 2021
Page 109
But the other question would be, do we need to create some
special LDC amendment for charter schools who do not have a
frontage road for stacking? And I know that's a loaded question, but
I think maybe you could come back. We've got some -- I think this
is something that's going to keep increasing, and frontage roads are
critically important.
MS. SCOTT: I will work with my colleague, Jamie French, to
look into what we are able to do, particularly when a charter school
goes into an existing building. When they're coming in as a new
facility, such as the one that just opened on Immokalee Road, we
were able to work with them on their internal stacking. It's more
difficult when they're going into an existing building that's already
been permitted. But I'll work with Mr. French, and we'll come back
with any recommendations we may have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Infill. That's infill. Thank you very
much. Another one. Thank you.
So do we have a motion to accept? I think we do; do we not?
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have a public speaker
on this item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me very much.
MR. MILLER: We have one registered speaker online.
Marius Stoia, you are being prompted to unmute yourself at this
point, if you will do so. They've been waiting. Let me see if they're
still there. Marius Stoia?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: That is the -- I can't go to anyone else because
that's the only registered speaker I have for this item. We'll try one
more time.
Marius Stoia, you're being prompted to unmute. If you could
do so at this time.
(No response.)
October 12, 2021
Page 110
MR. MILLER: I see nothing, Madam Chair. I'll keep an eye
out for them to unmute, but...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think -- we have a motion on the
floor and a second. Going, one, two, three. Okay. I think the
public comment period of this agenda item is closed.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
And I think --
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have one more item of
morning business that should be able to be taken very briefly.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm going to turn to our hardworking
and obviously exhausted Terri, Court Reporter. What do you think?
THE COURT REPORTER: How long is it going to be?
MR. CALLAHAN: I believe Commissioner LoCastro has a
quick question that we can have staff answer.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, that's on the 44 percent
increase on the renewed contract?
MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, it should be quick, I
hope.
Item #11D
October 12, 2021
Page 111
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FIRST AMENDMENT
TO AGREEMENT NO. 18-7416 FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES LIME
SLUDGE POND CLEANING TO ADJUST THE FEE SCHEDULE
RATE DURING THE REMAINING THREE-YEAR RENEWAL
TERM OF THE AGREEMENT – APPROVED
MR. CALLAHAN: So the next item is -- became 11D. It was
16C2 from your consent agenda. It was a recommendation to
approve the first amendment to Agreement No. 18-7416 for Public
Utilities lime sludge pond cleaning, to adjust the fee schedule rate
during the remaining three-year renewal term of the agreement.
And Mr. Messner from your Water Division is here.
MR. MESSNER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Steve Messner, your Water Division director. I'm here to
answer any questions you may have on that item.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, it just -- in a pre-brief I
asked the question as to how did the contract change in price, and I
was told that it went up 44 percent. So if it -- it might be 44 percent
because we've added things to the contract or just price increases.
And if that's not the case, then as someone who's signed a lot of
contracts, like we all have, usually, because you just pay the extra
44 percent, sometimes you put it out for rebid, see if there's a more
competitive contractor. So, I mean, it's taxpayer dollars. So just,
you know, rubber stamping a 44 percent increase to remove sludge
is -- I want to turn it back over to you. What changed?
MR. MESSNER: I think what's going -- let me start with
saying we have two contracts with Prolime: One to haul away lime
sludge that has been through our sludge press. That was renewed
last year at the -- excuse me. $2,490 per ton. Now we're looking at
renewing the contract to clean the sludge pond, which we do
approximately every three to four years. So we're -- they gave us the
October 12, 2021
Page 112
same price as we are for the other one.
What's changed is gas prices, such and such. We did compare
prices with other utility companies. For example, other companies
that Prolime sort of led us to show contractually what they have and,
really, this price is -- is the cheapest of the contracts that we checked
with.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I mean, that's the
answer I was looking for. And it's 44 percent more than it was three
years ago, not 44 percent more than it was last year; is that correct?
Is that what I'm reading?
MR. MESSNER: That's correct, Commissioner. Every three
years.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: You know, I mean, we just
want to be judicious. I mean, I'm not saying you rubber stamped
anything. But, you know, when I saw that increase -- so I appreciate
your answer. That's what I was hoping to hear.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner McDaniel.
MR. MESSNER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And just a little edification,
Commissioner LoCastro, this is the renewal of an agreement they
were at from 2018. Marco Island's paying 2 -- 23 -- twenty-three
dollars and forty cents [sic]. Palm Beach is paying twenty-four
ninety. So we're not out of line at all. Our previous procurement
had held Prolime -- I used to do business with them, and our previous
procurement had held Prolime at the old rates, and so this is just a
renewal of a contract from three years ago. So it's certainly well
within line of what it is. It does look like a fairly large increase, but
it is from three years ago, so...
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MESSNER: Thank you.
October 12, 2021
Page 113
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So...
MR. CALLAHAN: A motion on that would be --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, we need a motion.
MR. CALLAHAN: -- appropriate, Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No public comment, Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much. All
right. We're going to take a break now and resume at 1 o'clock.
(A brief recess was had from 12:22 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I think we're
moving on to 12A.
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT WITHOUT
COMMENT FOUR MOTIONS FILED BY THE OWNER OF THE
PROPOSED ISLES OF CAPRI FOOD TRUCK PARK AND
EITHER (1) MOVE DIRECTLY TO HEARING THE THREE
PUBLICLY NOTICED APPEALS, OR (2) REMAND THE
APPEALS TO THE HEARING EXAMINER – MOTION TO
October 12, 2021
Page 114
ACCEPT MOTIONS WITHOUT COMMENTS – APPROVED;
MOTION TO HEAR APPEALS – APPROVED
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, that will take us to
Item 12A, which must be heard prior to Items 8A, 8B, and 8C. It's a
recommendation that the Board accept, without comment, four
motions filed by the owner of the proposed Isles of Capri Food Truck
Park and either, one, move directly to the hearing of the three
publicly noticed appeals or, two, remand the appeals to the Hearing
Examiner. I'll let Mr. Klatzkow take it from here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, to my knowledge, we've never done
motions in this boardroom, in the 20 years I've been watching this
Board, anyhow. We have no motion procedure, no motion practice,
and my suggestion is that you simply accept the four motions.
They'll be accepted into the record. Should the -- anybody want to
appeal at that point in time, they can bring up the issues then.
The second part of it is, it's your discretion to hear this or to send
this to the Hearing Examiner, and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I think we have two
decisions to make. Do we follow the recommendation of the County
Attorney to note that we have these appeals before us, if that's what
they're called; is that correct, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: Motions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motions before us and not proceed,
just acknowledge they're here, and then let them be.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I make a motion that
we proceed. We have all the main players here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, not the -- not with -- not the
meat of it. The particular --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- appeals, or the motions.
October 12, 2021
Page 115
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The motions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The motions about the standing.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those four.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was going to suggest that
we do hear the items but, I think, follow the County Attorney's advice
in terms of the motions; just accept those as being filed, and then
move on to the two substantive issues. So if that is consistent with
Commissioner LoCastro, what you were thinking, then --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good. There's a
motion on the floor and a second to -- to -- and you said -- hang on,
hang on. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I was just saying that I
think I've caused some concern on Commissioner Solis again. Oh,
oh, he's got his button pushed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got my button pushed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, forgive me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I know
there's -- obviously, there's a motion on the floor.
You know, without any procedure, without having heard these
before, it's my opinion that this is why we have a Hearing Examiner.
The Hearing Examiner is a land-use attorney and has the ability to set
up a process for hearing these. They're motions that have been filed
by the applicant, so I don't think there's an argument that can be made
that somehow it's just a delay tactic by the opposition or something.
October 12, 2021
Page 116
And that's why we have a Hearing Examiner.
I mean, for us to try to work through -- because these are legal
issues -- to try to work through legal issues on the fly in a public
hearing just doesn't -- that doesn't make sense to me. I think that's
why we have a Hearing Examiner, and we should refer the motions to
the Hearing Examiner and the appeal, because the appeals relate to
the motion.
It will come back to us with a written opinion and a
recommendation from the Hearing Examiner after however many
hearings the Hearing Examiner thinks it requires, and then, once we
have that recommendation, we can have the usual process that we
would go for hearing one of these things.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I think we should have a
fairly in-depth discussion about this before we make a decision, and I
think I'm going to turn to Commissioner Saunders, then
Commissioner McDaniel, then Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't disagree with what
Commissioner Solis has just said in terms of the ability of the
Hearing Examiner to hear these things and come up with a proposed
order and file a report, but it still comes back to us as a de novo
hearing. And so all that accomplishes, quite frankly, is just delay. I
know that's not the intent, but that's ultimately the net effect of it.
So I think that the residents in Isles of Capri and the property
owner that's filed this petition, I think they're entitled to a more
speedy resolution of this one way or another, and that's why I
supported Commissioner LoCastro's comment in terms of let's go
ahead and hear this, because we're going to have to hear it anyway.
And we can hear this, and if we get to a point where, quite frankly,
we are so confused, which happens to me all the time, we can then
vote to send it to the Hearing Examiner.
So I would say let's proceed, and then if we get stuck, I think we
October 12, 2021
Page 117
still have that option.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And my only response to that is is
that without -- I think the County Attorney's expressed some concern
about not having a procedure and trying to do this without any kind
of procedures or a set way of handling this that we create some due
process argument for somebody. And I just -- I just think that why
do that if we can refer this to the Hearing Examiner to make sure,
very methodically in a very flexible schedule, that none of that -- that
we don't create those kinds of arguments unintentionally. That's
just -- that's my thought.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Maybe the County Attorney
can respond to that, because if the County Attorney says, hey, we
don't have the procedure, we shouldn't hear this, then I'm going to
follow the advice of the county.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. I'm saying don't hear the
motions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motions.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I thought you
said. So I just wanted to clarify.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me skip the sideshow and go right to
the main event is basically what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That was my point of
clarification. There's two parts to this, the motions and then the
appeals. What we're discussing right now is the motions, and that's
what the County Attorney has recommended, that we acknowledge
they're here and then go right to the appeals. And then when we're
faced with the appeals, we make a decision, do we want to hear the
appeals, or do we send it to the Hearing Examiner.
So I need two motions. I need about -- the recommendation of
how we address the motions before us right now.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I would move to accept
October 12, 2021
Page 118
the motions without comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second. Okay. There's a motion on
the floor to accept -- and a second to accept the motions without
comment.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That would mean we would
go right into the appeals?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. And then we're going to make
a decision about the appeals.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, in essence, we're just going to
ignore the motions?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. That's the Board's -- if that's what
the Board wishes to do.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think I was -- I followed
Commissioner McDaniel. Did you have something, sir?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a concern with the
folks that have an expectation of being heard today. I agree that
remanding it back to the Hearing Examiner is not a delay tactic, but
inevitably it's going to just back to us, and that was what I wanted to
say on the record. There are folks that have an expectation of being
heard today. We may end up with this process going back to the
Hearing Examiner in any case, but I think this recommendation by
the County Attorney gets us to where we need to go.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. But let's talk -- let's talk
specifically about the motions.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. I'm okay with what
the County Attorney's recommended.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I mean, I agree with,
you know, Commissioner Saunders. I also don't disagree with
Commissioner Solis about going back to the Hearing Examiner, but I
October 12, 2021
Page 119
think it's a nice to-do. It's not a must-do, and I also think we run the
risk of just adding more bureaucracy into -- this isn't -- we're not
launching the space shuttle here. This isn't the biggest thing that
we've ever heard. You've got the experts out here, and I agree
strongly with Commissioner Saunders that it costs us nothing to at
least start the process since we're here, and if we think we get to the a
point, his exact words, I couldn't agree more, where we think, wow,
you know what, let's go -- you know, I think we've got to a point
where we're at a little bit of a stalemate or we don't have all of the
information but, you know, this is why we're elected to sit here and
hear from the people. And if we think that it's over and above our
heads, then, you know, we kick it back.
I think it would be a stall tactic. I mean, you look out in the
audience. I don't think this is too complicated to at least have the
process start and hear the appeals.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So there's a motion on the
floor and a second to accept the motions and to -- and to leave
it -- you said it so eloquently, and I'm rephrasing it -- to accept the
motions, right?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just accept them without
comment and move on.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Without comment. That's the word.
Without comment.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask one question of the
County Attorney?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If this was to be referred to the
Hearing Examiner, the motions, would we have to procedurally first
accept those as well?
MR. KLATZKOW: At this moment in time, you can send
everything, the entire package --
October 12, 2021
Page 120
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I know. But I'm saying --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- without doing anything further.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm just trying to -- since we don't
have a procedure, I'm trying to figure out what the procedure is.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I guess we're going to make it up.
But if -- and I don't mean to be facetious, but that's what we're doing
here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's why I'm asking. So my
question is: Do we need to accept these motions?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're accepting these motions. If later
on down the pike you decide to send everything to the Hearing
Examiner, you would make a motion, and it would include, well,
the --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The motions --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- the motions.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- and the appeal, okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Which he may decline to hear, too,
because, again, there is no right to a motion in these proceedings, and
we have no procedure on this. So that would be -- but that would be
up to the Hearing Examiner to decide.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You okay?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion on the
floor and a second to accept the motions without comment. All
those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
October 12, 2021
Page 121
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1.
Now, we have the appeals, Commissioner LoCastro, before us.
And we have a choice; we can hear it today or we can refer this to the
Hearing Examiner. And we're open for discussion. And I'm going
to be a little informal with this. We have two attorneys on this
board, so I think we need to be very fluid in our discussion right now.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I don't have that
much complicated discussion here. I'd like to make a motion that we
hear the appeals, but I'd also would like to hear from my colleagues if
they have something to add that would --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to second that
motion because I think, as you said, everybody's here, the experts are
here. The procedure, I think, will be fairly easy for us. It's -- I
guess this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. And assuming that it is, we
can easily follow that procedure.
MR. KLATZKOW: I have a proposed procedure that's in your
backup if you want to use that one.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Is that a -- I
apologize. Is that a quasi-judicial type of a procedure?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I think we're in good
shape to move forward, so I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion on the
floor, and there's a second to proceed with the appeals. All those in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
October 12, 2021
Page 122
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1. Very good.
County Attorney, would you please read the appeals.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. If Mr. -- do you want me to read
the appeals -- you mean the procedure?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The procedure, but I think the
appeals. I think we need to talk about the appeals, and then the
procedure after that, please.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. You've got three separate
appeals, and I'm going to refer to both the owner of the property and
then the neighboring property rather than by their corporate names.
In the first appeal, the -- well, to give you backup, in July 2021
staff approved the Isles of Capri Food Truck Park Site Development
Plan allowing a food truck park for nine trucks on 2.9 acres of lot
zoned C-3 commercial on the Isles of Capri. An official zoning
interpretation was requested by the neighboring property owner.
Staff issued the official interpretation that a food truck park is a
permitted use in this particular zoning.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2021-216: FCC BEACH & YACHT, LLC, FILED
AN APPEAL OF OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION INT-
PL20210000943 THAT FOOD TRUCKS ARE PERMITTED USES
IN THE COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE DISTRICT (C-2) AND
COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING
DISTRICTS – MOTION TO GRANT APPEALS AND DENY THE
SDP – APPROVED; MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO DEVELOP
October 12, 2021
Page 123
AN LDC AMENDMENT SUPPORTING THE CONDITIONAL
USE PROCESS IN REGARD TO FOOD TRUCKS – APPROVED
There are three appeals resulting from that decision. In the first
appeal, the neighboring property owner is appealing the approval of
the Site Development Plan. In other words, the neighboring
property owner does not believe that a food truck park is a permitted
use in the C-3 zoning.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2021-217: FCC BEACH & YACHT, LLC, FILED
AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THE
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP-PL20200001903, PURSUANT
TO CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES SECTION 250-58,
WHICH AUTHORIZED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD
TRUCK PARK IN THE COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE
DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED AT 300, 320, 322 CAPRI
BOULEVARD AND 218 KON TIKI DRIVE IN SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA – MOTION TO GRANT APPEALS AND DENY THE
SDP – APPROVED; MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO DEVELOP
AN LDC AMENDMENT SUPPORTING THE CONDITIONAL
USE PROCESS IN REGARD TO FOOD TRUCKS – APPROVED
The second appeal of the neighboring property owner is
appealing the official interpretation. The official interpretation,
again, provided that a food truck park is a permitted use in this
district.
October 12, 2021
Page 124
Item #8C
RESOLUTION (OF DENIAL) 2021-218: PAUL M. GRIDER
AND TAMETHA GRIDER, AS TRUSTEES OF THE GRIDER
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST FILED AN APPEAL OF
OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION INT-PL20210000943 THAT
FOOD TRUCKS ARE PERMITTED USES IN THE
COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE DISTRICT (C-2) AND
COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT (C-3) ZONING
DISTRICTS TO CLARIFY THAT THE OFFICIAL
INTERPRETATION IS NOT SITE SPECIFIC BUT APPLIES
COUNTY-WIDE TO ALL PROPERTIES DESIGNATED WITHIN
THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS – MOTION TO DENY
THE APPEAL – APPROVED
The third appeal, which may be withdrawn, I want it done on the
record, is that the owner of the food truck site is also appealing the
official interpretation for the very narrow grounds to clarify that it
applies countywide and not site specific.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And if you would outline our
procedure, and then we'll go forward, please.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. If Mr. Miller could put it on starting
with Page 4.
My recommendation -- normally the appealing party goes first,
but here we have two appealing parties, and I think, for a matter of
clarification, I think staff going first here to explain its official
interpretation as well as the Site Development Plan would be
beneficial.
And in keeping with past practice, staff would be limited to 15
minutes in its presentation. The property owner may ask staff
questions. I'd recommend 10 minutes for that, and the neighboring
October 12, 2021
Page 125
property owner may also cross-examine staff. Again, 10 minutes.
Note, these minutes are at the discretion of the Board. You can
always expand it.
Following staff's presentation, my recommendation is that the
neighboring property owner presents its case, including the testimony
of any expert witnesses. I'd recommend one hour for this. The
zoning director has the ability to question the neighboring property
owner for 10 minutes, as does the property owner. Again, these
times are flexible.
Following that presentation, the property owner will then
present its case that the food truck park is a permitted use in the C-3
zoning district. In essence, the property owner will be supporting
staff's position.
Again, the zoning director could question the property owner, if
Mr. Bosi would like, and the neighboring property owner may
question the property owner, again, for 10 minutes.
The Board may question anybody at any time. That is your
discretion. When we are done with the parties, it is the public's time
to speak. In keeping with our practice, the public's time is limited to
3 minutes, but since this is quasi-judicial, only relevant evidence
should be discussed, but I'd leave that to the Board to decide whether
the speaker is relevant to the issues or not. Typically, we've been
very broad with that interpretation giving the public the access to
speak.
After that, essentially, we have closing in the same order of the
zoning director, neighboring property owner, and the property owner
for 10 minutes, and that should include any rebuttal they might have.
At the conclusion, the Board will make its motion. And it's
ultimately your decision as to whether or not this use should be at this
site will lead to your conclusions as to whether to deny or accept the
appeals.
October 12, 2021
Page 126
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. We will have a court
reporter break at 2:30, yes, and we will break for 15 minutes.
At this point, I think all those who are going to give testimony
today need to rise and raise your right hand.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, does that include the people
registered to speak publicly?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yes.
MR. MILLER: So if you registered to speak, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The online folks couldn't hear that,
but...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So the folks online check a
form when they register to speak, which means that they agree to tell
the truth and the whole truth. So thank you very much.
Mr. Bosi.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do we want -- quasi.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Quasi, I'm sorry. Yes, you're right.
Let's do quasi ex parte communication, please. I guess the -- what
we're talking about is 8A, 8B, and 8C.
Commissioner McDaniel, you were ready.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have had meetings,
e-mails, and phone calls on all three.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Same here with e-mails,
communications, meetings, on both sides of the issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. For all three I've had
meetings, correspondence, e-mails, and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've had meetings with both the
October 12, 2021
Page 127
applicant and the appellant's attorneys, e-mails, and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
And I've had the same; e-mails, meetings, correspondence, calls
on both sides of this issue with the attorneys and discussions with
staff.
Thank you.
Mr. Bosi, excuse me.
MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission. Mike Bosi, Zoning
director.
As the County Attorney's Office and as the discussions have
indicated, the focus of the questions of the two appeals, 8A, the
appeal of the official interpretation, as well as 8B, the appeal -- the
SDP approval, focus upon the same question: Is a food truck park
allowed within the Commercial 3 zoning district? The other appeal
is about the reach, whether it's a specific or whether it's countywide.
Staff's position is it has always been interpreted to be a countywide
application of the question of the C-2 and the C-3 zoning districts and
not specifically to this parcel of land.
The essential question for the BZA to decide is, how far does the
comparable-use determination process reach? The comparable-use
determination has been designed by this county, by our code, to take
a use that's not contemplated, that's not identified within our zoning
district, and then we bring that use and we compare it against the uses
that are within a PUD, uses within that individual zoning district, and
see if that use is then comparable to that -- to uses that are already
permitted in that zoning district to see if that could be included within
the zoning district, the PUD, or how it's to be treated by our Land
Development Code moving forward.
There's going to be three potential -- or four potential
conclusions. Is a comparable-use determination only applicable to
the parcels seeking the comparable-use determination? Is it a
October 12, 2021
Page 128
conditional use, essentially? A conditional use is a different process
than the comparable use. I'll get into that. But is it only applicable
to that parcel that's seeking a comparable-use determination?
Is it only applicable for the zoning district that is being
evaluated; in this case, the C-3 zoning district. Would that be the
only district that it would be applicable? Is it cumulative in that the
use is permitted in all zoning districts that are more intense than the
zoning district that it was found to be comparable? Our Land
Development Code is cumulative, meaning the lower uses in your
commercial categories all rise up and are permitted within your
higher intensity zoning districts.
Or does it apply to all zoning districts which provide for the use
that the proposed use is determined to be compatible to? We'll get
back to that at the very end, and I think it will be -- those questions
will be framed in a little bit more informed manner.
But I'll go through the process that -- how staff -- and, Troy, it
doesn't want to seem to be advancing. Okay.
I want to go through the series of processes as to how staff
arrived upon the decision of approving the SDP in the C-3 zoning
district and providing the interpretation that a food truck was a
permitted use within the C-2 and C-3 zoning district, the two appeals
that are on hand. And I want to read you -- and it started back with a
HEX determination in 2016. The decision that was provided by
Mark Strain, the Hearing Examiner says, the Hearing Examiner
approves Petition ZVL(CUD)PL2016000188 [sic] filed by Laura
DeJohn AICP, Johnson Engineering, representing Naples 2 Point,
LLC, requesting approval of a zoning verification letter
determination that proposed use of a food truck park is comparable
and compatible in nature to other permitted uses in the general
commercial Bayshore mixed-use district neighborhood commercial
district subdistrict (C-4-BMUD-NC) on property located at the
October 12, 2021
Page 129
intersection of Bayshore Drive and Becca Avenue and further
described in here.
And I think this is the important part of that decision that staff
has reacted to: And affirms staff determinations as stated in the
zoning verification letter attached as Exhibit A subject to the
conditions set forth below.
So when you look at the zoning letter, the zoning letter that was
affirmed by the Hearing Examiner's decision, the conclusion of that
letter stated, based on the research above and in the application, the
planning manager has determined that the requested use is
comparable and compatible to the other permitted uses in the district
and is, therefore, a permitted use. In order to become valid, this
determination requires affirmation by the Hearing Examiner.
I just read you the decision of the Hearing Examiner. He
affirmed that statement that a food truck park was, therefore, a
permitted use in the zoning district in which the comparable-use
determination was requested. That's the plain and unambiguous
language that staff has reacted to to make determinations for how
food truck parks would be treated when broached the question related
to it. In particular, there was a staff report that was associated with
that Hearing Examiner determination.
And within that, it was pointed out that staff also recognizes that
the Bayshore CRA encourages pedestrian-friendly business and
human-scale business in the neighborhood commercial subdistrict;
therefore, the compatibility analysis staff has limited the use -- the
use to the Bayshore neighborhood commercial subdistrict.
So what does that mean? It was zoned Bayshore neighborhood
commercial subdistrict as well as C-4. Staff put their focus upon the
Bayshore neighborhood commercial subdistrict. And why that's
important is because if you look at the intent in the description of
what the neighborhood commercial subdistrict is, you read it, the
October 12, 2021
Page 130
purpose and the intent of this subdistrict is to encourage a mix of
low-intensity commercial and residential uses including mixed-use
projects in a single building. This subdistrict provides for an
increased presence and integration of the cultural arts and related
support uses, including galleries, artist studios, live-work
developments. Developments will be human-scale and
pedestrian-oriented.
What's that saying is the neighborhood commercial was a
neighborhood commercial zoning district, meaning that it doesn't
serve multiple neighborhoods. It serves one neighborhood. And
with that, that's a low-intensity commercial zoning district, and that's
important for -- that's important because the permit -- or the zoning
letter stated that the food truck park was a permitted use in the
neighborhood commercial zoning district, and that's what staff has
acted upon when we made evaluations upon whether a food truck
park was a use that was allowed in other zoning districts.
Based upon that direction that staff took from that Hearing
Examiner's decision, we've issued approval of the Hitching Post
Shopping Center SDPI to add four food truck parking spaces to the
C-3 zoning district. The property that we're talking about is C-3
today. The action of this government, the action of Growth
Management in 2019 was approval of an SDPI in the C-3 zoning
district to add four food truck locations.
We also, in 2019, provided for approval of an SIP in the C-4
zoning district. That was based upon the Hearing Examiner's
determination.
And then, finally, on a third occasion, within the industrial
zoning category, we issued a zoning verification letter that stated that
a food truck park was a permitted use because of the comparable-use
determination in 2016 compared it to an eating place.
So we have consistently, consistently said, the way that our
October 12, 2021
Page 131
zoning code works is if you're in a lower zoning district and a use is
permitted, it's permitted in all the higher zoning districts. And
within the -- and within the determination of the review of the SDP
and the official interpretation, when asked is a food truck park an
allowed use in a C-2 or a C-3 zoning district, staff mainly maintained
the same position that it has maintained since that 2016 zoning
determination that a food truck park would be a permitted use in the
zoning districts.
Now, this is the findings of the Hearing Examiner's decision in
2016. It says, the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear this
matter pursuant to Section 2.87 [sic] of the codes of law and
ordinance, and that's related to the powers of the Hearing Examiners.
Also, related to Subsection 2.03.03.D.1.C.26 of the Land
Development Code. What that is is that's a section within
the -- within the Land Development Code that dictates how
conditional -- or how comparable-use determinations can go forward
in the C-4 zoning district. And what that's saying is that through a
conditional use, the following uses are permissible as conditional
uses in the commercial intermediate C-3 zoning district.
And it says that the -- it says that for -- and this was crossed out
because this was -- this was the language that was in effect at the
time. It's been subsequently changed, is what I'll get to in the
presentation. But it said, any other intermediate commercial use
which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted
uses and consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent in
the statement of the zoning district as determined by the Board of
Zoning and Appeals.
So the jurisdiction that the Hearing Examiner was claiming was
related to the conditional-use section of this C-3 or actually the C-4
zoning district at the time. There was an inconsistency in the
application of the determination, because a conditional use and the
October 12, 2021
Page 132
questions of a conditional use never came up. It was the
comparable-use determination that was cited, and that was -- or that
was referring to -- let me go back.
I'm just looking for the findings section. Yes, the
2.03.03.D.1.C.26 provided jurisdiction. And then the other aspect
that was cited for the findings was based upon the applicant's written
petition, the testimony, and a hearing and the application, Section
10.02.06.J, and that is the comparable-use determination. So he
cited the conditional-use process as well as the comparable-use
determination as the justification for how he had jurisdiction to hear
the case.
And as I described, the conditional-use criteria evaluation, it's
different than the comparable-use determination. And in a
conditional use, there's four questions you basically ask. The
consistency of the Land Development Code and the Growth
Management Plan, ingress and egress to the property, and the
proposed structure and its particular reference to automotive and
pedestrian safety, traffic flow control and access. The affect a
conditional use would have on neighbor properties in relationship to
noise, glare, economic odor effects, and compatibility with adjacent
properties and the other properties in the district.
If you reviewed the Hearing Examiner case, none of these
questions were asked. There was no analysis that was ever done as
to what the surrounding properties were. There was never -- there
was never any reference to the affect a food truck park would have
upon the adjoining properties.
The question was, is the food truck park comparable to the uses
that are contained in the neighborhood zoning district or the C-4
zoning district and the -- and the zoning verification letter agreed that
both of those districts provided for a comparable-use determination
related to the food truck, and it was affirmed by the decision of the
October 12, 2021
Page 133
Hearing Examiner.
And this is the comparable-use determination section that was in
effect at the time. Comparable-use determination, the County
Manager or designee may issue a zoning verification letter to
determine whether a use within a PUD is consistent and compatible
with the surrounding uses within the PUD. To be effective, the
zoning verification letter should be approved by the BCC by
resolution at the advertised hearing.
Now, there wasn't a PUD. This was a zoning overlay in a C-4
zoning district, but it was approved, and it was provided for the
comparable-use determination, and it was approved at an advertised
public hearing that everyone was entitled to be able to attend.
And, finally, in 2020, the Board of County Commissioners
approved the revised comparable-use determination. We realized
that there was -- there was gaps within the process of how we were
providing for a comparable-use determination and what the code is
actually stating. And in that new section, we provided an expanded
way the comparable-use determination is to provide for. And it's
informative for the Board to understand. And it says, the following
comparable-use determination shall be used to determine whether a
use is comparable in nature with the list of permitted uses and the
purpose and the intent and statement of the zoning district overlay or
PUD. So what it did is expanded the reach in terms of how the
comparable-use determination would be allowed for.
And to be affected, the comparable-use determination shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner by decision or the BZA, by
resolution, as an advertised public hearing. And here's the standards
that you utilize in a comparable-use determination. The proposed
uses possess similar characteristics to other permitted uses in the
zoning district overlay or PUD including, but not limited to, the
following: Hours of operation, traffic volume, type of vehicles
October 12, 2021
Page 134
associated with the use, type of -- the number and type of parking
spaces, best-practice activities. B, the affect a proposed use would
have on neighboring properties in relationship to noise, glaze, odor
effects shall be no greater than the other permitted uses in the zoning
district.
So that says -- this doesn't say to look around and see what's
around you. It says, the affect that you would have related to noise,
glare, and odor in comparison to the other uses in that zoning
category. That's where the comparison is.
And then, C, the proposed use is consistent with the GMP,
meaning the applicable future land-use designation does not
specifically prohibit the use where the future land-use designation
contains a list of allowable and proposed uses, and is not admitted.
D, the proposed use shall be compatible and consistent with the
other permitted uses in the zoning district. Again, it goes back to
reiterate that it's the use that you're comparing this proposed use
to -- not the compatibility issue that's required if you were doing a
conditional use -- and any other relevant information that may be
required by the County Manager or designee.
So that's how we established the determination on the three
other outside applications we received to make a determination for
how food truck parks would be treated. And that's how we arrived
upon the decision related to the approval of the SDP, and that's how
we arrived upon the OI, based upon that 2006 [sic] comparable-use
determination.
Now let me just set the stage for the Board to understand what is
the area we're talking about. Where you have the uses we're talking
about -- the arrow's not showing up.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's there.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, we can see it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can't see it, but we can see it.
October 12, 2021
Page 135
MR. BOSI: Right here and here and here is the property in
question. For the -- where the proposed food truck is located where
the SDP has been approved.
Zoning of that is C-3. The surrounding area is C-3 except for
that one pocket of the RMF-16 that's to the north of the facility.
So this is clearly the area on Isles of Capri that's been designated
for the highest type of intensity. It's a large area of commercial
zoning with a small area or a smaller area of RMF-16, the most
intense multifamily that's allowed by our individual zoning districts.
The purpose -- the proposed foods truck, as I said, is within the
C-3 zoning district, and let me read you the intent, because this
is -- relates to how staff established the consistency of our findings
and how we've treated a food truck park since moving on from
that -- the 2016 hearing determination.
The proposed -- the purpose and intent of the commercial
intermediate district, C-3, is to provide for a wider variety of goods
and services intended for areas expected to receive a high degree of
automotive traffic. The type of variety of goods and services are
those that are providing an opportunity for comparison shopping,
have a trade area consisting of several neighborhoods, and are
preferably located at the intersection of two arterial level streets.
Most activity centers meet this standard. This district is also
intended to allow for all the uses permitted in the C-1 and the C-2
zoning districts.
That determine -- or that description is part of the evaluation.
That is a higher intensity of design within a commercial zoning
district than a neighborhood -- than a neighborhood-serving
commercial zoning district, which is comprised to serve the needs of
an individual neighborhood. This serves the individual needs of
multiple neighborhoods and can be appropriate for activity centers.
And I'll remind the Board of County Commissioners that activity
October 12, 2021
Page 136
centers are areas of the most intensity that are allowed by our Growth
Management Plan.
And as part of the C-3 zoning district, it allows for Use No. 31.
Use No. 31 is eating place. It's 5812. But it has a limitation.
You're only allowed 6,000 square feet of gross floor area in the
principal structure.
An eating place is the use that's allowed. It's not a restaurant.
The eating place is the use that's provided by our zoning district.
And if you look in our zoning -- if you look to the zoning district, you
see that it has 5812. 5812 is a reference to the Standard Industrial
Classification Code, and the Standard Industrial Classification Code
provides for all the uses that are contained within 5812. So this is
what -- if you have an SIC code book, and you look to see, what are
the uses that an eating place would allow for? And you look, oh,
there is restaurant, but there's restaurant carryout, there's restaurant
fast food, there's sandwich bars, shops, snack shops. The ones that I
had highlighted, boxed-lunch stands, frozen custard stands,
hamburger stands, hot dog stands, ice cream stands, refreshment
stands, drink stands. The reason why I highlighted those is because
the functional equivalent difference between a series of food trucks
and a series of food stands, functionally, is no different. You go to a
counter, you go to a window, whether it be in a food truck or whether
it be in a stand, you purchase your food, and you go sit outside.
So the question -- and when that original 2006 [sic]
determination was provided for, this, I believe, influenced the
decision. This is a wide range of activities that fall under 5812. It's
not isolated to restaurant. It's isolated to every single one of these
uses that are contained within -- within the SIC code, and those are
rights that are associated with that land, with that C-3 zoning district.
So we get back to the -- to the beginning slide, the four
questions that I think that are being asked of the BZA. Is a
October 12, 2021
Page 137
comparable-use determination only applicable to the parcel -- to the
parcel seeking the comparable-use determination? If the question
[sic] to that is yes, then the action is to overturn the SDP and the OI.
Is it only for the zoning district being evaluated? If that's the
determination of the BZA, then the action is, again, to overturn the
SDP and the OI.
Is it cumulative in that the uses would be permitted in all zoning
districts that are more intense than the zoning districts evaluated?
Then the action is to uphold the SDP and the OI.
And, finally, does it apply to all zoning districts which provide
for the use -- the proposed use determined to be comparable to? And
then the action is to uphold the SDP or the OI.
So, essentially, the question is, did staff act properly? Did we
handle the condition -- the comparable-use determination in the
appropriate manner when that decision was made by the HEX that he
said it was a permitted use in the zoning districts that it was requested
against, and that we looked to those zoning districts, looked at the
intensity and said, any zoning district that was more intense than that
neighborhood commercial, a food truck park could be determined to
be a permitted use.
And that is the actions and the framework and what motivated
and what drove staff to make their determination.
If the Board of County Commissioners feels that that was an
incorrect determination based upon the comparable-use
determination, we yield to the wisdom of the Board. But that
is -- that's the action that has been consistently applied. If we've
been consistently wrong, please tell us, and we'll take a different
direction, but that's how we viewed the Hearing Examiner's
determination in '16 and have treated every question since then. And
with that, any questions?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
October 12, 2021
Page 138
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And thank you very
much. That was a -- that was a very succinct explanation, and an
enormous amount of logic for coming up with the OI.
My question is reaching back to a decision that, personally, I felt
should have been treated as a conditional use in the first place and
then not applying that decision forward on zoning districts that are
outside a delineated decision and approval on the Bayshore CRA
overlay and the uses that are allowed in there and then bringing that
forward for these additional decisions and approvals.
And in all candor, and then certainly information, time, we've
learned that a food truck park is not what we all conceived as a food
truck park, in fact, is. And your determinations on the other two
properties that you talked about, two or three, I think, that you talked
about and you brought forward didn't have -- they had more of the
criterion afforded to them that would typically be brought in, being
an arterial or in an area that was, if you will, more conducive for that
type of intensity in those areas.
So -- and I don't want to say we were just lucky, but maybe we
were just lucky on those to not have as much objection for the use
determination and the OI, and that's where I've been grappling with
grabbing onto or utilizing the Hearing Examiner's opinion for
allowance of that food truck park down on Bayshore Drive as being
applicable to all C-3 and up pieces of property.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that a question, or just a statement?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. How -- the question, I
guess, is, it seems a bit of a reach to go back to a decision that was
made on a, relatively speaking, isolated zoning classification, the
Bayshore overlay, and the allowable uses within the Bayshore
overlay and then applying it to a countywide circumstance.
How did -- how did we -- how did we justify that? Because,
personally, what I'm -- I mean, I understand -- and you and I spoke
October 12, 2021
Page 139
about this yesterday when we were talking about it. There's an
enormous amount of logic in the allowed uses of an eating place in
that -- in that definition of eating places there are a lot of similarities
between those food stands and food truck vendors.
But how did we think -- how did we come up with that it was
okay to go back to that decision by the HEX '06 [sic] when people
that aren't impacted by it, these folks -- I didn't know about that
decision. I mean, I was aware of it, but how did we rationalize
utilizing that as our basis coming forward?
MR. BOSI: As I stated, in staff's perspective, the
comparable-use determination was to -- was designed and developed
to bring in uses that were not recognized by a PUD or the -- or the
zoning district and evaluate whether that use shared similar
characteristics to the permitted uses in that PUD or that zoning
district to see if it was appropriate to bring that new use in. Because
we recognized the Standard Industrial Code it hasn't been updated
since two thousand -- or 1987. It's dated. There is a number of
industries and businesses that have emerged that did not exist 30
years ago or 34 years ago.
So that use determination was based upon -- was based in that
neighborhood commercial zoning district, brought that use in. And
as I said, staff's perspective is the neighborhood commercial zoning
subdistrict is less intensive than a community-serving zoning district.
The way that zoning districts work, C-1 through C-5, your C-1 is
your most limited. It's the one that's supposed to be most limited in
terms of -- in relationship to where existing -- or where residential
would be proposed.
C-2 is a step up beyond that, is more, a little bit, neighborhood
serving. C-3 gets to be your community commercial where the
outreach and the draw of the businesses that are allowed are a little
bit beyond the -- just the neighborhood. They go beyond. It could
October 12, 2021
Page 140
be a five- to 10-minute drive. And then you'd go to C-4, which is
more your regional serving where you have a much larger radius, a
25- to 30-minute expected market zone, and then C-5 is a mix of your
regional as well as your heavier commercial.
So what -- we viewed the neighborhood commercial as a lesser
intense zoning district than the C-3 zoning district. And the way that
our code informs us is it's cumulative. You -- the ones that reached
out, reach up to that zoning district, and that was the logic that was
utilized by staff.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. Well -- and
that's what I said at the beginning. There was an enormous amount
of logic applied to how you came up with that process save the fact
that this particular site doesn't have the infrastructure, if you will, to
support that on a more intense scale.
MR. BOSI: And I would agree. The infrastructure, it's a very
limited transportation system. You know, the limitation is unique.
This is not two arterial collectors as it was suggested within the C-3
zoning district, but the zoning district is the Commercial 3 zoning
district, and that's what we reacted to.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Don't disagree at all.
I just -- the comment that I had was the intensities that are
allowed for within C-3, if other uses were put in, could be
significantly more intense than the proposition of the food truck park.
MR. BOSI: Oh, there's a tremendous amount of opportunities
for much more intense activities to be developed within the C-3
zoning district. Remember, this was -- this is a place that's
considered appropriate for entertainment districts. It's
appropriate -- if these food trucks were food stands, we wouldn't be
here, and there's no functional equivalent difference. But we are
here, and we're trying to seek guidance from the Board of County
October 12, 2021
Page 141
Commissioners, did we correctly react to the factors that staff has
identified as what led us to the decision that we're making, the SDP
appeal or approval as well as the OI approval.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro, are you --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just had --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On a 10,000-foot view, I
would prefer at some stage a recommendation come to treat all food
truck parks as a conditional use.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Save that for later.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm finding all this very
interesting, because I hadn't heard anything about this topic at all,
ever. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic.
Obviously, this is in District 1. It's been a big conversation.
Mr. Bosi, if you'd go back a few slides to that list. That's it.
The list where it was a more detailed list that we take a look at to
decide use. And you just had the slide. It had, like, eight things on
it. It was traffic. It was a much -- there you go -- a much more
robust list. So this was a new updated list from our previous
determination, correct --
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- to get things more correct.
Did the staff aggressively use this list and come up with a detailed
determination on each one of these specific questions/topics
concerning the Isles of Capri Food Truck Park?
MR. BOSI: No. No, we did not.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Why not?
MR. BOSI: Because a comparable-use determination was not
requested by the applicant.
October 12, 2021
Page 142
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. BOSI: As I said --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: -- the permitted use was identified by the Hearing
Examiner in a lower zoning district and, therefore, we've -- we've
determined that that permitted use rises up to the more intense
commercial zoning district; therefore, it's a permitted use. There
would -- based upon staff's position, there would be no reason why
the applicant would submit a comparable-use determination with the
position that staff has provided for.
The applicant did seek a zoning verification letter that basically
said a food truck could go at the C-3 zoning district. So they
did -- they did submit clarification, but they did not request to go
through a comparable-use determination, so we never posed these
questions. But if we did pose these questions, every one of these
questions, the answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Really?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Wow.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely. If you look at --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They did it in a district.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. BOSI: If you look at what's allowed within -- if you look
what's -- eating place, and that's the permitted use.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, I follow you. Here's
the -- here's what -- there's so much more information we have to get,
so it's not a matter of just us all making speeches. I really want to
ask, you know, a question.
But the point of clarification I want to make is when we keep
referring back to what the HEX initially decided for Food Truck No.
1, basically, on Bayshore, I don't really think -- you know, we
October 12, 2021
Page 143
keep -- we keep referring to it as almost like precedent. Well, that
automatically approved everything, you know, that went forward.
And, you know, my comment -- and, like I said, maybe it's not a
question, and I'm going to -- you know, I'm going to wait because
there's so much more to come. But I think we have to be dynamic
enough to decide if we think we got it wrong, because who was an
expert on food trucks that initial time?
So, you know, I guess the statement I would make is, I would
just caution you -- and I'm not saying you sort of did this verbatim.
But I certainly feel like I'm hearing that, well, you know, back for the
Bayshore food truck, you know, that precedent was decided, the HEX
decided, the HEX decided. Okay, the HEX was deciding something
that had never been decided before.
I can tell you right now -- I don't know if there's people from
Bayshore in this audience, but there's quite a few people that are less
happy about the food truck park than they were when they saw it on
the drawing board, you know.
And to Commissioner McDaniel's point, I don't know that we
knew exactly what the final product was going to look like and
whatnot. So, you know, I just caution and say, just because it was
decided back in '06 --
MR. BOSI: '16.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- '16, rather, that I wouldn't
really call it precedent. I mean -- and even the couple of trucks that
we had after that, I agree strongly with Commissioner McDaniel that
I actually think we got lucky. Those were in areas that weren't as
complicated, intense. And I actually disagree with you on that long
list. Like, if I went down that list, I mean, these are my constituents,
and I can tell you the people that live there -- you don't live there. I
don't either, but I bet I'm there a heck of a lot more than you. I
wouldn't say those are automatic yeses but, you know, to your point.
October 12, 2021
Page 144
(Applause.)
MR. BOSI: And, Commissioner, I defer to you 100 percent.
And one of the things we're looking for from this the -- from the
Board is comparable-use determination. I've stated, it's how staff
and how the code has been designed to incorporate a new use to our
Land Development Code. So we're looking -- if you're saying it's
only applying -- a comparable-use determination that doesn't look
around at surrounding property owners but looks at the other uses in
the zoning district, how far should that apply? Is it only that zoning
district? Because then that's every C-3 parcel of land in the entire
county, or it's C-2, whatever the zoning classification is.
Staff interpretation of what the zoning -- or the comparable-use
determination was, how we make a determination for new uses to be
brought in, it goes through an advertised public hearing. You're
evaluating that use against other uses in that zoning district. So if it
should only be limited to that zoning district or only that parcel of
land, if it's only that parcel of land, I would suggest you do away with
the comparable-use determination and just have a compatible -- or a
conditional-use application. But that --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Couldn't agree more.
MR. BOSI: But that's cumbersome. And one of the things
that we were trying to do and what this government's trying to do is
recognize that there's some inflexibility towards zoning, and the
comparable-use determination is to recognize that new industries,
new businesses are created, and if we evaluate through professional
planners, applications that are provided by professional planners, put
forward the conditions of here's the external effects of this use
compared to the other uses in the zoning district, if you find that that
is equal or less intense, you can bring that into the zoning district and,
therefore, the process is determined that that's, moving forward, a use
that's allowed. And that's how staff viewed it.
October 12, 2021
Page 145
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. Bosi, so -- let me go back to
the list here. And you said that if it was a hamburger stand or a hot
dog stand, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because it's an
allowed use. So not to be flippant, but the difference here are
wheels.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what we're talking about?
MR. BOSI: That's the difference. Functionally, I don't think it
has any difference with how the consumer engages.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. If those -- if those didn't
have an axle and it was set on the ground and attached to the ground,
we wouldn't be having this conversation today?
MR. BOSI: There would be no basis for this conversation.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Secondly, are there -- are
there other instances where staff has relied upon a comparable-use
analysis that included a use that's not specifically referenced in the
Land Development Code into a zoning classification other than just
this one particular one from 2016?
MR. BOSI: The majority of the comparable-use determinations
are actually against PUDs, PUDs.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. BOSI: And the majority of those have not proposed new
uses, just uses that haven't been provided for by that PUD, and
therefore --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But the PUD sets the
zoning for --
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- a particular piece.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
October 12, 2021
Page 146
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So -- but with regards to a PUD,
that's been done before.
MR. BOSI: It's been done before, but not a new -- not a use
that hasn't been recognized by staff. We never said, okay, that the --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Got it. This was
something that, obviously, was kind of a new trend.
MR. BOSI: Yes, it was a new trend, and that's one of the things
staff is seeking direction from the Board moving forward on how we
treat the comparable-use determination and new uses and how far that
reach should be.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But the way -- the way that this
area of the Land Development Code has been developed, the intent
was -- and this is a question: Was the intent to do what you were
saying, and that is, if there's a comparable-use determination that
finds that a use that's not expressly stated in a zoning district is
comparable to the ones that are, that then that is considered to be
part -- you know, included within the zoning district? I mean, was
that the intent of how we have laid this out over the years?
MR. BOSI: The code was rather shallow in terms of the
comparable-use determination.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Right.
MR. BOSI: It's been much more defined in terms of the update
of 2020 in terms of, you know, how we make those evaluations. The
question and the text of the code doesn't provide -- is not instructive
as to how you treat other zoning districts.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But in terms of how the staff has
been looking at this, that's --
MR. BOSI: Yes, correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's how you've been applying it.
MR. BOSI: That's how staff has been applying it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And so how long -- at least
October 12, 2021
Page 147
since 2016?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. No other -- no other
questions at this point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sure, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. If you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Go ahead. I'll ask later.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we're going to try to contain
ourselves and have one time to speak, not that we can't interrupt, and
I certainly will bow to that, but it is now 2:00, and we have yet to
hear from the property owners or the neighboring property owners,
and they each get an hour each. So if I could ask the property owner
to see if there are any questions, your time is limited to 10 minutes.
And if you would please identify yourself. Thank you.
MR. LINCOLN: Thank, Madam Chair. Robert Lincoln here
for the property owner, the Grider Family Trust.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. LINCOLN: And so I want to be clear on a couple of
things that you said first. The C-3 zone district, eating places, I
think, is Use 31 in a list of 96 or 97 uses; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: And normally wouldn't a comparable use be
looking at whether or not the list of uses that are actually set out in
the code and comparing a new use to what's actually in the code as
opposed to the list of what's in the SIC code; isn't that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: So if you could do me a favor, can you read
the description for SIC 5812.
MR. BOSI: Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale
of prepared food and drinks for the on-premise or immediate
October 12, 2021
Page 148
consumption. Caterers, industrial, and institutional food service
establishments are also included in this industry.
MR. LINCOLN: Is a food truck park -- does a food truck park
meet that definition?
MR. BOSI: In my opinion, yes.
MR. LINCOLN: In your expert opinion, administering the
Land Development Code?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
MR. LINCOLN: And -- so let me just ask, because this is the
SIC codes, and all of the things that are in this specific list, they're
examples of establishments that meet that definition; isn't that
correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: And it's not necessarily an exhaustive list, is
it?
MR. BOSI: Staff would utilize this as the -- as the list of uses
that we would consider permitted uses within -- within the Land
Development Code, within the zoning district.
MR. LINCOLN: Well, does that mean that if somebody came
in and listed on a building permit or site plan that it wanted to do a
bistro that you'd require them to go through a comparable-use
determination if one hadn't been done?
MR. BOSI: I would say no.
MR. LINCOLN: You would interpret a bistro --
MR. BOSI: I would interpret the code -- a bistro to be similar
to a restaurant, similar to a coffee shop, similar to a place that served
food.
MR. LINCOLN: And, likewise, if -- I noticed, like, frozen
custard stand is up here, but there's no mention of frozen yogurt. So
if somebody came in for a TCBY, would you require them to go
through a comparable-use determination?
October 12, 2021
Page 149
MR. BOSI: No.
MR. LINCOLN: Okay. So the issue here is that the staff has a
lot of discretion to determine, when a particular application comes in,
whether or not it meets the definition and is consistent with that list
of examples; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Yes, that's correct.
MR. LINCOLN: And I'm just -- because I'm getting to an
alternate way from the way the staff approved it to look at what's
going on here. Because, as you said, a food truck park, it meets the
definition and, therefore, it is an eating place; isn't that correct?
MR. BOSI: An eating place, yes.
MR. LINCOLN: Okay. And if it's an eating place, then it's
permitted in the C-3 zoning district subject to the 6,000-square-foot
limitation; isn't that correct?
MR. BOSI: Staff has utilized the Hearing Examiner's
determination of a comparable-use determination that it says similar
to an eating place, that it would be eligible at the C-3 zoning district
to a limitation of 6,000 square feet.
MR. LINCOLN: And going to the list of considerations for the
modified --
MR. BOSI: Comparable-use determination.
MR. LINCOLN: Yes. If you'd put that back up. Isn't it true
that that was adopted mid November of last year?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: And this food truck park had its pre-app in
October or September of last year; isn't that correct?
MR. BOSI: I believe so.
MR. LINCOLN: And the zoning verification letter that was
issued was issued last October for this Isles of Capri Food Truck
Park; isn't that correct?
MR. BOSI: I believe that's the date of it.
October 12, 2021
Page 150
MR. LINCOLN: Okay. So those were all in place prior to that
list of -- that comparable-use determination list existing; isn't that
true?
MR. BOSI: Yes, from a timing perspective.
MR. LINCOLN: Okay. So -- and going to the entire question
of impacts -- and you may not be the right person in the staff to
address it. But once a food park is determined to be a permitted use,
if somebody comes in and requests it, they're going to have to go
through either Site Development Plan review or SIP review if it's an
existing site; isn't that correct?
MR. BOSI: That's the process any site would have to go
through.
MR. LINCOLN: Right. And so all of the standards that are
required through that process will be applied to the food truck park at
that point; isn't that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: And that includes concurrency review?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: That includes traffic circulation for safety;
isn't that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: That would include all kinds of site
improvement like water/sewer, other kinds of things; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: And if they have outdoor seating as a group
of stands, they'll have to go through the special review for -- that
would apply to any restaurant that had outside seating and outside
entertainment; isn't that correct?
MR. BOSI: There's no special consideration for outdoor
seating. The seating is identified specifically to determine the
number of parking spaces that would be needed by the facility.
October 12, 2021
Page 151
MR. LINCOLN: Well, the site plan review process has a
special provision for restaurants that have outdoor service areas.
And, again, maybe you're not the right person to discuss that part of
the code. We'll either pick it up with someone else, or we'll present
when we get there.
But is there any reason to believe that a site plan for a food truck
park would not be reviewed for all the core issues like traffic, noise,
safety, utilities, all the other kinds of things that might be
compatibility issues?
MR. BOSI: The approval of any Site Development Plan
requires the satisfaction of all provisions of the Land Development
Code and development standards, so yes.
MR. LINCOLN: Just give me one second.
Let me just ask -- maybe it would be appropriate if Ms. Cook or
somebody else from the staff might address the site plan questions.
MS. COOK: Good afternoon. Jaime Cook, director of
Development Review.
MR. LINCOLN: Good afternoon. Ms. Cook, do you know
what I was referring to when I was talking about the outdoor seating
area standards?
MS. COOK: So the -- for outdoor seating, the only things that
staff reviews are outdoor entertainment such as noise and to ensure
that the parking can accommodate the outdoor seating.
MR. LINCOLN: But it requires that the site plan define where
all the outdoor seating areas are going to be located?
MS. COOK: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: And the number of seats?
MS. COOK: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: And their location?
MS. COOK: Yes.
MR. LINCOLN: And the -- if there's outdoor entertainment,
October 12, 2021
Page 152
the buffering and the configuration can be looked at and increased if
it's going to be a problem?
MS. COOK: Configuration, hours of operation, yes.
MR. LINCOLN: And so -- and do you know whether all those
things were done and applied to the Isles of Capri Food Truck Park?
MS. COOK: Yes. All of the Land Development Code
standards for this zoning district for this particular food truck park
have been met.
MR. LINCOLN: So -- so outdoor entertainment was suggested
for that site plan; is that correct?
MS. COOK: Correct. I believe the hours of operation were
until 10:00 p.m.
MR. LINCOLN: Okay. So all of those standards and all of
those considerations are part of the approval for this -- for the Site
Development Plan for this food truck park?
MS. COOK: Correct.
MR. LINCOLN: Okay. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Right on time.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just have a couple questions for you,
and I'm going to ask to put something on the visualizer, so I may
have to get a little close to him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you identify yourself.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich on
behalf of -- I guess I'm the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Neighbor.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- appellant or I'm the neighboring
property, however I'm referred to today.
A couple of things. I believe in one of your earlier slides you
said that the correct process that was to be followed for the one food
truck park that was going through in 2016 was a conditional-use
process, correct?
October 12, 2021
Page 153
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And the code actually -- the
jurisdiction that the Hearing Examiner had was under the conditional
use uses within the C-4 zoning district, correct?
MR. BOSI: That's one of the ones that were cited, one of the
findings, yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But as far as the jurisdiction it says, the
Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear this pursuant to Section
2.03, and that's a conditional use, correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not a permitted use, correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So the Hearing Examiner was
considering a conditional use on a specific piece of property on
Bayshore, correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's -- okay. What's a conditional
use?
MR. BOSI: A conditional use is a use that is allowed for in a
zoning district, but because of the external effects, there is concern
about surrounding property owners, so an evaluation of the
surrounding properties -- and I thought I had that here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It is there somewhere. I'm not sure
where.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I have it as part of my
presentation. But is it fair to say a conditional use is a use that's
allowed in a zoning district but not on every piece of property within
that zoning district?
MR. BOSI: It could be determined if there was incompatibility
issues that have been cited. So, yes, it's not permitted per se. You
have to go through a conditional-use process to evaluate the effects it
October 12, 2021
Page 154
has upon the surrounding property.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's a public-hearing process,
correct?
MR. BOSI: Public-hearing process, absolutely.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, there's been no public-hearing
process for the food truck park on Isles of Capri, correct?
MR. BOSI: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, you were asked to look at some
language in the SIC code as it pertains to major group 58. May I
come over?
MR. BOSI: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you want to put it on the
visualizer?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. This is my underlining.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You need to be on the mic. Is there
a mic behind you? Mr. Callahan?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you okay with me being this close
to you?
MR. BOSI: Absolutely, Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that.
Now, eating places is 5812, and it's within major group 58,
correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, you made the determination that
mobile food trucks are, in fact, eating places, correct?
MR. BOSI: The Hearing Examiner did.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But you're -- you're relying upon a
Hearing Examiner who said eating places are, in fact -- mobile food
truck parks are eating places?
MR. BOSI: By code, I am the staff of the Hearing Examiner;
yes, I did.
October 12, 2021
Page 155
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, under 58, it says -- would you
read what I underlined.
MR. BOSI: Mobile food and dairy wagons are classified in
Indice 5963.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So, in fact, when you said that food
trucks are part of 5812, the actual category says they're in a different
SIC code, correct?
MR. BOSI: The zoning district -- or the category, yes, and I
would point out that that's a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district.
MR. YOVANOVICH: As a mobile food truck, correct?
MR. BOSI: Well, it says "mobile," yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, what staff, in fact, approved were
nine permanent food trucks, correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: With two bars, correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And outdoor seating?
MR. BOSI: That's contained in the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: With a band shell dance floor area,
correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And you're telling me that's the same as
the food trucks that are out here on Friday afternoons that come and
serve -- sometimes they're tacos, sometimes it's coffee. Is it your
opinion that a food truck that's mobile that's temporary is the same
thing as a permanent food truck establishment that is found on
Bayshore? Because now we know what a food truck park is. We
didn't know what a food truck park was in 2016. And you're saying
what is on Bayshore that has a bar, permanent food trucks are
allowed as a matter of right on every piece of C-3, C-4, and C-2
parcel of property; is that your testimony?
October 12, 2021
Page 156
MR. BOSI: First, I would have to say I don't remember ever
comparing a food truck park to the food truck parks -- or the food
trucks that would come outside the government center. So
that -- you may to -- you may need to retract that. I did not say that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking you. You said we
would not be here if these trucks were mobile. If they were mobile
food trucks --
MR. BOSI: I said we would not be here if these trucks were
stands.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Stands.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Were stands, okay. Would we be
here -- I'll take it back. I will point out where staff previously
opined that mobile food trucks were considered to be what occurs at
the county fair and would require a conditional-use application. I'll
put that on the visualizer during my presentation.
MR. BOSI: Staff's position is the determination of the Hearing
Examiner in 2016 established a new use within the zoning district
based upon the specific language that was contained within his
determination that affirmed the zoning verification letter that was
stated by the planning manager that determined that the requested use
is comparable and compatible to the other permitted uses in the
district and is, therefore, a permitted use. The Hearing Examiner
made that determination, and staff has acted upon that determination.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Mike -- I'm sorry. Mr. Bosi, isn't
the typical process when a new use becomes a permitted use in a
zoning district to amend the Land Development Code to specifically
identify where those permitted uses are to occur?
MR. BOSI: No. The way that that works is contained within
the comparable-use determination. This says, if you want to include
a new use within your zoning district, you go through a
comparable-use determination. You compare that use that's being
October 12, 2021
Page 157
proposed against a use that exists, and if it's determined, then it's an
allowed use in that -- in that zoning district. Anywhere in that
zoning district it applies within the geographic portion of this county.
That's what the comparable-use determination states that was adopted
in 2020.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But we haven't had a comparable-use
determination on this particular piece of property, correct?
MR. BOSI: On this particular property, no. We utilized the
precedent of the 2016 hearing decision, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I do believe you offered
that one page as --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll make a copy, and I'll get it to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sherry's right here. She can make a
copy of this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, be gentle with my already broken
book.
MR. LINCOLN: I'd like not only a copy, but a copy of the
cover page and the page that --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're going to need -- I'm
sorry. There's no discussion from the audience, all right. If you
want to request something, come up to the microphone and request it.
Please don't stand up and --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- if I may, let me clarify on the
record for Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln, the title of the book is the
Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987. The specific page
I was referencing, so you have no doubt that it was from this book, is
Page 328, and I will ask that copies be made -- how many -- does
everybody -- 10 copies, 15 copies. How many?
MS. GRECO: I'll make 20.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I will do that.
October 12, 2021
Page 158
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Two pages.
MR. YOVANOVICH: One page. It's one page.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One page and the cover.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And the cover.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And the cover. All yours.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So that's two.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've never done good -- strong on math.
Is it my turn to present, or are we done --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It is your turn, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Would it be appropriate to take Terri's
break early?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you use the
microphone.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you for correcting me. Would it
be appropriate to have the court reporter's break early so I don't go 11
minutes and get interrupted?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that would be very
appropriate. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When are we coming back?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry. We'll come back at 2:29,
ten minutes from now.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 2:30.
(A brief recess was had from 2:19 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.)
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. We will
continue, and now we're going to hear from Mr. Yovanovich for the
neighboring property owner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Should I wait till people get seated, or
October 12, 2021
Page 159
should I just get started?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Please begin.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the
record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of FCC Beach and Yacht Club,
LLC.
With me today is the president of that organization, or entity,
Joe Parisi, my co-counsel is Glen Burhans, and Wayne Arnold is our
professional planner.
We are here to hear two appeals, and they're both related to a
food truck park that was approved on the orange piece -- orange
highlighted piece of property, and FCC owns the yellow piece of
property. Both parcels are zoned C-3 zoning, and we are clearly
affected by the official interpretation and the approval of the Site
Development Plan.
There are two appeals. The first appeal is to the site plan, and
that's under 250-58, which is an appeal of an administrative decision,
which is the decision issued by county staff to approve the Site
Development Plan. The second appeal is the appeal of the official
interpretation that Mike spent a lot of time going through and
explaining his rationale for why staff is of the opinion that the
Hearing Examiner's decision is now a countywide application. And
I'm going to spend a little bit of time explaining why that is -- that
position should not be upheld by you-all mainly because of the
breadth of that application and the limited notice to the public as to
what was happening in 2016 and also how food truck parks have
evolved, and we now know what they are in 2021. Staff, the
Hearing Examiner, and probably the general public did not truly
understand what a food truck park is.
First of all, I want to correct one thing. The Hearing Examiner
considered uses in the C-4 zoning district. C-4 is more intense than
C-3. So he was considering -- because, as you know in the overlay,
October 12, 2021
Page 160
you can go under the uses that are allowed in the base zoning, C-4, or
under the Bayshore Mixed-Use Overlay District, and as I'll get into in
greater detail, there was very limited application of that decision.
And as Mr. Bosi acknowledged, it was under the conditional uses of
the C-4 zoning district, not the permitted uses. So, by definition, the
Hearing Examiner was looking at a very limited application on a
specific piece of property, not a countywide general application.
I'm not going to bore you with the details of the code. They're
already in your agenda.
The way the Land Development Code is set up is if a use is not
specifically allowed in a zoning district, it's a prohibited use. There
is no question that food truck parks are not specifically identified in
any zoning district in Collier County. Food truck parks are not.
Yes, you can have a mobile food truck which is you go up and down
the street or you go in a location like at the county for a day and you
move on. They're mobile. They're not fixed. They're not in a
location where you can have ancillary uses like bars, dance floors,
live outdoor entertainment. That is not set out anywhere in your
code, and we are not here just because there are wheels on these.
We are here because the concept of a food truck is not in your
development order as has evolved and as we know it to be from the
Bayshore application.
Your current code in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts have a
catch-all under the permitted uses. For uses that are not specifically
identified, you have a process to go through a comparable-use
process before the Hearing Examiner or the Planning Commission.
It's a public-hearing process in both of those zoning districts. My
client and all of the residents of Isles of Capri were denied that
opportunity to go through a public-hearing process as required under
10.02.06.K.
Now, the neighboring property owner is going to say, well, that
October 12, 2021
Page 161
section didn't apply when we were asking for a zoning verification
letter. It did apply when they actually submitted a Site Development
Plan. But they're saying they want to go under the old rule, and they
claim that the zoning verification letter process was the process that
they had to follow in order to have a use that's not specifically
identified in a zoning district allowed on a piece of property through
the zoning verification letter process. And I will take you through
what that process was, and I will show you that they didn't meet that
process either.
At the time they obtained their zoning verification letter, this is
what the code said. It said, under the permitted-uses section of C-3,
any other commercial or professional use which is comparable to C-1
uses. You can ask for that as a permitted use. Restaurants, food
truck parks, eating establishments are not in your C-1 zoning district.
That's offices, professional offices. So they couldn't get a
permitted-use process through 10.08.00. 10.08.00 was the
conditional-use process. The code that was in effect at the time, they
got their ZVL that says you can't get a permitted use for what you
want to do.
What do you have to do? You have to go to the conditional-use
section for C-3, and it says, for anything above C-1 you go through
the conditional-use process. They didn't go through the
conditional-use process. They decided to obtain a zoning
verification letter.
Now, Mike -- I asked Mike the question. I'm sorry. I asked
Mr. Bosi the question, what's a conditional use? This is what your
code says the conditional use is. It's basically uses that are okay in
C-3 but not on every piece of property. They're to be controlled by
number, location, or relation to the neighborhood. That's why you
go through a conditional-use process. Is it appropriate on that
specific piece of property? No conditional use occurred.
October 12, 2021
Page 162
Your code says in order to assure compliance with your Growth
Management Plan and the purposes of the LDC, when you have that
language for rules of interpretation, if a zoning district has language
that says where the list of permitted uses contains the phrase "any
other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses of
that zoning district," today you go through the comparable-use
process in 10.02.06.K.
The property owner will tell you that doesn't apply to them
because 10.02.06.K didn't apply when they got their zoning
verification letter. It did apply when they submitted their Site
Development Plan application, but it didn't apply when they obtained
their zoning verification letter.
Now, I think some of you are new, but some of you have been in
Collier County forever. The reason this language is in here -- and I'll
show you the predecessor language. The reason this language is in
here, because the Board of County Commissioners didn't want the
county staff to make comparable-use determinations. They wanted
to -- they, the Board, wanted to be involved in that process, and that
process, prior to the adoption of the comparable-use process, was that
the determination as to whether or not the use is permitted in the
district shall be made through the process outlined in interpretations
of that LDC 1.06.00. 1.06.00 is the official interpretation process.
The official interpretation process would require a property
owner who says I'm comparable or I'm similar to submit for a formal
interpretation of the code through your staff. Staff then notifies the
property owner and lets the world know there's an official
interpretation out there that you can appeal if you're an affected
property owner. We went through that official interpretation process
to determine whether, in C-2 and C-3 zoning districts, food truck
parks are, in fact, permitted use. We didn't like the answer, and
we're here appealing it. We followed the process.
October 12, 2021
Page 163
They never went through that process for the Isles of Capri Food
Truck Park. They have never complied with the code in effect either
when they obtained their ZVL or when they came forward and
submitted an actual Site Development Plan application.
The requirements for a comparable-use determination are very
much site specific. You identify the property, you go through all the
operating hours. By the way, they could start live music at 7:00 a.m.
and go until 10:00 p.m., according to what I reviewed on the Site
Development Plan. And, specifically, it talks about the effect on the
neighboring properties. That's an analysis that staff admitted they
never did on this particular piece of property. Did it on the fly just
now, but they never did the detailed comparable-use process.
Now, the trust attorney's going to tell you, we did a ZVL. We
got a verification letter. That's what we needed to do, not the
comparable-use process. Well, let's look at what the ZVL process
was at the time they applied for a ZVL. Under comparable
use -- because everybody admits food truck parks are not in your
code. You've got to do a comparable-use determination.
The staff's going to tell you that the HEX decision was the
comparable-use determination for the entire county back in 2016. I
disagree. And I'll show you, your staff actually did do a
comparable-use determination, and it says, to be -- first of all, it only
applies to PUDs. We're in straight zoning. So their zoning
verification letter that they obtained doesn't apply. They had to go
through the conditional-use process that I showed you earlier,
because that's what the code said.
For straight zoning, if a use doesn't exist, you go through the
conditional-use process. But if you want to say somehow they could
use the PUD process or the zoning verification letter process, it says
that the -- to be effective, the zoning verification letter shall be
approved by the BCC by resolution at an advertised public hearing.
October 12, 2021
Page 164
There has been no advertised public hearing of the zoning
verification letter that the trust obtained from your staff.
The code that was in effect at the time required one hearing in
front of the BCC or Hearing Examiner to affirm a zoning verification
letter for a comparable/compatible use within a PUD. But let's just
say it applied to straight zoning. They never went through that
process.
The code was very specific and clear that the residents of Collier
County were to be notified when the Land Development Code was
being interpreted to apply to a use that's not in the code that was
going to be a public notification so people would know that we are
now going to have food truck parks throughout Collier County in C-2
and C-3 and C-4 and C-5 property. That never happened.
The old comparable-use process you will see talks about -- and
this was the ZVL requirements at the time and is now the
comparable-use process at the time, but you will see -- you get
specific on the piece of property. I don't know if you can see the
arrow, but these are application requirements that have always been
in your code, even when you had the ZVL process and now the
comparable-use process. They've always been specific to a specific
piece of property. They've never been a general application
countywide for a comparable-use process.
The next slide is a little bit clearer for you to be able to see what
I was highlighting. But in today's 10.02.0.K -- 06.K provisions, it's a
site-specific analysis, but the trust doesn't want to go through a
site-specific analysis. The trust does not want to go through a
public-hearing process.
Your staff originally got it right. In March 17, 2021, when the
SDP was going through the process, they said, you've got to do a
comparable-use determination. That's what they said you have to
do. You asked a very -- I think it was Commissioner McDaniel
October 12, 2021
Page 165
asked the question, why did they not go through that process?
Because the applicant didn't want to. The applicant said, no, no, no,
I'm going to fight. I'm going to give you some reasons why I
shouldn't have to do a comparable-use determination.
And, ultimately, they prevailed upon staff, and staff removed
that comment, but not until staff told all of your executive
coordinators that a comparable-use process was going to be required.
Every one of your -- I keep call them aides. But every one of your
executive assistants/coordinators knew that there was going to be a
public-hearing process. And, in fact, one of -- Commissioner Solis'
aide actually sent out a notice to an affected -- Mr. Coin -- I have the
e-mail. I provided it to the Clerk -- letting him know there was
going to be a public-hearing process. Don't worry, you're going to
go through a comparable-use process, and you'll be able to show up
and explain why you think this use should or should not be allowed
on the Isles of Capri.
For some reason that requirement was eliminated. I don't know
why it was eliminated. I was never told it was eliminated. I had
filed at that point a comparable use -- an official interpretation
asking. I had inserted myself on behalf of my client about the SDP.
I didn't know that that changed. Shame on me. I guess I should
have asked for follow-up review letters. But it came out.
And then staff issues this letter to Mr. Davies on May 7th.
Coincidentally, a letter was issued after Mr. Davies responded "we
don't have to do this anymore" in response to the previous comment.
But your staff acknowledges in this letter to Mr. Davies that the
SIC code doesn't address your use. It says, in fact, the SIC
code -- SIC has not been updated since 1987 and can, at times, be less
than sufficient in identifying and categorizing new businesses in our
community such as the increasingly popular food truck business. It
doesn't say food truck park. It says "food truck business."
October 12, 2021
Page 166
For this reason, when necessary, it is useful in our
determinations to review and consider the more contemporary
NAICS to identify that categorization of similar uses. Your staff
determined a similar use. Now, similar is a synonym for
comparable.
So your staff didn't want to use the word "comparable." They
used the word "similar." But they made a comparable-use
determination on their own on May 7th that they don't have -- that the
property owner does not have -- so your staff determined it was a
similar use. Your staff does not have the authority in your code to
administratively determine a use is similar or comparable. There's a
process, and the process was not followed to the detriment of my
client and the other residents on Isles of Capri.
Now, let's talk about what did we all know when the Hearing
Examiner in 2016 was considering a food truck park. This is the
notice that went out to the whole world. You read this notice, and it
says it's specifically for a parcel of property on Bayshore Drive.
Now, how -- if I'm reading that, how do I know to tell Mr. Parisi,
guess what, there's a decision that's about to be made that's going to
affect your property on Isles of Capri. No way from this notice am I
notified that I'm going to have a countywide application.
What did the Hearing Examiner say in the decision? First
paragraph, the subject property is located approximately one-quarter
mile south. How do I know, if I'm living on Isles of Capri, that I
need to appeal this decision because it's now going to be a permitted
use throughout Collier County? I don't know that. There's no way I
could know that.
I read -- you've seen this section. Staff referred to it. It says,
you're going to go through this process right here, that it's a
conditional use. It's a conditional use that the Hearing Examiner,
candidly, should have held a conditional-use hearing on, but held
October 12, 2021
Page 167
some type of a hearing authorizing what was allowed on Bayshore,
but he didn't say it was going to be applied everywhere. The
decision: The Hearing Examiner hereby approves petition blah,
blah, blah on the property located at the intersection of Bayshore
Drive and Becca Avenue. How does the public know this is now
going to be a countywide application?
There's the legal description of the property. If you want to see
the actual -- what's legally described. The public has no idea that
what just happened was the Hearing Examiner amended the Land
Development Code to now say food truck parks are permitted uses
throughout Collier County.
The requested action was for a specific piece of property, the
geographic location. This is your staff report to the HEX that he was
considering at the time, the subject site. It says, staff also recognizes
that the Bayshore CRA encourages pedestrian-friendly business,
human-scale buildings in the neighborhood commercial subdistrict,
therefore, for the compatibility analysis, which compatibility is
important, according to your staff. Staff has limited the uses to the
Bayshore neighborhood commercial subdistrict. I don't know how
you would determine that this is going to apply throughout Collier
County.
It was signed by Bosi. He understood the limited application of
what was occurring when he signed this document.
I'm going to have Wayne Arnold come up and go through his
expert planning opinion as to why food truck parks are not permitted
throughout your entire county or our entire county and not
comparable to eating establishments, that they're dramatically
different.
And just -- and not to steal any of Mr. Arnold's comments, but
you're the only jurisdiction that I know of -- I practice in the City of
Naples, I practice in Bonita Springs, I practice in Estero, and I
October 12, 2021
Page 168
practice in Lee County. None of them allow food truck parks as a
matter of right. They all -- some of them don't allow them at all, and
the others allow them through either the special exception or the
conditional-use process.
And with that, I'll have Mr. Arnold --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Before you step down, Commissioner
Solis, your name is here. Did you have a question of
Mr. Yovanovich?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I'm not sure why that's on.
Sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So before
Mr. Yovanovich steps aside, does anyone have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm a
certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. I've been a
certified planner for over 30 years now, and I've addressed this board
on many occasions and been accepted as an expert in planning and
zoning matters. I'm familiar with your codes and ordinances, and I
also practice in multiple jurisdictions, essentially all of Lee County
and all of Collier County.
And the food truck park is something that's been addressed in
some form or fashion by our American Planning Association
Organization trying to wrestle with what that use is and how to define
it. But most of the codes in this area have not defined them. Bonita
is probably the most current in which last year they adopted a specific
code that deals with temporary mobile food vendors, and then they
also defined what a mobile vendor food park would be.
And, you know, like Collier County, there was never a specific
definition. They don't -- they, in that jurisdiction, don't use the SIC
code that we do. But having said that, in my professional opinion, a
October 12, 2021
Page 169
food truck park is not a food truck. I mean, a food truck is a licensed
motor vehicle. It's not a permanent structure.
As Mr. Yovanovich mentioned, you know, the C-3 zoning
district has specific standards. And the way this food truck park was
evaluated, it was based on cumulative impact of their nine food
trucks as well as some other structures, but the minimum building
size for the C-3 zoning district is 700 square feet on a ground floor.
And if you accept a food truck as a temporary vehicle and not as
a building, the primary use of the site as a food truck wouldn't rise to
your standard, because I don't know a food truck that is 700 square
feet. And it's not a building. And that's important because while
we've talked about restaurant, eating places, et cetera, the definition
of a restaurant, for instance, that I have on the screen -- these are
from your Land Development Code -- a restaurant is a building or
part of a building where food is offered for sale to the public, but it
also defines building in your code, and that talk abouts a structure
having a roof supported by columns or walls.
So we know a food truck cannot be a building and, in my
opinion as a professional planner, it's not a restaurant and it's not like
a restaurant. And then, of course, if you look to your code and try to
find out what a food truck is or a mobile food vendor or some other
phrase that is used around other jurisdictions, you find nothing to that
effect. So, in my opinion, it is not a permitted use anywhere in your
code.
But having looked at your code and understanding your code
and the sequential changes you've made for the comparable-use
determination, you know, I certainly concur with Mr. Yovanovich
that you don't transport a 2016 comparable-use determination for a
specific piece of property that has not only a different zoning district
designation but certainly a different set of circumstances with regard
to its location.
October 12, 2021
Page 170
I mean, one of the most immediate things you'd find about
Bayshore Drive is it's a four-lane highway. It's not a small two-lane
collector road. And staff was evaluating this as part of your
redevelopment area, because one thing I will admit, the readings that
I've found on food truck parks is they can be integral to a
redevelopment area. They can be a catalyst because, one, they can
be part of special events, they can be part of the atmosphere of
creating more of an amusement entertainment district, and then the
evolution of food truck parks kind of grew out of the upper
Northwest Coast where it became a collection of, hey, let's put these
food trucks together. But I think that the distinction of a food truck
park is very different than a restaurant because, one, all the dining
occurs outside. There's typically an entertainment component that
all restaurants don't have.
In the instance of a food truck park, they're no longer portable.
They typically are there for a period of time and, of course, the only
building component seems to be that there's a bar which, if you are a
temporary truck parked in a parking lot after hours or during the
lunch hour, you don't typically and probably would not have a bar
and, in fact, many locations prohibit alcohol sales as a component of
a food truck as a temporary use.
So the distinction is very, very different. And, in my opinion,
there's only two ways to get to a food truck park approval in Collier
County, and one would be amending your Land Development Code
to put in standards and definitions for what a food truck or a food
truck park is, and then you amend the various zoning districts to
determine where that would be either the appropriate permitted use or
conditional use.
And then, of course, the other avenue that we've talked about is
the comparable-use determination process that was utilized for the
Bayshore Food Truck Park but not utilized for the Isles of Capri Food
October 12, 2021
Page 171
Truck Park or any of the other zoning verification letters that were
issued that staff mentioned in their presentation.
So I would argue that the comparable-use determination process
that was used for the Bayshore Food Truck Park was for a specific
location based on a certain set of circumstances for that particular site
and was not meant to apply countywide because, if you do that,
you're going to end up with this everywhere that you allow an eating
place, and I don't think that was the Hearing Examiner's intent when
he issued his opinion for the one single property on Bayshore Drive.
What happens -- when you look, this is a zoning map from
Collier County. It listed PUDs and other zoning in Collier County.
So, you know, a pushpin's going to drop, and it's going to show you,
so -- where I can have these commercial PUDs and C-2 through C-5
zoning. And this doesn't represent just individual pieces of property.
These are sort of the areas that have that zoning.
So if you make a decision that a food truck park is a comparable
use to eating places and is allowed throughout the county, this is the
scenario you can have. And I'm not going to tell you that every food
truck park is going to locate next to another food truck park, but
Bonita thought they could because Bonita has a standard to go
through their special exception, which is comparable to your
conditional-use process, and they even have locational criteria that
limits how close they can be to one another because they recognize
that there are impacts associated with having a collection of people.
Is it two trucks? Is it four trucks? Is it nine trucks? Is it 20 trucks?
They want to know, and they want to know what the impact may be
on surrounding property owners. So they established a
public-hearing process to do that, and that's what I'm suggesting that
you need to do since you don't have a defined term "food truck park"
in your code.
So that's what I have in terms of my analysis, and just to build
October 12, 2021
Page 172
on what Mr. Yovanovich did say, for instance, Bonita Springs took
the step to initiate food truck park changes to their code. Lee
County just, as a matter of fact, last week directed their staff to go
and start looking at this issue of food truck parks and food trucks
because all they allow are for the very temporary event related things
right now. They would not allow a permanent food truck park. The
Village of Estero would not allow a permanent food truck. City of
Naples does not allow permanent food truck parks. So with that, I'll
conclude.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Any questions for
Mr. Arnold from the Board?
(No response.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: Before I continue on for our wrap-up, I
have to correct something I said on the record. I should -- I
misspoke. Food is offered from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but the
music is from noon till 10:00. I earlier said 7:00, but that was
incorrect, and I wanted to clarify that for the record.
I know that when you -- we need to look specifically -- if you
were to further drop pins, Mr. Bosi pointed out that Isles of Capri is
all zoned C-3. Isles of Capri has 122 platted C-3 lots. Isles of
Capri, if Mr. Bosi's interpretation or the county staff's interpretation
is correct, could have many food truck parks located on that. And,
in fact, you're probably going to see a plan that they could do three
restaurants on the existing property they have, and we're all for it.
Do three indoor restaurants.
But those three restaurants could be three food truck parks under
their interpretation. There could be multiple food truck parks just on
the Isles of Capri. It's waterfront. It would be a great entertainment
area to attract people from all over Collier County to come and enjoy
an entertainment district that is not what I believe the Hearing
Examiner intended when he issued his opinion, nor do I think it's
October 12, 2021
Page 173
what staff intended when they wrote their staff report, and nor do I
think it was what was intended when the applicant for that particular
case was asking for a food truck park on that specific piece of
property.
In summary, your staff doesn't have the authority to amend the
Land Development Code through their zoning verification letter
process. The Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to
amend the Land Development Code through the zoning verification
letter or the comparables process. Only the Board of County
Commissioners has the ability to amend the Land Development
Code.
Only you have the ability to amend the Land Development Code
to identify where food truck parks will be allowed either as permitted
or conditional uses. That's your legislative prerogative. The
Hearing Examiner didn't have that prerogative, and neither does staff.
There's no question that the Land Development Code does not
specifically identify food truck parks as a permitted use or a
conditional use in any zoning district. It allows food trucks to drive
through Collier County and serve food, but it doesn't allow them to
assemble in one area and have a bar. It doesn't allow that. That's
not what your C-3 zoning district allows.
I showed you Section 2.02.03. I've hated this provision in your
code since the day I went in the private sector and started working for
property owners, but it's there. If the use is not specifically allowed,
it is prohibited. You either do a PUD or you amend the code to
allow the use to be there. But the code has always said, if it's not
specifically there, it's prohibited.
The HEX decision clearly was only intended to apply to the
Bayshore property. There was no way the general public would
have known that that decision was going to be a countywide
application. There was no notice to the public that that's what was
October 12, 2021
Page 174
going to happen. There was no opportunity for the public to speak.
Frankly, there was no opportunity for the Board to say, I think you've
gone too far in approving these countywide.
My client has been denied the due process it is entitled to under
the Land Development Code. Either they should have gotten a
conditional use through the then existing zoning at the time they
applied for their zoning verification letter, or they should have gotten
a comparable-use determination as required under the current code
that was in effect when they applied -- actually applied for their Site
Development Plan.
We're asking you to grant our appeals. Grant our appeal on the
official determination and determine that food trucks are not
permitted uses in the C-2 and C-3 zoning district and grant our appeal
that the Site Development Plan was improperly approved; direct your
staff to rescind the approval of the Site Development Plan, and
reinstate the condition they originally had on March 17, 2021; that
they go through a comparable-use determination process in front of
the Hearing Examiner; give my client, give the residents of Isles of
Capri the opportunity to appear in front of the Hearing Examiner; and
let the Hearing Examiner decide were the comparable-use criteria
satisfied or not.
That's our request. We think that's what should have happened
all along. And with that, that's our presentation. I think we're well
under the hour we were allocated. I'll reserve that time possibly for
rebuttal when we get to that stage, and with that, we thank you for
your attention.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I see no questions from the Board.
So I'd like the zoning director to see if -- Mr. Bosi, if you have any
questions of Mr. Yovanovich. You may want to take this podium
over here.
MR. BOSI: I actually wanted to use the other podium because I
October 12, 2021
Page 175
was going to use some of the exhibits, but I can probably do it from
memory. That's okay.
I remember -- during the questioning of myself, I believe
Mr. Yovanovich pointed out the SIC code which helps determine, by
our Land Development Code, uses in zoning districts -- designates
mobile food vendors as 5963. And, Rich, are you aware that 5963 is
a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I am aware that mobile food
trucks -- mobile food trucks are, in fact, allowed in C-3.
MR. BOSI: Are you aware that the approved SDP only has pad
locations for food trucks to be able to be driven to and removed from
those locations? And I think -- would you agree that that would be a
mobile food truck?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me answer -- let me explain my
answer --
MR. BOSI: That -- oh, I'm sorry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if I can. What you -- what you have
described is a permanent park that also includes the bar, the two bars,
and that it is a permanent location for mobile food trucks. Food
trucks are allowed in the C-3 zoning district. They are not allowed
to be accumulated in one area and have a bar supporting those
activities. That's the question I thought I was hearing. That's the
question I answered.
MR. BOSI: Are you citing a code reference that would prohibit
that arrangement?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, actually, I'm citing a zoning
verification letter issued by your staff, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bellows, in
2016 related to the original food truck park discussion for the
Bayshore parcel where they specifically said SIC Code 5963 applies
October 12, 2021
Page 176
to the direct selling of food and does not apply to the circumstances
that was being considered for the food truck park at Bayshore. And
if you would like me, I will put that in the record. It's a letter dated
April 6th, 2006, where it specifically said 5963 does not apply to the
use that was --
MR. BOSI: Please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that was being sought.
MR. BOSI: Please. Were you at the public hearing that
affirmed that letter?
MR. YOVANOVICH: This letter is a different letter, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Were you at the public hearing that affirmed that
letter?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's only an attached to the zoning
verification hearing.
MR. BOSI: The question was, was there a public hearing that
affirmed that letter?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
MR. BOSI: You have mentioned that a zoning verification
letter needs affirmation by the Hearing Examiner or the BZA. So if
that hasn't been verified by the zoning director, by the BZA, or the
HEX, that letter -- that letter is nonbinding. So when you made the
description that a mobile food truck -- a mobile food truck is
comparable to 596 [sic], a permitted use in the very zoning district
we're dealing with, it seems like that is an inconsistency within your
objection.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mike, all I can say is the letter was
signed by Ray Bellows, John Kelly, and you were copied as the
zoning director where your staff determined that what -- 5963 is not a
permitted use in the C-4 zoning district in the configuration of a park.
MR. BOSI: Could we confirm for the record that there was no
public hearing associated with affirming that letter?
October 12, 2021
Page 177
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll confirm that there was no
public hearing on any of the zoning verification letters that you've
issued related to the Isles of Capri, sure, I'll confirm it as well.
MR. BOSI: There was no zoning verification letter that was
affirmed by a hearing for the Isles of Capri, I agree with that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And I guess I'll agree that
nobody brought this forward. But it wasn't your staff's opinion.
MR. BOSI: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sherry will make some copies for
you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you done with me?
MR. BOSI: I've got nothing else.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do -- I guess I've got to stay here and
see if --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- Mr. Lincoln has questions for me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Lincoln has any questions?
MR. LINCOLN: We do not. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Seeing no -- oh, Commissioner
LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mr. Bosi? Mr. Bosi, I just
have a question for you. So it was brought up in Mr. Yovanovich's
statements about the March 17th letter which basically disapproved,
you know, for lack of a better term, or gave more detail as to -- for
the food truck park to be approved. I'm just wondering what
changed between the March 17th letter and then May 7th. Because I
got those letters as well. And when I saw the March 17th letter, it
seemed pretty clear. What were the big changes that all of a sudden
just instant -- I say instantaneously, it took a couple months -- but
October 12, 2021
Page 178
reversed the entire, you know, county position?
MR. BOSI: I have to -- I was a professional planner for
Johnson Engineering at the time. I was not employed with the
county during the March 17th letter exchange. I cannot personally
speak to it with any certainty as to what the conditions were other
than assuming that a review of the full actions of this -- of Growth
Management, how we've treated food truck parks in the past were
reviewed, and a determination was made to head in a different
direction. That's the only thing I could attest to. I have no specific
information that I feel comfortable being able to share, because I
wasn't there.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And you weren't in the
position on May 7th either, right, when that letter came out?
MR. BOSI: June 7th was my first day.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
So we're going to hear from Mr. Lincoln who's representing the
property owner of the properties, or Mr. Davies?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask Mr. Bosi one question
before they start?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm terribly sorry. I see your --
Mr. Bosi, we need you again.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, a couple questions.
So I think we all are in agreement that a food truck park is not
specifically referenced in the Land Development Code.
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the rule has been that if
something isn't specifically allowed as a permitted use, it's not
permitted.
October 12, 2021
Page 179
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Without going through a
conditional-use process or some other process.
MR. BOSI: Or a comparable-use determination --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or a comparable use.
MR. BOSI: -- provided for within the zoning district or the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. So the
comparable-use determination is confirmed by the Hearing Examiner
or who else? There's two options.
MR. BOSI: The BZA or the Hearing Examiner.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: BZA or the Hearing Examiner.
And in this instance, we're relying upon a comparable-use
determination from 2016 that essentially added food truck park to a
permitted use under C-3; that's kind of what we're doing in a
nutshell?
MR. BOSI: The Bayshore neighborhood commercial zoning
district --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: -- as well as the C-4 district.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: C-4 zoning, okay.
MR. BOSI: But specifically in the staff report the focus was on
the Bayshore neighborhood commercial.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. In order to amend the LDC
to include a permitted use, what's required? I mean --
MR. BOSI: Either a rezoning or --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, a Land Development Code
amendment?
MR. BOSI: A Land Development Code amendment --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Correct.
MR. BOSI: -- or --
October 12, 2021
Page 180
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or rezoning, okay.
MR. BOSI: Or a comparable-use determination. A
comparable-use determination --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- is a process to add a use to a zoning district or a
PUD.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So if we're going to rely
upon prior comparable-use determinations to, essentially, amend
what is allowed under a current zoning district, how would anyone
that's applying for an SDP figure that out? Where would that be
contained that that now is a permitted use under a zoning
classification?
MR. BOSI: It would have to be prior knowledge of the
comparable-use determination happening.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So nobody would be able to just,
like you can with the zoning code, C-4 permitted uses, here's the list?
MR. BOSI: Yes, correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Are there any other
provisions that you're aware of where a permitted use under the Land
Development Code can change or be added to a zoning classification
with just the approval of the Hearing Examiner? Is there anything
else like this comparable-use determination?
MR. BOSI: No. This is a unique process within the LDC.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. If we wanted to add food
truck parks as a permitted use under C-3 or C-4 or any zoning
classification, that would come back as a Land Development Code
amendment, and it would require public hearings and how many
votes of the Commission?
MR. BOSI: Adding the use would be a supermajority.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
October 12, 2021
Page 181
Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Davies, the floor is yours.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could have a
moment just to switch over the PowerPoints.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, again. Madam Chair,
Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record, Noel Davies with
the law firm of Davies Duke.
Our argument is simple: If a food truck park isn't an eating
place, what is it? It's a place where you go to eat. This whole thing
doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.
The other side, respectfully, is trying to overcomplicate this
because simplicity and common sense are bad for their case.
Rich, respectfully, is trying to manufacture these appeal
applications and these unnecessary legal complexities to confuse and
distract you from that very basic premise that a food truck park is an
eating place. It's a place where you go to eat.
Your staff has done an excellent job here and, appropriately,
they've categorized food truck park many times before as an eating
place, as they should. It's what it is. What staff did was proper, it
was correct, and it's something they have done and do on a regular
basis.
Most importantly, what staff did is not contrary to your code.
And that is the applicable legal standard for this hearing, which you
haven't heard about yet.
It is appellant's burden, Mr. Yovanovich's client, their burden to
prove that what staff did is contrary to code not whether or not an
amendment should have occurred, but that what staff did was against
your code. It's my position that they cannot prove that and they have
not proved that by the evidence and testimony they've shared with
you today.
What your staff does all the time is look at a proposed use,
October 12, 2021
Page 182
determine if it fits into any of the use categories of the subject zoning
district, like eating place. Once that's confirmed, they then proceed
with the processing of an SDP application. That's exactly what
happened here. It's routine. It's consistent with your codes and the
county's regular practice for many years. And the only reason this
one is being questioned is because the developer next door doesn't
like my client and tried, unsuccessfully, to purchase my client's
property. That's what's really going on today. That's why we're
here in front of you today, and that's why you've never heard a matter
like this before.
My client did everything by the letter of the code since day one,
and staff did everything right by the letter of the code as well.
We went to a pre-application meeting, just like usual. Staff
determined that food truck park was permitted as an eating place.
We got a zoning verification letter. Staff determined that food
truck park was permitted as an eating place.
We applied for our Site Development Plan, and staff issued their
first comment letter, food truck park was permitted as an eating
place.
Mr. Yovanovich then intervened, without my knowledge, tried
to confuse staff. That confusion was corrected, and staff issued
Comment Letter No. 3. Food truck park was permitted as an eating
place.
Staff then issued a separate letter specifically clarifying food
truck park is permitted as an eating place. Long after my client
applied for its SDP, Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold then try to
confuse staff again by attempting to manufacture appellate rights
through the official interpretation process. Their request sought to
retroactively change -- retroactively change the long-standing
precedent, not just the 2016 Hearing Examiner decision, that food
truck park is permitted as an eating place.
October 12, 2021
Page 183
Staff appropriately rejected that request for official
interpretation, yet we're here today with their one final attempt to try,
yet again, to confuse you, to confuse staff, and, respectfully,
Commissioners, to put this board in the middle of all of that
confusion as well. With all due respect, Commissioners, don't take
the bait.
Staff also based their characterization of food truck park as an
eating place based on a series of other consistent decisions, not a
single decision -- you heard about these from Mr. Bosi -- as well as a
series of consistent determinations throughout the process within my
client's SDP application and zoning verification letter, all of which
were relied upon by my client in proceeding forward at each and
every juncture that I just walked you through. The essence of these
decisions is that food truck park is permitted as an eating place.
This is not a matter of improperly extending the Celebration
Park decision countywide. That is the trickery. That is Rich
misframing the issue to confuse you for the benefit of his client.
The issue is very simple: Is a food truck park an eating place?
It's a place where you go to eat.
You've got on your slide now the permitted-use list for the C-3
zoning district. What's listed here are really use categories rather
than specific singular uses with the SIC codes in parentheticals, and
you heard a little bit of testimony from staff about this.
Some examples: Business associations is a use category; it's
here on the slide. Essential services is a use category; it's here on the
slide. Eating places is a use category.
So when staff gets a new application in or a request for a zoning
verification letter, it's their job and regular practice to look through
this list, the C-3 permitted-use list, and see if the proposed use fits
within one of these categories. That's what they did here. They
said, okay, food truck park, what is that? Do we have a
October 12, 2021
Page 184
permitted-use category within the C-3 list that covers that? Yes,
eating place. Because it's a place where you go to eat.
Importantly, the C-3 permitted-use list doesn't specifically list
every single type of use that falls within the umbrella of eating
places.
For example, restaurant is not listed verbatim in your C-3
permitted-use list or in any of your zoning category permitted-use
lists. It's often thought of as an eating place because a restaurant is a
place where you go to eat, just like any number of the examples that
you saw earlier from Mr. Bosi are all places where you go to eat.
But that example list is not exhaustive. As you heard, that list was
written in 1987. Food truck park didn't exist in 1987, and that's a
living, breathing example list that's not exhaustive, that you can also
plug in your common sense to as staff did, could and should, to figure
out if the proposed use is a place where you go to eat.
Just because a use is not listed verbatim in your permitted-use
list does not mean that every single one of those uses requires a
comparable-use determination, but that's exactly what they're
arguing. They're arguing that because you don't see the words "food
truck park" listed verbatim, just like you don't see the word
"restaurant" listed verbatim, that means it's not an eating place;
you've got to go to get a comparable-use determination.
I agree that the words "food truck park" are not listed in the C-3
permitted-use list. They don't need to be because they fall within
that umbrella category of eating places, just like restaurant, just like
bistro, cafe, a pizzeria, any number of eating places, places where
you go to eat that are not listed verbatim in the C-3 permitted-use list.
If you allow Mr. Yovanovich's argument to overrule decades of
the county's process on how to determine if a use is permitted at the
staff level, including staff's very competent ability to use their
common sense to figure out if the proposed use fits within one of the
October 12, 2021
Page 185
use categories, you're going to be seeing a whole lot more
comparable-use determinations in front of this board even because
every single use that is not listed verbatim is going to have to have a
comparable-use determination.
Every new restaurant in town, for example, would have to go
through a full public hearing to get a comparable-use determination
because the word "restaurant" isn't listed in your code. That's how
absurd the argument is that the appellant is trying to trick you on, and
that is the trap that I don't want you to fall into, Commissioners.
Before we move on, I want to show you, again, this description
that I think Mr. Bosi hit on, but it's important to this idea of common
sense. So you've got a permitted-use list in C-3. It says eating
places. Then you've got in parentheses, 5812. You heard from
Mr. Bosi that's a reference to the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual, which is a planning tool. We call them SIC codes, S-I-C
codes, right? And you go there, and each of them has these
examples, but they also have a description.
I want to unpack this description for you. It's pretty simple, and
it requires a little common sense. Establishments, food truck park,
not a single food truck, is an establishment. It's a place primarily
engaged in the retail sale of prepared food and drinks for on-premise
or immediate consumption. It's a place where you go to eat.
And this description, just like the example, the non-exhaustive
example list, can and is used by staff on a regular basis to determine
whether or not the proposed use fits within one of the use categories
within the subject zoning district.
The other point appellant is trying to argue, which they haven't
gotten into much on the record here at the podium but it's within all
of their documents, and that's this improper sense that somehow a
food truck park is not regulated; that somehow there are no county
codes that govern what a food truck park is and can do. You heard a
October 12, 2021
Page 186
little bit about -- you heard a little bit from Ms. Cook, excuse me,
about that.
For the record, my client went through a 10-month SDP process
where over 100 documents were submitted, reviewed by staff in
detail, modified in accordance with staff's comments and the
governing code regulations, and then finally approved. On that
point, you're going to hear from our expert professional engineer,
Andrew Rath with Davidson Engineering, who is going to share with
you just how extensive your SDP process is and the number of
governing regulations applicable to this project.
Before Mr. Rath you'll hear briefly from my co-counsel, Robert
Lincoln, who you've heard from earlier today. As I think you're all
aware, based on appellant's pending lawsuit on this matter against the
county and against my client, irrespective of what happens today, I
expect everyone's next stop, unfortunately, is going to be the
courthouse. For those reasons, it is critically important that the
record and my client's appellate rights be preserved and protected.
And Mr. Lincoln is going to address you for a few moments about
that.
So Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Rath, and then you're going to hear from
our expert certified planner, Charles Thomas. Mr. Thomas has been
practicing planning in Collier County for over four decades here in
town, and he has specific experience with food truck parks. He's
going to show you in detail that a food truck park is exactly what it
sounds like, which is an eating place.
Following Mr. Thomas, I will return briefly to conclude our
presentation. And with that, Madam Chair, I'd like to invite
Mr. Lincoln to address you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Davies, I don't see any questions
for you from my board, but I believe Mr. Yovanovich has a question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just two, I think.
October 12, 2021
Page 187
MR. DAVIES: If I may, Madam Chair, I wasn't allowed to ask
questions in the middle of Mr. Yovanovich's presentation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I didn't know you asked. I'm sorry.
I didn't know you requested that. I do apologize.
MR. DAVIES: Well, with all due respect, I'd like to finish my
presentation, including the experts, pursuant to your County
Attorney's memo, and then anyone -- certainly the commissioners can
ask questions at any time. But to allow him to intervene in the
middle of my presentation where I've got experts -- I mean, I didn't
intervene when -- before Mr. Arnold came up.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Fine.
MR. DAVIES: And, yes, to correct the record, no, I did not
request that, Madam Chair, but I would have certainly loved the
opportunity to correct a number of his statements, which is what I
expect he's going to try to do right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's fine, sir. I will grant that.
Mr. Yovanovich, you need to wait till the end.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just say one thing?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to ask any questions. I
want to correct the record.
MR. DAVIES: Mr. Lincoln.
MR. LINCOLN: Thank you. And, again, for the record, I'm
Robert Lincoln. I'm here for the property owner, the trust, and I just
need to address some of the legal issues, because while you accepted
the notions, you didn't address them.
But this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. There's law that governs
this. And the motions were an attempt to help the Board understand
and come to grips with certain legal issues that are here and, if you
don't get them right, will have to be flushed out by the Court later.
And I'll just restate that I think jurisdiction is actually a problem.
October 12, 2021
Page 188
In fact, you accepted the motion on -- that question you decided to
proceed with the hearing, but even Mr. Yovanovich did not put up
any argument as to why the SDP appeal actually should be before the
BZA instead of the Hearing Examiner and, frankly, your ordinance
specifically placed that appeal there. You shouldn't be hearing it.
And I will just respectfully disagree with the analysis that was
put forward on the jurisdiction that -- the jurisdiction in the
Chapter 250 for the BZA somehow trumps all the other ordinances
and everything else that you've adopted after those things that places
the jurisdiction in the BZA -- I mean in the Hearing Examiner.
That's where this should have been, and I don't believe you actually
have jurisdiction to proceed, and I'm just restating that for the record.
The second issue I want to address is FCC's standing to bring
the SDP appeal. They've now put on their case. They have not put
forward a single shred of evidence that they are an aggrieved party as
that's defined and provided for in your code and that's been applied to
other appeals. That means they have to have an interest created by
the code that's going to be affected adversely greater than the public
at large. They haven't put forward any evidence that they're going to
be harmed by the traffic that -- in fact, that's actually not a legitimate
basis for claiming standing unless you are actually having your own
driveway interfered with. There's no evidence about that.
The only thing that they've really asserted is somehow they were
deprived of due process because the SDP didn't go through the
process that they believe it should have gone through. Well, I'll
demonstrate in a moment that that's not right. But they have not
produced evidence to support standing. You cannot find that they
met the standard for standing, and that means you're committing error
if you rule on their appeal. And, again, I have to put this out there in
the record.
I want to finally address this retroactivity issue, and I want to
October 12, 2021
Page 189
put to bed in that context the entire argument Mr. Yovanovich has put
forward that somehow says that the food truck park did not go
through the required process. His entire analysis of -- that it should
have gone through a conditional use before the comparable-use
decision was adopted or a comparable use after it was adopted
because everybody agrees that it had to have a comparable-use
determination, it's just not the case. We don't agree with it. And, in
fact, the record that you have in front of you refutes it.
The zoning verification letter that they obtained asked, is the
described food truck park permitted on the subject property with or
without a bar? And the answer was, the district permits
restaurants/food truck park establishments SIC Code 5812 by right
but requires conditional use for a bar or drinking establishment.
Flat out, they found it is an eating establishment. There's no
reference at all in that zoning verification letter to the earlier HEX to
the fact that it had been determined to be a comparable use. This is
the determination of the permitted uses that's provided by the zoning
verification letter as provided for in your LDC. It's a binding
determination; it wasn't appealed.
The same, by the way, was true of the -- and that's in your
record, by the way, at 338, 339.
There's a letter -- another zoning verification letter for the Elsa
Street project, which was an "I" subdistrict. Is a food truck park
permitted under eating establishments in their district? Food
truck -- and staff is of the opinion that 5812 SIC code is the most
applicable to this use and thus would consider this a permitted use in
the industrial district where the subject site is located.
They didn't find it was a comparable use in those zoning
verification letters. They found it was a permitted use, just as
Mr. Bosi said they would find a TCBY is a permitted use as an eating
place even though frozen yogurt stands or stores are not specifically
October 12, 2021
Page 190
enumerated on that giant list, just like they would find that somebody
who came in for a bistro was asking for a permitted use. The label
that you put on is it not the issue to determine whether you meet that
SIC code. The question is, does it meet the definition. And the
food truck park, as Mr. Bosi testified, meets the definition of an
eating establishment under 5812.
There are multiple zoning verification letters that hold that that
do not reference the HEX in 2016 at all as the basis of their logic.
They basically say, interpreting the definition, interpreting the SIC
code, it's an eating establishment and therefore -- and to go for
that -- away from that, you'd have to retroactively apply this other
logic, these other decisions to say that that zoning verification letter's
no good when you got it based on some other later-adopted rationale.
That's not what happened there, and you're basically saying that
nobody who gets a zoning verification letter can rely on it, and you're
basically saying, yes, somebody comes into a bistro, they've got to go
through a comparable use. Every yogurt shop that comes in would
have to go through a comparable-use determination because
that -- you're elevating that list of examples to something
level -- something higher.
That's a retroactive application to the code to this application.
You shouldn't do it under these circumstances. And, again, you'll be
creating legal error if you do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time I'd like
to introduce as our expert professional engineer Mr. Andrew Rath
with Davidson Engineering.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. -- Commissioner Solis, did you
have a question for Mr. Lincoln?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll wait to the end. I'll wait to the
end.
October 12, 2021
Page 191
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Rath.
MR. RATH: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good afternoon.
MR. RATH: Allow me one moment to change over the
presentation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to call the IT
expert, gentlemen?
MR. RATH: We've got it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. RATH: Good afternoon. Andrew Rath with Davidson
Engineering. I'm a Florida licensed professional engineer. Been
practicing in Southwest Florida for roughly 15 years now. I've
provided expert witness testimony before the Board of County
Commissioners as well as Naples City Council many times.
We're here today to discuss a lot of the regulations and
permitting agencies that we went through in order to get this SDP
approved. There was some notion that there were -- no regulations
applied or code applied, so I'm here to refute that.
I guess to start off, I have some notable dates here as well as I'd
like to mention this is a first time for me giving testimony on an
already-approved administrative approval of an SDP. So this is a
new process for myself as well as I've had discussion with my
coworkers and colleagues, and none of them have ever experienced
this before.
So I would like to start here. We had a Collier County
pre-application meeting back in October of 2020, received a zoning
verification letter shortly after that. We made our first county SDP
submittal the end of January of '21. Going through a fairly long and
arduous review process, we went through four reviews with Collier
October 12, 2021
Page 192
County. In addition to review with City of Marco Island for
satisfactory wastewater as well as the FDEP with regard to sanitary
water in conjunction with the City of Marco Island.
The regulatory agencies that we dealt with were Collier County
with the Site Development Plan where they reviewed all site design
parameters, as well as the potable water aspect, stormwater
management.
We went through FDEP review and approval for the sewer
mains and sanitary lift station. The same with City of Marco Island.
We're subject to the NFPA 1 fire code regulations. We dealt with
Conservation Collier in providing a small off-site preserve to account
for the minor amount of native vegetation, which we were not
proposing to impact. We just chose not to put it in a conservation
easement. Very small amount of land.
Anyhow, the Collier County SDP review process, we were just
showing here an outline. We went through four submittals. You
can see the first submittal included about 26 documents, 230 pages,
you know, getting less as we go along in time here. I won't bore you
with all of the details.
We went through 85 pages of documents with FDEP
applications, plan review, a few hundred pages submitted to City of
Marco Island, another handful to Conservation Collier. But all in,
we're talking about 1,100 pages of documents that were submitted to
regulatory agencies and ultimately approved by all of the agencies
listed here.
I won't bore you with all of these sections of your LDC which
were applied to this SDP, where it was reviewed by staff and found to
be that our plan set and package was satisfactory and met all the
requirements that were listed here in the LDC.
These are just the various chapters. I will get into specifics
here. These were some design considerations that were subject to
October 12, 2021
Page 193
the applicable regulations. Our SDP specifically delineated the
location and the number of food trucks that would -- food truck pads
that would be allowed within this SDP. We showed nine food truck
pads. Should there -- in the future Code Enforcement would be able
to refer back to the SDP. If there's more food trucks showing up
there than what was allowed, it's enforceable.
The number of pads were considered in the parking and the
trip-generation analysis as well as the spatial separation per an FPA.
We had to make sure that the trucks were all a minimum of 10 feet
apart.
As far as water, wastewater, electrical noise, each truck pad was
to have potable water and sanitary sewer service lines with grease
interceptors for connection to the trucks. Electrical power supplies
available on site with service that will be extended to the food truck
pads, so we have no need for generators there. I know there was
some concern with noise. That can be avoided.
There was limitations put on the square footage for the overall
restaurant. Staff determined that the food truck pads and outdoor
seating would count towards the 6,000-square-foot restaurant
limitation, as well as the back-of-house supporting areas within the
existing building.
The ground floor of the existing building, I believe, is
approximately 1,100 square feet or so. There's a gift shop proposed
in there, the restrooms, some janitory [sic] and storage areas.
The seating areas are delineated and defined on the civil and
architectural SDP plan sets. The specific areas are called out and
hatched. They're located. So having any additional seats outside of
those areas will show that the operation was in violation of the SDP.
Again, enforceable by Code Enforcement.
The required parking, Collier County staff and Davidson
Engineering determined the parking standards for walk-up window
October 12, 2021
Page 194
restaurant with outdoor seating would apply. It seemed to be a good
match to how one would obtain food from a food truck. That was
parked at one space per 80 square feet for public use area or one
space per two seats and one space per 200 square feet for
back-of-house area.
The food truck pad area, seating areas, restaurant support areas,
the number of seats were all considered in the required parking
calculation.
Roughly 20 percent additional parking was provided, in addition
to golf cart parking and bicycle parking areas provided on the site.
Outdoor seating, serving, and music, staff determined outdoor
serving area regulations would apply to the outdoor seating areas.
Thereby, the SDP was required to illustrate specific designation of
seating areas, configuration number of seats, hours of operation,
distance from outdoor seating areas to residential uses, buffering
from residential sites. Staff retains rights to require alteration or
additional buffering if issues appear down the road.
Landscaping perimeter buffering, we went through extensive
review, comment revision on the landscape buffering, specifically in
relation to the property boundaries that abut the residential uses, both
when the property is immediately adjacent to the multifamily as well
as across the local Kon Tiki Drive from the multifamily residential
use.
There was a six-foot-high solid wall or fence employed on the
SDP as well as a Type B buffer, one immediately adjacent to the
residential use. A Type D buffer was applied when adjacent to Kon
Tiki Drive. A Type B landscape buffer was employed along the
entire waterfront where staff determined this to be adjacent to
residential uses even if across the water and regardless of distance.
As far as traffic review, a TIS methodology was agreed upon by
Collier County staff and DE to include Land-Use Category 926, food
October 12, 2021
Page 195
truck pods, and Land-Use Category 930, fast casual restaurant.
Traffic circulation and safety was considered with the proposed
vehicular access locations. Design was modified in working with
Collier County staff to be in compliance with the Collier County
access management policy, including separation from intersection
and on-site throat length. Both of these had impact to the initial site
design.
Pedestrian safety was considered with the proposed construction
of roughly 1,200 linear feet of sidewalks surrounding the subject
site's street frontage designed to meet current code. This gets folks
off the street. It's a -- will be brand-new concrete sidewalk meeting
all of ADA requirements.
The crosswalk location was situated safely at the intersection to
avoid the addition of a mid-block crosswalk. This was worked out
through review with staff. The stop sign was added to Capri
Boulevard southeast bound to create a safer three-way-stop condition.
Solid waste was considered. A screened dumpster enclosure
has been provided on the approved SDP, and the location is
accessible to Collier County's solid waste provider, Waste
Management, per Collier County regulations.
Commercial collection contracts will be required with Waste
Management for refuse, recycle collection. Dumpster collection
frequency can be adjusted as needed. Separate use cooking oil
containers will be provided on site within the screened areas.
Alcohol. Alcohol will be regulated, limited per LDC 5001.
The sales can be accessory, not requiring conditional use, only if all
food sales trucks are under common ownership of management,
which is what is presently proposed on the approved SDP, if food and
nonalcoholic beverage sales will exceed 51 percent of total sales,
making the sale of alcohol accessory to the principal use of the
common ownership restaurant.
October 12, 2021
Page 196
Outdoor amplified music requires a separate permit that is
subject to specific hours and other limitations. If conditions are
violated, the permit can be revoked.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you going to read this line by
line?
MR. RATH: No, I'm going to zoom through this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. RATH: To show you, here's Collier County Public
Utilities standards that we abided by. These are DEP regulations we
abided by.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And can you just hold on just for one
second. We do have a question of Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. Can you go back to the last
one you read, the alcohol. Sales can be accessory not requiring a
conditional use only if all food sales are under common management.
MR. RATH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So how is that going to work?
MR. RATH: The food trucks themselves will be under
common management.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Meaning --
MR. RATH: By the operator.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- they're all going to be owned by
the same person or entity?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Managed by them, not owned.
MR. RATH: Managed by.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Common management.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Define "managed" for me.
MR. RATH: I'll defer to the attorney on that one.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: Commissioner Solis, as part of the process, we
October 12, 2021
Page 197
did agree that all of the food trucks would be owned and operated by
a single entity, the applicant.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good.
MR. RATH: I think I'm fairly well wrapped up here. I'm not
going to read the rest of these code references for you. Just some
other agencies that we dealt with and to show you that we went
through quite a good deal of regulation here. I think that concludes
my presentation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Mr. Davies, is there
another -- do you have another speaker? Okay. We're moving to
the court reporter's break. So with your permission, I think this is a
good time to take that break now. We'll come back at five after
4:00. It's a 10-minute break.
(A brief recess was had from 3:55 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.)
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Davies, as we spoke before our break, you have 22 more
minutes left in your presentation; that's not including any questions
but certainly your presentation, just to bring you up to date.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair, and we will respect
that timing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. DAVIES: Shall we proceed or wait for Commissioner
Saunders?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we need to proceed, unless
you have an objection to that.
MR. DAVIES: Whatever the pleasure of the Chair is.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm quite comfortable.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm sure he can hear it.
October 12, 2021
Page 198
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, he can hear in the back.
MR. DAVIES: Right. So at this time I would like to invite
Mr. Charles Thomas who I'm proffering as an expert in planning as a
certified planner. Mr. Thomas.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. THOMAS: Well, you know I'm Charles Thomas. I've
been a planner in one form or another for probably 60 years, which
sounds a little extreme, but I grew up in the field with a mother who
had a planning firm when I was 10 years old, and I worked for her
when I was in high school and as a slave laborer. But technically I
think I began practicing professionally in 1968. So that's about
53 -- 53 years, I think. And have -- I don't think I've appeared before
the County Commission before, but I've appeared before city
councils, planning advisory boards here, Naples, Everglades City,
Bonita, and elsewhere in the country, before I started practicing down
here probably 35 years ago, mostly in New England and
Massachusetts and Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, New
Hampshire, a little bit in Maine, and have some -- spent some period
of time in Arkansas and practiced there in small-town planning,
small-city planning in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Also
consulted on a couple projects in China. So somewhat a broad
experience, mixed experience and has been primarily in Southwest
Florida in the last 20, 25 years. For a while it was split between
Massachusetts and Florida. And also some other small assignments
in, well, different communities in different states throughout the
country, primarily dealing with zoning and zoning codes. So
that's -- if anybody has any questions about my background, I'm
happy to answer them.
I think in approaching this subject today, my -- I introduce it by
saying I have an approach to looking at zoning codes, land
development codes. They come in many different forms. This is
October 12, 2021
Page 199
somewhat a traditional form of a -- for example, in the cumulative
section that Mike Bosi discussed, a more Euclidian traditional zoning
type code as opposed to some of the more modern form-based codes
and things like that.
But in any event, and no matter how the code's structured, I start
with the definitions so I know what the ground rules are in terms of
terminology, and then I look at use and I look at development
standards. Then I look at what we'll call here supplementary
standards, but particular standards that apply to particular uses. And
then you look more holistically at things like environmental controls
and architectural controls and other things that may be applied over
the code as a whole.
Form-based codes, it's a little different because some of those
architectural standards come to bear sooner in that process. But
that's sort of my process. And the reason I say that is I wanted to
start by saying how I look at a code and give an example of that
which is pertinent.
And as I said, I first look at definitions. That's my first look at
the code is to see what the definitions and the structure of the
definitions are. And when I do that in this case, I find four
definitions of the term "restaurant." And I know there are some
statements that have been made that there's nothing to regulate
restaurants in the code. Well, that's not true, and I think Andrew
Rath gave a very detailed explanation of the extent to which that is
not true.
But in any event, there are, essentially, four definitions of
restaurant. There are two that become most pertinent to this subject.
One is restaurant/fast food, which is -- then says an establishment,
and it goes on to establish it, and a restaurant walkup, which is a
fast-food facility, and then it goes on one or more; walkup windows,
and continues from there. So that gives me a definitional base of the
October 12, 2021
Page 200
subject that I'm exploring at this point in time.
I then look at uses. So I go to the section of the code that deals
with land use, with the use definitions or permitted uses, conditional
uses. And what I find are two things: One, I find eating places as a
permitted use, 5812, which you've had some discussion on before,
and I don't find restaurants. It's not a term that I find if I'm going
through the C-1 through C-4 set of cumulative -- yeah, cumulative
districts.
So having done that, my next exploration is 5812, eating places.
So I look to the SIC codes, and the more detailed SIC codes as
Mr. Mike Bosi put up on the visualizer for you, and I actually find
and highlight, as I'm looking at this, some different terms in that list
of permitted uses or more defined uses.
First, I find drive-in restaurants, fast-food restaurants,
restaurants, restaurants carryout, and restaurants fast food. So at that
point, I circle back to the beginning, and I see that a restaurant fast
food, which is a permitted use under 5812, and if we look at uses that
are permitted in 5812 are therefore permitted in the district, restaurant
fast food is permitted in the -- in this case the C-3 district.
Then I look at restaurant walkup, a fast-food facility. So my
conclusion when I go through that process is a restaurant walkup,
fast-food facility with one or more walkup windows, and I look at a
food truck and I see a fast-food facility with a walkup window, I
conclude that's a permitted use in the C-3 district because it falls
within 5812, eating places.
And at that point, I don't need to go further to conclude it's a
permitted use. I don't need a comparable-use determination because,
in the code, within the boundary of the code, I come to that
conclusion. So that's the first step in my analysis.
I think the next step was to look at the conditional-use
determination. And I'm going to try to keep this brief. We have to
October 12, 2021
Page 201
first focus on the fact that this is a use determination. We're not
talking about places, spaces, locations. We're talking about use.
And the question is comparable use. The code says we look to the
list of comparable uses and the purposes in the district.
So then I go and I look at the list of comparable uses, and I
know there's been -- and, again, I come back and I see eating places.
But more than that, the comparable-use process looks at is the use
comparable to the scope of uses that are permitted in the district, and
that's been the subject we've been discussing most today, which is the
comparable-use determination part of the process or the puzzle.
And what I find is first very little guidance in the overall list of
uses. It's lots of specific uses, very few that relate to a use that's an
eating place, but there are some. I also find that there are provisions
in the uses that regulate other things that have been alluded to might
happen. For example, akin to an amusement park. Well, if I look at
the C-3 district and I look at the other uses that are permitted in the
C-3 district, I don't find that.
I look at amusement and recreation services indoor so -- and
several other selected what you could call entertainment-type uses
that are permitted in the C-3 district basically indoor. We look at the
comparable -- the cumulative-use context. We find that, for
example, C-3 and C-4 are different in their other uses that they allow.
And one could argue, I think successfully, that entertainment
uses would be -- more entertainment uses would be permitted in the
C-4 district than are permitted in the C-3 district.
So having done that, look at the rest of the uses -- and there are
50 more uses permitted in C-4 than C-3, that if we look at the uses
within the sphere of what we're talking about, which is eating places
outdoor, some aspect of entertainment-type character, the C-3 and the
C-4 districts are very similar in that regard. So if you find that a use
is a compatible use in one of those districts, it would follow that it's
October 12, 2021
Page 202
compatible in the other districts. I don't need to go there in my
analysis, because I've already determined that the use is a permitted
use in C-3. But if I were to do that, I would reach the same
conclusion that has been reached, that it's a comparable use with the
spectrum of uses that are permitted in the district. And if anybody's
interested, I'd be happy to respond further on that.
I think the next sort of sphere that you get into then becomes the
development controls, the development standards. And this is a
place where, again, you have to sort of look at one section and circle
back and look at another section. The structure of the C-1, C-2, C-3,
C-4 districts, and C-5, actually, is that they become more intense as
that number goes up. So C-5 has a much broader range of uses than
C-4 than C-3 than C-2 than C-1.
The other aspect of that, particularly in the spectrum of C-1
through C-4, is that the size, intensity, magnitude of use is more
tightly restricted in C-3 than it is in C-4.
So, for example, if you take a particular use of an eating place,
we have no size limit in C-4, we have a 6,000-square-foot limit in
C-3, a 2,800-square-foot limit in C-2, and we don't find it in C-1.
If we were to look in the other direction moving up, we'd see a
number of uses -- not just eating places, but other uses that create the
character of C-3 that have size limits that, again, you go to C-4 and
they no longer have those size limits. Not just eating places, but the
overall intensity.
So first we find that the use itself is a permitted use, and then we
find that the code, by its structure, creates a less intense application of
that use in the C-3 district than it would in the C-4 district and
similarly C-2 to the C-3.
So there's a hierarchy of intensity of use. Start with the
first -- as I said, well, the first thing, definition. Second thing, use.
Cross the threshold of the use that's permitted. Then we have to look
October 12, 2021
Page 203
at how intense a use is permitted. In the structure of Collier
County's code, that's expressed frequently by a limitation found in the
use section but is also expressed by dimensional and other controls
that are found, and that's going to be at Chapter 4.
So that becomes the sequence of the analysis in the conclusion
that, yes, there are a number of regulations and restrictions that apply
to the exercise of a use in C-3 and to eating places in specific in C-3,
which is contrary to the impression that has been given that you don't
know what -- you know, there's no control, there's no limitation, there
are no parameters for what happens with a food truck or a food truck
park.
I think an additional aspect of going through the code that way is
when you look at the definitions first and then you go to the
development controls, you find parking requirements in the
development controls that are specific to a walkup restaurant,
fast-food facility, both as to indoor and out -- well, particularly
outdoor parking. But at least the space -- size of the facility and the
amount of seating. I think that becomes significant.
Just as a note on that, there's been some discussion, and I
certainly can understand it, that Celebration maybe has not been what
people might have the expected it to be. It may have had impacts
that people didn't expect it to have. That very well may be true, and
I might share some of that sentiment. But there's a very significant
difference in the conditions that apply within the C-3 district and
within the Bayshore Overlay District, that being, in the overlay
district, which was thoughtful and intentional, that we wanted to
encourage a certain -- of activity and intensity.
There is no parking requirement applied to outdoor seating
within the overlay district. So the amount of building that you can
have, if you meet all the dimension, all the other controls I've already
talked about versus the amount of parking you have to provide, the
October 12, 2021
Page 204
building is much larger relative to the parking, or the parking is much
smaller relative to the building; whereas, in the C-3 district, the
parking requirements apply.
Without taking up too much time and being redundant, which I
hope not to do, I think the last -- not a conclusion, but the other thing
I would say is much has been said about we don't really have a
handle on the food trucks or food truck parks, how they should be
regulated, should they be regulated, and I think as Wayne Arnold has
said, an amendment to the code would be an appropriate thing to do if
it's determined that a food truck park, for example, the Isles of Capri
as permitted in C-3 and meeting all the requirements of C-3 and
being a permitted use, has an impact that is not what this county
would like to see, or if they would like to limit them so they are not
repeated in numbers and proximity, an LDC amendment is the way to
go, and the precedent for that is well established in the code for
supplemental standards like those for fueling facilities and things of
that sort.
So that would be a valid action to take should it be found that
there's discomfort with the particular use, but that doesn't go back in
the loop to say, well, it's not a permitted use because now we've
decided we'd like to define it and/or regulate it in a different way.
If you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't know if it's a question for
you or Mr. Davies. We keep talking about Celebration Park, and I'm
getting mixed messages, I think. Is there going to be a bar or two
bars in this, or are there no bars in this? What's being proposed?
MR. THOMAS: I don't think I'm the one who can answer that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. I think he's behind you.
Oh, I'm sorry. The question was, I've heard references to one bar,
two bars, and I've also heard that there are -- that the bars have been
October 12, 2021
Page 205
withdrawn from what's being proposed. What's -- what's being
proposed in terms of the alcohol?
MR. DAVIES: I think I missed the second part, Commissioner.
So the first part, as to the bar -- so the distinction is a separate --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Does it have a bar or not?
MR. DAVIES: Yes, it does, two. And they're part of the
analysis on owner -- owner operator is what applies with respect to
sales of alcohol on the premises with respect to the 51 percent rule
that it is an accessory use.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. No, no. I just -- I had
heard that --
MR. DAVIES: Sorry. I thought that's where you were going,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- whether or not -- that the bars
had been withdrawn. But I guess you're telling me they haven't been
withdrawn. So there still are proposed two bars?
MR. DAVIES: Yes, that went through the SDP process, and
that's on the approval.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then another question
is -- because I know this has been an issue at Celebration Park, and
that is food trucks that are supposed to be mobile and temporary in
nature become permanent in nature, and I'm just curious, if they're all
going to be owned by one entity, how are they going to be -- how are
they going to be temporary and being moved to in and out? Or do
you plan on buying new food trucks and --
MR. DAVIES: It's really intended to be this sort of hybrid of
semi permanence. So these are not structures that are going to be
built, but they are food trucks that are capable to be removed from the
site. And Mr. Rath, I think, can tell you how they're physically
affixed to the pads.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, that's not really my issue.
October 12, 2021
Page 206
My issue is -- I know Celebration there was -- there were issues,
because our understanding, there was going to be a rotation, right?
They were food trucks. They come and go.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There's a different menu, and that
became an issue, because that wasn't what was happening. So I'm
just trying to understand exactly what it is that you're proposing. So
these will be food trucks -- the same food trucks are going to be there
because they're going to be owned by the same entity, and maybe the
food that's offered is different or something?
MR. DAVIES: Yeah, that's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But, I mean, the trucks will
be static. They won't move. I mean, the menu could change over
time, but the trucks aren't meant to leave the premises overnight or
once a week or anything. They're going to be static and in place,
really, permanently. I mean, they could be moved for an emergency
but, I mean, the plan is that they stay, correct?
MR. DAVIES: Well, I'm no expert, Commissioner, on the
construction specifics of how they're affixed. The best I can come
up with is they're semipermanent. The idea is that they are to be
affixed to the pads that are there, not coming out with a whole new
set every day.
So there's some permanency, that's the "semi" part, to them
being affixed to the pads, but at the same time, it's not the same thing
as a physical structure. It's not a structure that looks like a food
truck park, if that clarifies. It's -- this hybrid semi permanence of the
trucks being located on the site.
Mr. Rath, do you have anything to add about that?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's not -- I don't think for us -- for
me, it's not the -- how it's affixed to the site. It's that normally food
October 12, 2021
Page 207
trucks are sole proprietors. They're independently owned. The
beauty of food trucks is you get a variety of food in a small area, a
food truck park. And if it's under one ownership, what do they own?
They own the trucks, and then the chefs come in? Or how's that
going to work?
MR. DAVIES: The whole food truck park is owned by a single
entity including all activities that would occur thereon, including the
food trucks.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: I'm John Rogers, one of the owners of the
project, and I was not sworn when I was here earlier today because I
wasn't going to speak, according to my attorney.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. ROGERS: I do.
Madam Chair and Commissioner Solis, I traveled around to 12
different food truck parks throughout the United States before we
ever embarked on this process, and a lot of the problems that were
arising was with the individual independent operators. Were they
changing? Were they keeping the standards up? And that seemed
to be the most common theme of the problems of the owners of the
park. In fact, I think you probably know, to mention Celebration
Park, which I probably shouldn't, she's on a very short-term lease.
Just in case she has that problem, she can say goodbye.
We are absolutely committed to the variety that you're speaking
about, but in order to control it, to make it proper -- as good as we
thought we could. We were -- because I've been in the restaurant
business for almost 40 years, 40-plus years. We're having the trucks,
and we have individual operators who I can assure you are very, very
different. None of our trucks will sell the same items. And the
person operating the truck will be the chef. They'll be part of our
team, but they'll be operating the trucks.
October 12, 2021
Page 208
The trucks cannot leave during season, but if the operator can
get a side gig in the off-season, we will allow the trucks to go. And,
of course, the trucks will leave for any hurricane conditions or
anything like that.
If it -- and if I may just have one more minute.
In -- February 27th I had a meeting with the people on Isles of Capri,
and I very clearly explained this, that it was our intent to control this
at first, and if it was going the way we wanted and there was an
opportunity to bring in even a larger variety or diversity of operators,
we would be willing to go back through the conditional-use process
for the bar, because I understood right now we can do it as an
accessory, if that's the proper word, as an accessory use. But if we
needed to expand the variety or to bring in people from elsewhere,
you know, once we were up and running and it was working, we may
go back through the conditional-use process and bring in others.
It's going to look just like an independent food truck park, but
it's under one ownership.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had a question for Noel.
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just -- I wanted to clarify
something that you said earlier on, and I want to preface it by saying
that it's my understanding that we interpreted our LDC cumulatively,
so that that's allowed in C-1 is -- those permitted uses defined in C-1
are allowed in 2, and 2 has its own --
MR. DAVIES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and those up in 3. C-3
does not have the definition or the allowable use of a restaurant
defined within it, but C-2 does. In fact, it says -- I mean, our Land
October 12, 2021
Page 209
Development Code actually says restaurants are allowed in C-2.
And I thought I heard you say that our code does not have that
allowance within our LDC.
MR. DAVIES: No, I appreciate that, and perhaps I misspoke
on -- so the intent of my comments there, Commissioner, was that
with respect to the C-3 zoning district, which is the subject zoning
district for this property, there is not listed in the permitted-use list
the word "restaurant." What's listed is "eating places," which is this
broader category that includes restaurant and a number of other
things.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. And, there again, it
was more for edification as much as anything. I heard you say that,
but I also know about the cumulative interpretation of our staff.
Mike -- or Mr. Bosi spoke about it while we were going through. It
is defined as an allowable use in C-2 and then, therefore, then would
be allowed in C-3 and so on up the ladder. So just -- I just -- I heard
you say that out loud, and I was like, I thought -- I thought it was
actually delineated as an allowable use.
MR. DAVIES: Understood. And thank you, Commissioner.
And, again, the point of my comments was really designed towards
eating places.
MR. THOMAS: Actually, I'm the one who made the statement
you may be thinking of.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He said it first, then you
repeated it, and I figured he got it from you.
MR. THOMAS: I said it was not allowed in C.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Get on the microphone.
MR. THOMAS: I said it was not allowed in C-1. It's not
listed in C-1.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, it is listed in C-2, though.
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
October 12, 2021
Page 210
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And this subject property is
C-3, and our staff's cumulative interpretation, then, would allow for
that use in C-3 in the C-3 district.
MR. THOMAS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. How much time do we have
left?
MR. MILLER: It's expired.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, it's expired, sir. That didn't
include the questions. That just included Mr. Thomas' --
MR. MILLER: When you were questioning there at the end,
no, I did not stop the timer.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So please wrap up. Thank
you.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll be brief. Based on the evidence and testimony that we have
provided, we do believe we have demonstrated that staff's decision
that a food truck park is permitted as an eating place was the correct
decision.
The type of gamesmanship, Commissioners, you're seeing from
appellant today has to be shut down. It's okay to trust your staff and
to reject their arguments. Staff did their job right. They did their
job in accordance with your code. It certainly wasn't contrary to the
code which, remember, is the applicable legal standard today.
Appellant has not met and cannot meet its legal burden to prove
to you that what staff did was contrary to your codes. In fact, it was
and is totally proper under your code and appropriately part of staff's
regular practice.
Respectfully, Commissioners, please do not let appellant's
trickery and unnecessary legal complexities fool you. This is
October 12, 2021
Page 211
nothing more than manufactured confusion to try to get you to second
guess staff's very common-sensical and correct approach that a food
truck park is an eating place.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That concludes our presentation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Davies.
So now we're going to have the zoning director first.
Can -- have any questions of the property owner?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. No, Chair. I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. So then we're going to
have Mr. Yovanovich, the neighboring property owner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If it would be okay, can I use this
podium and ask --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess I'm going to bring up Mr. Rath,
because I think he's the right person to ask some of these questions.
If not, it will be Mr. Thomas, but I'm going to start with Mr. Rath.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think we've got the copies
made for you. You've got them.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
So, Mr. Rath, if you can go over...
Can you put up the -- can I use the visualizer, please. No, I
don't want that yet. I'm not ready for that.
Mr. Rath, you were responsible for processing the Site
Development Plan; is that correct?
MR. RATH: Correct. I was the engineer of record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Does that include identifying
where all buildings would be located?
MR. RATH: Yes, that in conjunction with the architect.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Can you -- can you tell me what
the definition of a building is.
MR. RATH: I believe when the building was brought up
October 12, 2021
Page 212
earlier it was a structure with a roof overhead, I believe, when
Mr. Arnold showed the definition earlier.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you agree that that's the correct
definition in the Land Development Code for building?
MR. RATH: I would defer to that exact definition. You could
bring it up again.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Can you help me find that in
your presentation while -- I'll ask a couple of other questions in the
meantime.
Mr. Rath, what is a structure?
MR. RATH: A structure could be a pretty wide range. Maybe
it depends on the context of --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is a food truck a structure?
MR. RATH: I would say that a food truck is a semipermanent
vehicle.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That wasn't my question. My question
was, is a food truck a structure?
MR. RATH: I don't know that it meets the definition of a
structure; I'd say probably not.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now, there was a focus -- I will
represent to you that this is from the C-3 zoning district. It was Item
No. 31 that counsel for the trust pointed out early in their
presentation, and it refers to eating places, correct?
MR. RATH: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And it says an eating place with 6,000
square feet or less in gross floor area in the principal structure,
correct?
MR. RATH: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What are the principal structures within
the food truck park?
MR. RATH: We have an existing building where the ground
October 12, 2021
Page 213
floor of that existing building is being utilized for the restaurant use
with restrooms, a gift shop, there's storage areas, there's janitorial
areas, as well as attached to that structure proposed elevated deck
area as well as on-grade seating all below roof.
Roughly speaking, those areas total up to around 3,400 square
feet. So I would say that that meets the definition in the eating
places with 6,000 square feet or less in gross floor area.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What part of that structure actually
contains the cooking facilities?
MR. RATH: The cooking facilities? There's no cooking
facilities identified on the architectural plans. There are, however,
restaurant-related equipment in there as well as including three
compartment sinks where we had to add grease traps to the sanitary
collection of the water in there. I believe that there's dishwashing
facilities, things along those lines.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're -- the cooking where you
would actually -- if you're the restaurant, it's the cooking that
prepares and serves the food. That does not occur in any of the
permanent structures, correct?
MR. RATH: I think that the eating could occur there as well.
If you had -- if you had a walkup restaurant with no indoor seating,
you had all outdoor seating, that would be a permissible use, and you
weren't necessarily sitting in the restaurant.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- now restaurant, what is a
restaurant defined as in the Land Development Code? I'll help you.
MR. RATH: A building or a part of a building where food is
offered for sale or sold to the public primarily for immediate
consumption.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is a food truck a building?
MR. RATH: I think a food truck is not necessarily considered a
structure or a building.
October 12, 2021
Page 214
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So we can agree food trucks are
not structures or buildings, correct?
MR. LINCOLN: I'm going to object to this. Mr. Rath is the
engineer who testified to -- regarding the application of the code and
the process that it went through. He's being asked now about the
interpretation of the code, you know, outside the bounds of what
happened and not without any context. This is an issue where the
staff would have interpreted this in going through the site plan and
asking them. It's not an issue for the engineer to interpret these
terms as they apply in the zoning code. And I think that he's being
asked to do something that's improper.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll bring Mr. Thomas up instead if he's
the professional planner. If he's not the right person to answer the
questions, just say -- Andrew, just tell me, hey, I don't know. Ask
Charlie.
MR. LINCOLN: Well, I think the problem is that the right
person to ask would have been the staff members who reviewed the
plan and who work and interpret the code every day.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, Mr. Lincoln, with all
due respect, you've been spending the last hour, you and your team,
accusing me of trickery and misrepresenting the issues and having
some malice in what we were proposing to do.
You-all put up the -- you put this up in your presentation, not
me. You put it up, and I've got questions about whether or not an
eating place that you spent quite a bit of time with your planner and
your engineer talking about being met [sic]. I have some basic
questions about what an eating place is, and you said staff got it right.
I think staff got it wrong, and I'm going to ask questions of your
experts, because I believe I'm entitled to do that.
If Mr. Rath is not the right person to ask these questions, I'll be
happy to ask those questions of Mr. -- I'm pulling up an e-mail. And
October 12, 2021
Page 215
I don't know how to do this in a way you'll be able to see it, but I
want to get to the bar as an accessory-use question. And I will read
to you an e-mail from Ray Bellows to Jessica Harrelson.
Mr. Rath, who is Jessica Harrelson?
MR. RATH: Jessica Harrelson was a planner working with
Davidson Engineering earlier on this in project.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And was she involved in the analysis of
whether a bar was an accessory or a use that would require a
conditional use?
MR. RATH: I believe so. It's hard to tell the exact timing as
to when she left Davidson Engineering in relation to discussions with
staff.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have an e-mail to Jessica Harrelson
dated January 29, 2021. Was she still at Davidson Engineering at
that time?
MR. RATH: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm going to read their e-mail into
the record. It says, the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic
beverages is subject to the provision of Section 5.05.01 of the LDC.
A drinking establishment, SIC Code 5813, as the primary use
requires a conditional use, while any restaurant deriving at least
51 percent of gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic
beverages can also offer the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption as an accessory use.
I'll show you the e-mail if you want me to read that back to you.
MR. RATH: That sounds familiar. I recall the e-mail.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So you recall the determination that you
have to have a restaurant on the property that serves 51 -- less than
51 percent of the alcohol?
MR. LINCOLN: Okay. I'm going to object to this now
because there is no appeal of the SDP for violating any provision of
October 12, 2021
Page 216
the code other than the question of whether it's a food truck park or
not. The issue if there's bars, it's not in the appeal. The issue of any
other compliance with the Land Development Code, it's not in the
appeal, and so this is irrelevant and improper. But if you have --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Klatzkow, if you can --
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. The core issue, according to
you guys, is whether or not this is a permitted use, and I think that's
what he's getting at.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My entire argument has been that food
truck parks are not identified in the Land Development Code.
So, Charlie, where would I find in C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 or
anywhere in the Land Development Code a reference to a food truck
park as a permitted use explicitly?
MR. THOMAS: You would not. We've all agreed on that.
Could we go back --
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. I'm all good with the
questions that I've intended to ask.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's about 10 minutes, but also, sir,
you read a letter to the record. I'd like you to sent it to any staff
member --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. I will forward it to -- I will, if
you will bear with me. I will get that to you. It's kind of --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just so the court reporter has it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely, absolutely. And it was
documentation that was provided, I believe, by the trust in their
background documents, but I will go ahead and send the e-mail,
because it's pertaining to the question that was asked about the bars.
And they represented -- and I guess I should ask Mr. Davies that,
because he -- actually, I'll ask Mr. Rogers. May I ask Mr. Rogers a
couple quick -- I mean, I lost a little bit of time by the objection to
my questioning.
October 12, 2021
Page 217
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just a little bit. Mr. Davies would
like to take that question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I would like to ask Mr. Rogers that
question, since he owns it. He owns it. He got up and testified. I'd
like to ask Mr. Rogers.
MR. DAVIES: I represent Mr. Rogers, and I can speak on his
behalf.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You cannot. I can ask him. He was a
witness and this -- in here, and he got up here, and I want to ask him.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Attorneys do not testify.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Attorneys argue. I mean, if you have a
fact witness here, he's already appeared, then that's appropriate that
he be cross-examined since he already appeared voluntarily.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Rogers, the food trucks that you
represented, are they permanent structures?
MR. ROGERS: On the property?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are they permanent structures on the
property?
MR. ROGERS: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do they -- are they a building?
MR. ROGERS: They're built -- we're out of time, sorry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Rogers, is a food truck a building?
MR. ROGERS: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Rogers, do any of these food trucks
meet the minimum floor elevation for structures within -- on the
property for Isles of Capri?
MR. ROGERS: Out of my expertise, but my memory is from
when we were designing the project the answer is yes, but out of
October 12, 2021
Page 218
my -- I think because of the wheels, the tires, the answer was yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are these chefs employees?
MR. ROGERS: They will be.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They will be employees?
MR. ROGERS: I've got a lot of people waiting for me to get
this done, yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I believe you said that if the chef
gets another gig, he can relocate the food truck; is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: In the offseason we'll do catering, and they
could -- they'll be allowed to supplement their income or our income,
however we resolve that, with catering, only in the offseason and
only four gone at any one time so that we always have five open on
the property.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Mr. -- you know, can you tell me
where the menu and the commitment to a varied menu is set forth
anywhere in the Site Development Plan?
MR. ROGERS: It's my operational information. Why would
that be in the Site Development Plan?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you -- anyway.
MR. ROGERS: I don't think -- I've had several restaurants
here. They've never asked me for my menu.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on one second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Yovanovich, your time is almost
up, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree that if all of the food
trucks are not owned and operated by you or your partners, a
conditional use would be required?
MR. ROGERS: For the bar, for the bar.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the bar?
MR. ROGERS: Is that your question?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, my question was, was the
October 12, 2021
Page 219
conditional use required.
MR. ROGERS: No, I would not agree with that at all. The
letters we received from the county were very clear as we began
planning this project, and they told us a conditional-use permit for the
bar would be required if we did not own and operate the trucks.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And is that when you made the
operational decision to own and operate the food trucks yourself?
MR. ROGERS: No, I made it prior to that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I don't think I have anything
further.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's the public, right --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if I remember, correctly?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now we have public comment. And
how many speakers do we have, sir?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, we have 11 speakers here in
the room and three additional speakers on Zoom.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I would ask -- I understand this
is a very personal issue for many of you, but if you agree with the
speaker in front of you that has spoken, I would ask you to maybe say
that. If you're bringing any new information into what that previous
speaker has said, please say it. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, can I ask a
question of our staff, or is that inappropriate at this time?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course you can.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I can wait to the end, too, if
you wish.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's hear -- if it's all right, let's hear
from the -- unless it's something that you need to think time -- you
know, take some time to think about, let's hear from our public, our
October 12, 2021
Page 220
very patient public in this room.
MR. WALLIN: Madam Speaker, I didn't quite understand the
admonition you gave us speakers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The admission is that --
MR. WALLIN: Admonition.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Admonition is not to be repetitive,
but that's all.
MR. WALLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because of -- obviously, we're trying
to get through this, but at the same time we need to hear from
everyone, and we want to hear from everyone. And were you able to
adjust your --
MR. WALLIN: Yes. We have that substitution. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good, thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your first speaker is Lynette
Lenard. She's been ceded three additional minutes from Jan Castle.
Could you raise your hand to indicate you're present.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you. You will have six minutes,
Ms. Lenard, if you'll come to one of the podiums. And Ms. Lenard
will be followed by Susan Crum, who will -- if she could queue up at
the other podium, that would be good. Just a reminder, public
speakers, you will hear a beep at 30 seconds to let you know you
have 30 seconds remaining.
MS. LENARD: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Please.
MS. LENARD: Hi. My name is Lynette Lenard. I am an
attorney by background but am not allowed to practice in Florida
without taking all the bar exams and spending $10,000 on all the
applications. So I confined this only to my views and have some
legal background.
October 12, 2021
Page 221
I currently live in the -- on Kon Tiki Drive, the property most
adjacent to this proposed food truck park. I live in the A building,
which is the one that is also closest to the food truck park.
And I just wanted to say for much of the stuff we've heard here
today, that site is nothing like the Bayshore site in any way, shape,
fashion, and form. It is a two-lane road. As a matter of fact, our
road in is one way. We have a very narrow road that we have to
come out of that abuts that property. We have trouble with the
garbage trucks and everything being able to transverse right there.
But we also do not have any cultural art district. We do not
have any artists studios. We do have any real pedestrian traffic for
activities that are there, but we do have a 57-unit, 55-plus community
that is totally adjacent to this property, and it is called Tarpon
Village, and that is where I live currently.
Most of the people who live in this facility have owned their
properties for at least 20, 25 years, and this building could also be
considered historic because it was built 50 years ago. It was built in
the early '70s. And so it's been there for a very long time.
Many of us moved there because it is so peaceful and quiet
there. We're right on the water. It is one of those lovely spaces that
still remains in Collier County. And I sure as heck, after just
finishing a year of renovating the entire condo and loving the place
that I live, hate to have to move from it because of the anticipated
noise and everything that is associated with this project.
I would like to say there are many residents in this community
who are elderly. I don't speak on behalf of them because I don't
have permission to speak on behalf of them. And from what I
understand, I think our homeowner president is going to speak by
Zoom or something.
But these people, and certainly not myself, did not move here
for anything but the peace and tranquility. We did not -- and this is
October 12, 2021
Page 222
not just a place to eat or a restaurant or a place you get food or a
place you sit down because, as I understand it, unless something has
changed, this is more like an entertainment center. Because we are
going to have a stage. We are going to have music potentially from
12:00 noon till 10:00 at night. We are right on the water so, of
course, there is a big issue with the transfer of sound and everything
on the water.
I believe at one point we were told that they were going to have
a little water park or fountain or something for children there.
And Mr. Rogers did come to Tarpon Village in early February to
tell us all about his project. And one of the things that he
stated -- there seems to have been some dispute today about whether
conditional use was required and not required, but what he told
us -- and because I am a lawyer and because I wrote it down because
it surprised me very much -- is he said, basically, from what I recall, I
can do whatever I want because I have a C-3 property, but as long as
I own all of the food truck parks -- you know, it's a fait accompli.
However, in order to give us the biggest variety of food and
things that are available there, then I'm planning to let these people
have their own -- you know, it will be owned by them. They will
have their own meter -- electric meter. They will have their own
water meter. They will decide what foods they do or whatever.
And if that occurs and you do not like my project, then you will be
allowed to speak at a public hearing, because we will have to go for a
conditional use, and that will be sometime in May of 2021.
And so I believe that at least at some point he was aware that
there was a possibility that what he was planning to do would require
a conditional use. I'm not an expert on planning and zoning or
anything. I was actually a corporate tax international trade lawyer.
But I know what he said that day, and I know he made the same
statement when he had the meeting with the Island on the 27th of
October 12, 2021
Page 223
February, because I was there, too, and I wanted to hear if there were
differences, and there were some differences. No longer were we
talking about from 10:00 in the morning. The next thing he was
talking about opening early because some people wanted him to be
available to sell coffee and doughnuts and stuff.
So we're looking at a situation that keeps changing as we go
along. And today -- I found out all kinds of things today that I didn't
know before as in terms of what the plans are or the plans aren't.
I'm sorry. I'm trying -- I'm trying to get through this as fast as I
can. But the only thing I want to say is the biggest issue here is the
traffic, and that's what I wanted to focus on. Because if you haven't
been there, we have this S turn right around that whole area. I can
barely make a left turn into my drive as it is. I have a difficult time
getting out of there because there's a stop sign there that no one ever
stops at. If I'm incoming and I have my signal on, often I almost
have to do this (indicating) to get there.
If any of these people are coming into any of those parking lots,
that's going to be a problem. And since I'm running out of time, I'm
going to say the one thing that I think that is required here before
anything else is a new traffic study because the one that was done
here, to me, in my opinion, is a joke. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan Crum. She'll be
followed by Gayle Latreille. I hope I'm saying that correctly.
MS. CRUM: Hello. I'm speaking on behalf of my husband.
He had to leave. I was not sworn in. Can you swear me in, please.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. CRUM: I do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Ms. Crum.
MS. CRUM: So my husband wrote this, and I'm reading it for
him.
October 12, 2021
Page 224
I, Allen Crum, I reside at 2663 Becca Ave, and I have lived in
the neighborhood for 30 years. I am speaking today from experience
to let the residents of Isles of Capri know what they will be up against
if they allow a food truck business into their neighborhood.
First, property values will suffer being adjacent to a year-round
carnival that will be able to amplified sounds 10 hours a day, seven
days a week, 52 weeks a year.
The next is safety. Celebration Park had 19 fire code
violations, three times the amount of propane on site. Propane
trucks deliver propane to the site. The trucks do not move.
The next is traffic. Parking and speeding and litter. They will
park on your grass, in your driveway, on the sidewalks, in the
right-of-way. Nothing you can do until the county installs "no
parking" signs every 30 feet up and down both sides of your street.
It all starts out innocent enough. You're told how great this will be
for the neighborhood. They will plant pretty flowers and bushes and
work with the neighbors to make sure needs are met, but as soon as
they get permits in hand and open for business, they will completely
disconnect from the neighborhood with no more common courtesy,
no more neighborly respect, and just as soon as you voice concerns,
you'll be accused of harassment. They are no longer your good
neighborhood. They only are looking at the dollar signs.
Make no -- let me see. And make no mistake, you will be on
your own from here on out. Send e-mails to everyone you can think
of. They will be ignored. Actually, Isles of Capri's commissioner
was the only one to respond to any of our e-mails that were sent to all
the commissioners.
Numerous e-mails sent to our District 4 commissioner
concerning Celebration Park have not been responded to.
The biggest problem is noise. No one wants to admit that this
is the biggest problem. I don't have the time to go into what we have
October 12, 2021
Page 225
been through with the noise issues. Simply put, when you can hear
the amplified music in your house a quarter of a mile away, it's too
loud.
Celebration Park has been an absolute disaster for our neighbor.
Do not un -- do not, under any circumstances, allow this to happen to
your beautiful island. Do not let a food truck park with amplified
sound deprive your residents of peace of mind in your own home.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gayle Latreille. She'll be
followed by Rand Whitson.
MS. LATREILLE: Hi. I'm Gayle Latreille. I live on Isles of
Capri at 120 Capri Boulevard. I've owned a home there for over 20
years. I actually moved there four years ago, so I'm a full-time
resident.
I'm very concerned about the impact of transient people coming
in, transient vehicles going beyond the commercial part of the island.
And just to explain a little bit about what Isles of Capri is, I don't
know how many -- I know Rick has been there, but I don't know how
many commissioners have been there. We have a two-lane road
with water on both sides that comes in, and then we make a
90-degree turn. We need a 180-turn, then that's where the park is
going to be. It's very congested already. I did hear there was going
to be a stop sign where there's a yield sign now, so, you know, that's
good.
But I'm concerned about our getting off the island, getting on the
isles. And our emergency vehicle right now services Naples and
services the rest of the island on the other side. How are they going
to get through the traffic? So that's a concern.
The other concern I have is they're -- in the project I understand
there's 96,000 gallons of water for irrigation and drainage, so where
October 12, 2021
Page 226
does that water go?
And now I'm kind of hearing maybe it's actually for the food
trucks. I'm not sure that they're hooked up, but I read that in your
original -- your original plan. And so where does all that water go?
We have a very unique ecosystem there. We have water and marine
life every 200 feet. And so the lights, the sewage, the water, the
drainage, all of that is a major concern of mine.
The other think I wanted to say is that, you know, I know there
was a lot of talk about eating places and what that was. Mobile
trucks do have an SIC code, and it is actually not the one that they're
saying. The NAICS code is 722330. The SIC code is 5963, which
you stated correctly. It's called a mobile food truck. So it's not in
the 5128 or whatever that was.
So those are mine. We actually are very quiet there. We don't
have streetlights. We don't have a traffic light. We don't turn our
lights on because of the marine life. The parking lot is going to have
huge lights, many of them that are right by the water. So for all that,
I'm very concerned for our environment. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Randy Whitson. He'll be
followed by Bob Messmer.
MR. WHITSON: Hi. I'm Randy Whitson. I've been on Isles
of Capri for 11 years now. I'm a full-time resident.
I find it very entertaining today that you guys have had the TV
attorneys here to represent this whole situation. It's a whole lot of
code references. But it's pretty plain to see what's happening here.
The adjacent neighbor to the property is trying to stifle this whole
situation. They've made two offers to purchase the property, and
they were denied. The owner didn't want to sell it. The developer
of the food truck did not want to sell it.
It seems pretty clear. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck,
October 12, 2021
Page 227
it's a duck. They're the only people that have put any type of appeal
in front of the county for this. It seems like the county staff spent a
lot of time, over a thousand pages of documents, to make sure the
water, the traffic, all that stuff was done correctly. And at some
point you have to trust your staff. If you don't, what's the point?
In reference to Tarpon Village, that property's been zoned C-3
since Isles of Capri was developed, 1960s. It's kind of like buying a
house next to an airport and then complaining about airport noise. If
you don't know where you're living, and you don't know who your
neighbors are, you really ought to check, because just because it's
always been empty -- which it hasn't, by the way -- before the
proposed food trucks, it was Truluck's Fisheries. They had loud
boats going out at 4:00 in the morning every morning; diesel smells.
Every year they would pull out the crab traps, and they would sit
there for months and stink to high heaven. And you can ask
anybody that lived at Tarpon Village. That's the truth.
As far as the other part about Fiddlers Creek, who's being
represented here today, I don't know how many people know, but
they've actually applied to rezone their portion of the property to
something completely different. So people need to be aware of
what's really happening here. And you guys are all really intelligent.
I know you're smart enough to figure it out.
So that's all I have. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Messner, and he will
be followed by Jeff Davidson.
MR. MESSMER: Commissioners, staff, and especially the
Isles of Capri people, I was asked to come here by an organizer of the
Isles of Capri people because I live about 700 feet directly west of
Celebration Park. And I was asked by this gentleman to inform
especially the Isles of Capri people what I've experienced in the three
years of Celebration Park. There are some good things. I could
October 12, 2021
Page 228
walk out my door, around the corner, have a snack, sit at the bar,
have a drink, and maybe if I got too many drinks, I wouldn't illegally
drive home. I would stumble on home. That's a plus.
The traffic hasn't been that bad, but there is one big, big negative
thing. It didn't start off that way at Celebration Park, but now it is
six nights a week, and that is ear-drumming noise. Broke my
eardrums, broke my windows, shake the walls of my house, it is so
intense.
And on Thursday they're going to ask to be open on Monday
night. We had one day of the week of peace and quiet in my
neighborhood. Now I firmly believe that the permit is going to be
approved, and we won't even have that one there.
You're going to -- you better buy your earplugs, because you're
going to need them. The noise generated by Celebration Park is
numbing whether your operator at your proposed place knows how to
turn that volume down, I hope so. But Celebration Park does not
turn the volume down ever.
I've concluded my remarks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Messner.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jeff Davidson. He'll be
followed by Tad Wallin.
MR. DAVIDSON: Good afternoon, or even good evening.
I'm Jeff Davidson with Davidson Engineering. Our company did the
Site Development Plan for this project. I've been doing Site
Development Plans for 33 years here in Collier County. I know
what goes into a Site Development Plan approval, and it's not an easy
process to get through.
This has taken 10 months. I don't know how much we charged
to do this work, but it's probably somewhere between 50- and
$100,000, and it got approved by county staff. It's totally unfair to
get to this point to have an approved Site Development Plan and then
October 12, 2021
Page 229
appeal it. It's just not the way things have ever worked before. I've
never seen it done in 33 years, and I don't know anybody that has.
So I would like for you-all to consider that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tad Wallin. He'll be
followed online by Mike Lots. Mr. Wallin has been ceded additional
time -- and I would ask these people to raise your hand to indicate
you're here. Gladys Fitzsimmons.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Jean Cogne. I hope I'm pronouncing that
right.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Yes. And George Merkling.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: So Mr. Wallin will have a total of 12 minutes.
MR. WALLIN: Thank you, Chair lady, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Chairman is fine.
MR. WALLIN: Chairman, my name's Tad Wallin. I live at
418 Panay in Isles of Capri.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Wallin, could you pull that microphone
closer to you, please. Thank you.
MR. WALLIN: I knew I bought a fee interest on Panay
Avenue about 700 -- 600 feet from the proposed project in December
of 2020. I live right across the water from that.
In my submissions, my many submissions, basically three that
certainly are part of the letter at this point in time, letter of May 19th,
June 9th, and a cover letter of September 20th, show that we've got a
problem here. But one thing can be agreed upon. I think everybody
in this room would agree that the government here, your board, just
like all other boards in the country of this nature, owe a duty to
October 12, 2021
Page 230
protect the citizens, its citizens, protect them from harm.
What has happened here is there is a pattern which is seen in
Celebration Park and in the chronology of this park where the public
hears to begin with that it's just a food park, and we're going to sell
maybe a beer, and we're going to have, like in our case, an ice cream
social so the grandkids can come and they can go on Sunday and
have ice cream with grandpa, and that's -- that's the extent of it.
So what happens -- this was, say, like, in February or January
that this -- that we were told this. Mr. Rogers appeared on
February 26th and said, well, we're going to have -- we're going to
have some inside drinking maybe, maybe a little bit outside, but this
is not a bar. Nothing about a band. Nothing about amplified sound.
Nothing about a -- are you ready for this? You probably
are -- 3,000 -- 3,068 square feet dance floor with a band shell with
150 people to sit around as spectators. Now, what could possibly go
wrong with that?
My point is, this started out, but it's morphed, just like
Centennial has, into something that wasn't planned, wasn't foreseen,
and can take us by surprise. And what and who are going to stand
between that and us? And that's your body.
Most of the time when there's a problem comes up in our
society, many times you go to the police, we'll say, this guy's drunk
or this guy's crazy. He's going to try to kill me, and let's try to stop
him. And they say to you, well, that's a civil matter, but he hasn't
done it yet, so we can't help you.
Many times a body like this will say, well, gee, how do we know
there's going to be problems with this? Why would that happen?
We don't know yet. In this case, because of what has happened with
a guy named Tad Wallin, he went ahead on May 1st of 2021, helped
set up, like I wanted to do, the party, the mayday party for all the
residents of Isles of Capri. It happened that there was a band, a local
October 12, 2021
Page 231
band, which still plays around here, called the Iconics, that was
playing there for entertainment that day.
So I all of a sudden think, I better go back to my place and hope
the heck that I can't hear that band, because if I can, then that says
something. That says that there's going to be noise like this on and
on and on, and you folks won't be there except on what you've done
before, that is to protect us. Then the noise could be gone. We
wouldn't be here today if -- I'll bet we wouldn't be here if there wasn't
going to be a bar and there wasn't going to be a band. How's that?
Ice cream parlor food truck, easy.
All these things morph. Enterprising capitalists know this. It's
happening around the country, and we've got to act.
Now you're thinking, well, Wallin, tell us how we can act now.
I'll tell you exactly how. When I went back that day, and the iconic
band, I noticed how they were playing and how loud they were. You
know, loud, soft, whatever. They just -- it was what it was. I went
back to my house, 7- -- 600 feet, about, from that noisemaker, and
what happened was I was appalled. I went out on my dock. I could
hear that at nuisance levels over the water and/or over through the
canyons of the condominium whose president will be speaking right
after this.
Then I thought, well, here's what I have to do. I went
inside -- and, remember, I'm under oath now, and I know that. I
went inside my house. Half the windows on the side facing the
noise, facing the proposed project, are double pane, half of them are
single pane. I could hear that noise, that music. It invaded my
private property that day through both of them. I could hear it inside
my house when it's closed.
First of all, why should we have to live with our house closed
during the evening? How about that? If we don't want to, we
shouldn't have to. And -- but you go ahead and close it, and you still
October 12, 2021
Page 232
hear it.
And we've heard testimony from these nice folks that took all
their time to come out from Centennial [sic], and what did we get?
We heard that the noise vibrations at times breaks a window. This
gentleman said that right over there. And what did we hear? That
the vibrations at times can be felt through the walls. That's the
magic of this amplified -- artificial amplification.
So bottom line, because I did that and now we've got proof that
these noises invade a legally protected interest that all of us know in
our own mind what that is, maybe the sovereign can't come into my
house, well, private property -- private ownership can't either.
Because we have that information now, and you have it through
competent testimony under oath, you can act. You can take this and
create your own jurisdiction in a modification for the LDC, or you
can go ahead and also say -- you've got the option -- you ask this
gentleman over here. He'll tell you what the options you have -- can
go ahead and just overturn Mr. Bosi's ruling; send it back down to
have them fix it.
But my point is, this will be back to be litigated in either -- to be
talked about in this forum or up in the Circuit Court. And the
reason -- let me -- the reason that there's no 100 other people
appealing this, as this one other gentleman here, this gentleman said,
is because in order to do that you had to hire an attorney because you
had to have a legal argument and, two, you had to pay a
thousand-dollar filing fee. How's that sound? Not too fair.
So in other words, in other words, we're all here today, and so
many more of us know what's going to happen on this because we
know what's -- how Stan's works. The people that like this type of
place, which is all sorts of people, know -- and especially the ones
that want to drink and carry and carry on -- can you imagine
that? -- are going to know that they can stop off at Capri, and they'll
October 12, 2021
Page 233
be safer from police because they don't have to run through the
Marco Island going out, which is fine because they've not been
drinking, or coming back, they've been drinking.
So this is going to be a destination. I have a quote that's part of
the record in Page 3 of my communication to this tribunal on
June 9th. This is from a lady on Weeks Avenue, who runs parallel
to Becca, just a little bit to -- I forget the directions. It's skewed out
there. So here's what she says reference the Celebrity or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Celebration.
MR. WALLIN: Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Celebration Park.
MR. WALLIN: At times the music goes on 11:00 p.m., late
into the night. Even with the windows shut, the bands are heard
disturbing sleep and other residents quoted as saying their windows
rattle because of the seats -- the beats of the band shook our closed
windows. This resident reports that neighborhood folks substantially
north of the noise generation report comes up surprisingly clear on
the canal they live on, which goes to the known -- mariners know
this, physicists know this, sound transfers more efficiently, twice as
efficiently over water as ground, and that's a reason that I feel I have
to be here today to protect what I bought and paid for.
When I was trying to prepare for this case, I tried to resist for
years and years, but I finally got onto Google and started going into
their word finder. I used to say, well, here, get the dictionary.
Well, we don't do that anymore, Tad. We go on Google. So I went
ahead and went on Google. Lost the window, but it came back so
here's somebody, somebody, I don't know where, here's what that
person said, about a concept like this. So the peace and quiet --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Talk into the mic, sir.
MR. WALLIN: So the peace and quiet that they have been
used to and spent a significant amount of money to enjoy has
October 12, 2021
Page 234
disappeared, and that person goes on, we've got so much growth
going on, and this is something that needs to be -- talked, tackled
soon. No truer words were ever spoken. Who knows where they
happened.
We have a chance right here right now through you to protect us
to get ahead of the curve on this menace. You do not want to be
servient in your house to a society -- to a business that is driving you,
like what these folks said, just a little bit or a lot crazy and, by the
way, I know as a fact. I called them. Celebration is just chomping
at the bit to go seven days a week live music. They're just waiting
for Thursday. Live music till, what, 9:00.
Thank you. Thank you for listening.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is our first
speaker online, Mike Lotz. Mr. Lotz will be followed by David
Rippe.
Mike Lotz, you should be receiving a prompt to unmute
yourself, if you'll do so at this time. You have three minutes, sir.
There you are, Mr. Lotz. You have three minutes, sir.
MR. LOTZ: Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes. You have three minutes, sir.
MR. LOTZ: All right. Thank you.
I'm the president of Tarpon Village, which is a 55-year-old
community. We have 55 units, and we have some of our residents
that have successfully reached the age of 90 years plus.
They worked to retire peaceably on the Isles of Capri. They're
very concerned about their property values and the adjacent
development.
Some have asked me to speak on their behalf. They are not
happy of this prospect of having this project so close, and they're all
October 12, 2021
Page 235
agreeable in the concerns of all the problems cited previously: The
noise, the visiting traffic, the odor, loud music, alcohol and its effects,
and the main problem is they're concerned for the property value.
We are in total agreement with Rich Yovanovich's effort to
rescind this approval based on that we didn't get our due process on a
public comment, and some of these things weren't followed that we
were originally promised in the process.
This seems to be, like, a rush to approve this project, and some
of these things have been left out or not addressed. And one of the
concerns we have are the quoted similarities to approve the project on
a C-3 basis when the two arterial local streets don't come into play.
Kon Tiki can never be considered an arterial level street. In fact, it's
been cited by Thomas Mastroburdo (phonetic) that it's narrower than
the required fire code for a fire access road. He cited that in some
areas it's as narrow as 14 feet.
The comment that Stephanie Neracki (phonetic) had made that
she was concerned when the project was going to have its dumpster
off of Kon Tiki Drive, that she wanted us -- or wanted the project to
verify the vehicular turnaround radius in that area. This would
create a dead-end.
Well, the dumpster's been removed and reorientated to have
access from the driveways on the project, but it still leaves the open
concern that Kon Tiki will be inviting to new people, new traffic in
the area, people that are curious, people that are lost to go down Kon
Tiki only to find the entrance to Tarpon Village driveway, which is
our exit point.
So without any area to turn around and to get out of that
situation and this bottleneck, that's going to force these drivers
through our area against our established traffic pattern and put in very
much concern for our older residents who might not be aware of this,
and these people could be speeding through there. And we're
October 12, 2021
Page 236
concerned about injury or worse, harming our older residents.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry, sir. I just need you to
wrap up, sir. Your time is up, please.
MR. LOTZ: Wow. Okay.
So anyways, what I did is -- I think a solution to this is put Kon
Tiki to be a one-way westbound. I wrote to Mr. LoCastro. He said
there was a new review letter they were waiting for on this, but I
don't think there was any indication that this was going to be brought
up.
I wrote Ray Bellows; there was no response. I wrote to Mike
Sawyer, who said that there would be -- there was a rumor --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, sir. I'm sorry, sir. Your
time is up, and I gave you a little extra time.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is David
Rippe. I hope I'm pronouncing that right, sir. And to be followed
by Pat Schultz.
David, you're unmuted. You have three minutes.
MR. RIPPE: Yes. I just wanted to thank everyone for
allowing me to speak.
I am a resident of the Isles of Capri. I'm articulating my
opinion by speaking against the established plan of a mobile food
vending court primarily for all of the reasons that have already been
discussed.
Traffic, we have a narrow, two-lane access to areas beyond the
proposed site. Even without much traffic, there can be -- you know,
there can be some difficulty. Remember, we've got a fire station
with emergency vehicles. That's an issue. The proximity to
existing residential condominium community is a problem.
The likelihood of disruptive activities with public congestion,
loud music, open alcohol consumption, all of those we know that are
going to happen, and because there's limited geography there, the
October 12, 2021
Page 237
possibility of street parking, again, interfering with the entry and the
egress from the island.
You know, across the state, mobile food vending operations
have been subject to specific zoning restrictions. For example, St.
Petersburg, elsewhere around the country, also, you know, these
limitations include frequency of food truck operations. For example,
no -- located on site no more than twice a week, as well as other
limitations. For example, the number of food trucks at a site.
Perhaps no more than one or two, and other restrictions as well.
The point is, is that these communities have recognized that
these are not -- this is not simply an eating place, okay. Perhaps it's
related to the carnival-like atmosphere that can go with them.
You know, a carnival is not simply an eating place, and neither
is your home, okay, despite the fact that there's eating that goes on in
both of those locations. As such, these entities are appropriately
treated differently in zoning requirements.
And for all of those reasons, I really don't believe that this is the
type of business that is a good fit for Isles of Capri and, in particular,
in this location, and that I think that this -- that this -- that these things
really need to be considered further before progressing forward.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final speaker on this item is
Pat Schultz. Pat, you should be getting a prompt to unmute yourself,
if you'll do so at this time. Pat Schultz, you should be getting
prompted to unmute yourself. Final call. Pat Schultz, if you'll
please unmute yourself.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I'll keep you posted, but Pat
Schultz does not seem to be unmuting, and that is our final speaker.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I think it's time for a
October 12, 2021
Page 238
court reporter break. We'll come back here at 5:45.
(A brief recess was had from 5:31 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.)
MR. CALLAHAN: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. We have
now closed the -- we didn't hear from the person that was on, correct?
MR. MILLER: She was unable to mute [sic] herself, so we
suggested she e-mail her comments to you, and then you could share
them with the other board members. I hope that was a -- she was
having computer problems.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Then I'll double-check here.
So let me do that right now and see if I've got them. No, I don't.
So at this point -- was she yea or nay? Do we know? We don't
know.
MR. MILLER: I don't know that, but I will effort that right
now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's fine. You're going to ask?
MR. MILLER: Yeah. Offline, not over the speakers. I'll
communicate with her off-line here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
So at this point the public speaking comment part of this hearing
is finished, and we are now moving to the closing arguments for the
zoning director, the neighboring property owner, and property owner.
And you have 10 minutes each. Part of that 10 minutes can be a
rebuttal, and I'll start with Mr. Bosi.
MR. BOAZ: Good evening, Commissioner. Mike Bosi,
Zoning director, and I'll be short.
I'm not going to get into a long discussion. I think there has
been a lot of factors that have been put out there. I'm not sure if they
were all clear and unambiguous. I think there has been some
interpretations that are being asked of the Board to make.
What staff has reacted to, as I indicated within my opening
October 12, 2021
Page 239
remarks, were -- that 2016 determination, the guidance that was
provided for that, and then deliberations as to how this use fit within
the SIC code of 5812 of eating places.
Ultimately, I think the Board of County Commissioners makes
the decision, is the food truck park qualifying as an eating place and
base your decision.
But staff recognizes that the position that we had, although
consistent, might not be the right decision if the Board finds that the
factors that were presented today would invalidate that type of a
determination.
We have tried to be consistent. We've tried to treat every
question related to the food truck parks in the same manner. That's
the one thing we have tried to pride ourselves is on that consistency.
But if the Board defers in a different direction, we understand, and
we'll take that direction as appropriate.
I do have Mr. French and Ms. Cook available if the Board would
have any questions, but that wraps up the staff's position.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do see that we have a question from
Commissioner McDaniel and then Commissioner Solis. And this is
for Mr. Bosi?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
I just wanted to ask, because you've referred multiple times to
the staff's utilization of the HEX's decision from '16. Is it your
interpretation, or was it staff's, not yours particularly, but it was
staff's interpretation that the Bayshore overlay is less intense than
C-4, the underlying zoning that permeates through that particular
area?
MR. BOSI: I don't think there's any doubt that it is less intense
than a C-4 or C-3 zoning district.
October 12, 2021
Page 240
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then that determination,
then, allowed for C-2, which does, in fact, have the restaurants and,
C-3, the eating places and such to carry through for you to come back
to --
MR. BOSI: As we said, that's how we interpret that cumulative
effect within our zoning district.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So I've got a couple of
quick questions. And just so that I'm clear, so we've -- have we ever
made a determination that a food truck park is an eating place? I
mean, other than the one we're talking about today?
MR. BOSI: Yes, in the 2006 [sic] determination.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And other than the 2016
determination made by the HEX.
MR. BOSI: There was three zoning verification -- or the
zoning verification letter, an SDP, and SIP that have made that
determination.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right. So we've done
that in the past.
And based upon your interpretation of what's allowed under C-3
and what's -- and C-4 and what's being proposed, would we -- would
you have approved this SDP without the reference or the need to rely
on the 2016 HEX decision?
MR. BOSI: Without the 2016 HEX decision, I believe -- and
without the other determinations that were made, based off of that
comparable-use determination, I believe we would have requested the
applicant to go through a comparable-use determination so we could
understand how we, as a body, the Growth Management Department,
would treat and should treat eating places -- or food truck parks.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I have.
October 12, 2021
Page 241
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I will be brief.
I think what it all comes down to is what was intended by the
HEX decision when it was issued in 2016. Was it intended to be a
countywide determination, or was it intended to be a local
determination on a specific piece of property? Because at the time
all you could do was a local determination on a specific piece of
property under the underlying zoning district that was in effect at the
time.
Staff has elected to make it a countywide application. They've
done it on a couple of other occasions. Staff doesn't have that
authority, and neither did the Hearing Examiner.
If a code -- and there's no question that food truck parks are not
listed anywhere in the Land Development Code. Everybody
acknowledges that, and it was determined to be okay for Celebration
Park through a public-hearing process. That public-hearing process
was never intended to be an amendment to the Land Development
Code.
Essentially, what staff is doing, by themselves, is amending the
Land Development Code through applying an interpretation of the
Hearing Examiner.
I think Commissioner Solis hit it on the head when he asked the
question, what's the process in place to amend the Land Development
Code? Staff drafts language. It goes to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission holds a public hearing on what should we
do about food truck parks? Where should they be in Collier County?
And then it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, and it takes
four out of five of you to amend the Land Development Code to
determine where food truck parks should go in Collier County. That
process was not followed.
October 12, 2021
Page 242
A hearing examiner heard a specific application on Bayshore
under a Bayshore overlay that was intending to bring people back to
Bayshore, drive them to Bayshore. We don't agree that it's less
intense than C-4, but the overlay was intended to revitalize the area
by bringing people to that area. For better or for worse, I think it's
worked. There's a lot of people now going to Bayshore, and a lot of
other businesses have spurred off from people coming to Bayshore.
It was intended to bring people there. Isles of Capri is a different
place. There are other different places.
We're not telling you food truck parks should never be anywhere
in Collier County. We're just asking you to put it through the
process that was always intended to be, and we're asking you to grant
our appeal of the OI. Food trucks -- determine food truck parks are
not permitted uses in C-2 and C-3, and grant our appeal on the Site
Development Plan and just simply ask the applicant for that Site
Development Plan to do a comparable-use determination.
We can have a specific hearing on that, and we can talk about
the issues that may concern the neighbors. And if they could get
over that hurdle and assure the neighbors, maybe a food truck park is
appropriate; maybe it's not. We want the process. That's why we
appealed it.
And just -- I know it's unusual for Site Development Plans to get
appealed. I've defended people attacking a Site Development Plan in
the past. It happened in Pelican Bay. There was a Site
Development Plan approved for Cap d'Antibes, and the residents of
Pelican Bay attacked that Site Development Plan, and we defended it.
It's rare.
But there's a process when staff may have gotten it wrong.
We've been involved in this since March when we heard of this. We
didn't surprise anybody. We got involved early on in the process.
And with that, we request that you grant both of our appeals and
October 12, 2021
Page 243
you let the petitioner decide whether or not they want to pursue the
Site Development Plan through the comparable-use determination
process.
And we thank you for your time. It's been a long day. And if
you have any questions, we're available to answer them, but I think
probably all the questions have been asked and hopefully
satisfactorily answered.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Seeing none.
Mr. Davies.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, a quick reminder, this is not your traditional
rezoning hearing. This is an appeal hearing that the other side has
tried to turn into that traditional zoning hearing, but that's not what
you're here hearing today as the Board of Zoning Appeals. You are
bound by the relevant items at issue in the appeal documents, and
there's only one primary issue, and that's use.
Some quick rebuttal, Madam Chair. There was mention of SIC
Code 5963 which governs something called direct selling
establishments. It doesn't govern food truck parks. It's more
confusion, candidly, and it also happens to be permitted in the C-3
zoning district. So that's a complete red herring, but I wanted to
address it.
With all due respect to the history of Celebration Park,
Commissioners, my client shouldn't have to pay for their sins. My
client went through the process. He went through and reached
compliance with a number of different regulatory controls that you
heard from -- you heard about today that you heard from your staff
on.
We did go through your process in detail, and we are in
compliance with every single one of those requirements after the 10
October 12, 2021
Page 244
months in going through that.
Respectfully, Commissioners, don't overcomplicate this. Do
not fall for this trickery, this confusion. Staff did everything correct
here. It's okay to support your staff. It's okay to affirm them.
They determined that food truck park is an eating place. It's a place
where you go to eat. That's not contrary to your code, and that's
what we respectfully ask that you affirm.
I'm going to offer you a potential compromise as you go into
your deliberations. If you would like, you could overturn the official
interpretation. Note that doing so would clarify some of this
ambiguity. It would apply to food truck parks going forward; it
would not apply to my client. And then you can also affirm your
staff's approval of my client's SDP.
With that, that concludes my remarks. Thank you all, and
thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Davies. I see no
questions up here.
Before I close the public hearing, I'd like to put on the record
that Pat Schultz, who was on the phone to speak to us, has given this
information to Mr. Miller. Ms. Schultz is against the development
for environmental reasons. Thank you.
And the public hearing part of this hearing is closed. And now
we are open for deliberation.
So do I have any -- Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak first.
I'm the commissioner for District 1. I've spent more hours with
citizens, business owners, people for and against, so this hasn't been
lost on me, as well as spending time with the staff.
I represent both residents and business owners. But my focus
today is on safety, noise, traffic, lighting, cohesion with the
October 12, 2021
Page 245
surrounding area, precedent, and most of all the citizens of Isles of
Capri.
I believe we need to use common sense and get this right. We
need to be careful what we wish for. I don't think your client is
paying for the sins of the past with Celebration Park. I think we up
here need to learn the lessons of the past to improve the future.
I believe the staff did do their job right in 2016 for -- with
Celebration Park with what they knew. There was no precedent.
There was very few details about food parks, yet now there are a lot
of details, and there are some, including me, who think that the 2016
decision begs more questions; and that we certainly do get some
complaints, as you heard today, and we've all gotten e-mails from
people in Celebration Park.
I believe our staff did get it right on March 17th when they
drafted a letter saying that there were issues with this particular park
on Isles of Capri, and I believe they got it wrong when they reversed
their decision on May 7th.
I don't believe a food truck park is an eating place, per se, the
same as a restaurant is. If you look at the standards of a restaurant
with a roof, doors, walls, a lot of the noise is controlled because the
customers go inside, and the doors get closed. You also can control
the numbers because when every seat is full and every table is full,
then people get turned away. I'm sorry, there's no room at the inn.
A food truck park is much different. You're serving food from
a window, but the eating area's all exclusively outside, plus the bar,
plus the dance floor. I don't believe safety is the same.
We have to be dynamic enough to admit when we got something
less than correct.
This is going to be a set footprint of nine permanent trucks.
Yes, in time of hurricane and catering and all those other unique, you
know, once-in-a-lifetime type things, anything can be moved. But I
October 12, 2021
Page 246
think we all know that these are going to be trucks used as set
permanent structures, plus two bars, outdoor seating, and a dance
area.
Our knowledge of food trucks has evolved. The initial decision
of the HEX for Bayshore, I don't believe, had the intent for mass
approval of food truck parks across the entire county.
And I'd make a motion to grant the two appeals that are being
requested today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor. Do I
hear a second?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
second.
Commissioner McDaniel -- oh, Commissioner Saunders. It
disappeared, so I wasn't -- forgive me. I thought you deliberately did
that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no. I was waiting for
Commissioner LoCastro to finish.
And I agree with what Commissioner LoCastro has said and,
quite frankly, I would have seconded the motion had not
Commissioner McDaniel done so.
And I want to spend a few minutes explaining why. We're
going to -- this issue's going to wind up in court most likely, and I
don't have any issues with that. I think that's just part of the process.
But I want to at least state some of my reasoning for this. We have a
noise problem throughout the county, and I'd mentioned this to the
County Commission about a month ago, and we're looking at noise
issues that are really negatively impacting the quality of life of our
residents.
And so now we look at Isles of Capri. And I go out there quite
a bit. It's a nice residential community. Nice little cafes and
October 12, 2021
Page 247
restaurants there that are generally very quiet. We're going to
have -- I appreciate the gentleman laughing.
MR. ROGERS: It's not true.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I appreciate your comments.
I can assure you, the gentleman laughing, that that certainly didn't
help your case at all. So I would ask the audience not to laugh at the
comments that the commissioners are making.
We have a quiet residential community. I think that there were
55 units in a facility next door to this facility, and I can assure you
that I would not want to live anywhere near this type of a facility.
And so I think that staff, quite frankly, I think, got it wrong on
this one. I agree with Commissioner LoCastro that there could not
have been the intent to permit this type of activity throughout the
county; that the approval for the Celebration Park was limited to the
Celebration Park.
And so I just think that it's critical that we keep in mind the
quality of life of our residents. This would destroy their quality of
life, and I just don't want to be one of the commissioners that would
permit that to happen.
And so, when we conclude this, I want to ask the staff and the
Commission to, number one, go with another moratorium. Now, I
don't usually -- I'm a pro-development type of a person. Now, this
will be the second time in this meeting --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're changing you, sir. It's a good
thing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This is -- will be the second
time in this meeting that I'll be asking for a moratorium -- on food
truck parks until we get an ordinance from our county attorney to
deal with this issue.
And I'm also going to ask the County Commission to direct staff
to take a look at Celebration Park. We do have a noise ordinance.
October 12, 2021
Page 248
They can't exceed certain decibel limits beyond their property line.
And so I think we just need to make sure that they're in compliance
with our ordinance.
But I support the motion from Commissioner LoCastro on this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Just a -- I, as well -- I
seconded the motion. I was -- I concur 100 percent with what
Commissioner LoCastro said.
There's certainly an enormous amount of logic that was brought
forth for the staff to be making the determination.
My friend, Jeff Davidson, came up and made the comment that
this really hasn't ever happened before. I don't really recall it ever
happening. So I guess we won't be able to say that twice.
The reach to allege that the approval should go forward based
upon a decision from back in 2016 was just too much for me,
personally. There are -- there are so many circumstances that are
unique to every specific request that comes along, especially when it
regards an undefined business that we've yet to define in our Land
Development Code.
It's going to be my thoughts -- and, again, I'm not sure about the
moratorium thought processes just yet, but I would like to suggest
that the applicant for this food truck park go back to the HEX for a
comparable use. I want to also remind the residents that this
property is zoned C-3, and if the developer and the owner of the
property comes in with uses that are allowed within that without our
staff making subjective decisions with regard to comparable uses,
those are going to come, and you have to sometimes be careful about
what you wish for.
But going forward, we should direct staff to develop an
ordinance of a provision for a conditional use for food truck parks
simply because, as I said at the beginning, we might have gotten
October 12, 2021
Page 249
lucky on the other ones that have already been approved simply
because of where they were in relationship to surrounding neighbors,
arterial highways, so ons and so forth.
So having said all that, I'm in support of the motion. And there
you go.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. The only thing I'm going to
add is my concern is mainly the legal issue that -- you know, we have
this comparable-use process. I mean, I don't know that any of those
comparable-use determinations, regardless of whether they were
intended to be or not, can be, in fact, something that essentially
amends the Land Development Code without four votes from the
Commission. I just think that -- I mean, we might have wanted that
to happen, and maybe it would streamline things, but I just -- I don't
know how we can possibly do that because it, in effect, amends the
Land Development Code, and there's no way to know what's out
there, right? You'd have to know that this happens somewhere else.
I mean, it would be great for, you know, Mr. Davies and
Mr. Yovanovich, probably, but, you know, a landowner that's trying
to figure out what they can and can't do with their property would
have no way of knowing what the Land Development Code is today.
So, you know, I'm going to support Commissioner LoCastro's
motion. I don't know that I'm going to support a moratorium,
because I think deciding that the 2016 HEX decision is not something
that is applicable other than to that specific property, I think, takes
care of the issue and, moving forward, anybody that wanted to do this
would have to go through a comparable-use process with a public
hearing and all that that involves.
But I do think we need to look at that process and make sure that
it's going to come back -- I think it's an amendment to the Land
Development Code if that happens, and it has to come back to us.
October 12, 2021
Page 250
And I'll -- you know, I'll defer to the County Attorney if he
disagrees with me, but I think we have to look at that whole process
and how comparable uses and conditional uses work together so that
we're not kind of amending the Land Development Code on the fly
and creating all sorts of uncertainty.
And I -- you know, I feel for the property owner because they
went through the process. They got their zoning verification letter,
but the reality of it is, from a legal standpoint, I think that we would
be violating our own code of ordinances by not -- by treating this as
an amendment, essentially, that happened to the Land Development
Code. And I just -- I don't think we can do that, so -- and I'm -- I
will now take my local government attorney hat off before
Mr. Klatzkow throws something at me.
But, yeah, I just -- you know, it's a tough situation, but I think
that it's the only thing that we can do from the legal basis.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, if I -- I just
want to comment -- respond to something that Commissioner Solis
had said. I want to explain why a moratorium, I think, would be
important.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we discuss that after we --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We certainly can. I just
want to make sure that it's fresh in everybody's mind.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So at this point the moratorium is not
part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good.
I also feel that the zoning of the Celebration Park, food truck
park, is only applicable to the Bayshore/Gateway District. I was
intimately involved in this process.
There is absolutely -- we didn't know what a food truck park
October 12, 2021
Page 251
was. We didn't know. We never had that experience. The idea
that we could take something that we didn't know what it was and
move it throughout the county as a permitted use flies in the face of
logic. So I support Commissioner LoCastro's motion.
Now, we have a motion on the floor, which is a two-part motion,
I'm understanding, isn't that correct? First of all, we determined that
it is not a permitted use as -- based on this motion before us, and then
we have a second motion to deny the Site Development Plan. So we
have a first motion, and there's a second on that motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's granting the appeals for
the A and B.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That the food truck park is not a
permitted use in the C-3 zoning district and upholding the appeals of
the property owner. Am I incorrect, or can you phrase it?
MR. KLATZKOW: One way to approach it would be a finding
it is not a permitted use; therefore, the first appeal, which is the Site
Development Plan, you would affirm that appeal or grant that appeal,
and the second appeal you would also grant.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That was the spirit of my
motion, that it be both.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we can do it all in one?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because once -- you're either going to find
it's a permitted use or not a permitted use, and that dictates the
appeals determinations.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That was the intention.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was his motion was to
grant the appeals for A and B.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
October 12, 2021
Page 252
second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MR. BURHANS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Excuse me. We still have a little bit of our meeting, so
certainly you can leave if you so choose. We're not stopping you,
but please do it quietly, and thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We still have 8C.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Commissioner Solis,
the reason I used the M word there is this is all most likely going to
court, and a judge may very well rule that we were wrong in our
motions. It's appealable by the other side at this point.
And so I want to make sure that over the next couple months
while we are -- and we may not need a moratorium. This is a
question for the County Attorney. But over the next couple, three
months or so we're going to be developing some ordinances to deal
with this issue, and I want to make sure we're not stuck in this type of
dialogue in the interim. And that's the only reason. If we don't
need to do it, that's fine. But that's my thinking.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: How do we direct the staff to
at least start to begin discussions on LDC amendments and then bring
us --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're going to get three in a
second.
October 12, 2021
Page 253
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: We'll get to that, okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: I would suggest, then, if that's where you
want to go with this, you would direct staff to develop an LDC
amendment with respect to this issue, food trucks. If you wanted to
make it a conditional use, you should have staff go in that direction
so we're not going back and forth.
While that's going on, I would strongly suggest you put a
moratorium on this and to tell staff not to accept any applications,
because if this turns out to be a permitted use at this point in time,
you may have several other applications pending at that point in time
that you might be unhappy with.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So if I make a motion to do
what the County Attorney just said, both the moratorium aspect and
to come back with an ordinance and to tell us -- I think a conditional
use is probably the way to go, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: Is it the will of the Board that this be a
conditional use?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. And I spoke with Mr. Bosi, and I
think we both agree that a conditional use is the way to go because,
quite frankly, there are some neighborhoods that this would be a good
idea in a C-3 and some neighborhoods that this would be a terrible
idea in C-3.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just -- because I think
there -- the issue that's troubling for me is that we're not talking about
a food truck park. We're talking about food truck park with a bar. I
mean, the bar and the outdoor amplified music and all that is the part
that I think --
October 12, 2021
Page 254
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- is problematic for the neighbors.
You know, if we're just talking about a food truck park where, you
know, a landowner has some stalls for food trucks, that's one thing.
But it's -- it's tying an outdoor bar, an outdoor amplified music venue
to that, I think, is the problem. And so I don't know that there aren't
some different, like, degrees of what we're talking about that we need
to look at. You know, if there's going to be a bar, then maybe it
should be a conditional use.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, Commissioner, the -- what people
are finding to be offensive is the noise --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is the noise, right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- and I think Mr. Bosi and I could craft
something that --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- as part of that to address the concern.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what I'm saying. I mean, if
it's just going to be a food truck park where there's just food trucks,
that's a little different than what we're saying -- what we've seen
Celebration Park to be.
MR. KLATZKOW: But we know what the business model is
now, and the business model is to put a bunch of food trucks
apparently owned by the same guy and attract that to a bar with
music and a dance stage, and that appears to be the current business
model, which I don't think was ever contemplated in the LDC when
we were talking about eating establishments.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I still think we've got to take
into consideration, though, then, where that location would be,
because there are some locations that even a bunch of food trucks
with no music and no nothing and just a whole bunch of people going
October 12, 2021
Page 255
up to get food could not -- could still be a bad idea. I mean, it's
pretty wide open.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's why the conditional-use process
works --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's why we make it conditional.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- which requires four votes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yep.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Conditional use.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm lit up.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: LDC amendment for food truck
parks, moratorium.
MR. KLATZKOW: And we'll expedite this since there's a
moratorium. We're not going to sit on our hands on this one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We've got to make a
motion -- I have a comment, if I can. I'm lit up there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're done.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Am I done?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm serious. No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was one of the reasons
similar to what Commissioner Solis was talking about that I
suggested the applicant consider going back for a comparable-use
determination by the HEX, because there may be adjustments to what
their propositions are for that development that could be found to be
conducive by the neighborhood, and it's not loud and noisy and all of
the other things. And if they were to remove -- and that was why I
made that suggestion.
I have concerns about moratoriums, largely. I don't think we
actually need a moratorium, candidly, because we have just
determined for now -- until the Court decides that we were wrong,
Commissioner Saunders, but we have just determined that staff can't
amend our LDC without it coming through us. So the moratorium
October 12, 2021
Page 256
really is duplicitous.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we have several
lawyers in the room right now that are talking about how they're
going to appeal or what the next process is, so we know that that's
going to happen, and a court may very well rule that we were -- we
were wrong, and that's why I just suggest that we have a short-term
moratorium on food trucks, which I don't even think a food truck
park is even defined yet. But we have a short-term moratorium, and
maybe we don't need to do that today, but at least I would want the
Board to think about it. So if you want to do this in the form of two
motions where one motion is direct staff to come back with the LDC
amendments --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- utilizing a conditional-use
process for these types of activities, then I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Third.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The motion on the floor and a
second: Direct staff to come back with LDC amendments as
discussed. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then let me try to
fashion a more narrow moratorium, because I'm just concerned that
October 12, 2021
Page 257
we may be seeing this issue come up from some other property owner
between now and the next three or four months that it takes to do the
LDC amendment.
I'm not trying to stop a property owner from having a food truck
on their property, a true food truck, not a permanent emplacement
with a bar and dance facilities and that sort of thing.
So if I can -- perhaps the County Attorney can assist me in this.
But I would like to see the Board prohibit applications for those types
of facilities that involve food trucks that are somewhat permanently
located along with other entertainment activities that go along with it,
such as a bar and a dance pavilion --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Amplified music.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and amplified music
pending development of an ordinance to regulate those. So that
would be my motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. So staff would process a pure food
truck, just food trucks, but anything that had these accessory uses
with alcohol and dancing and music would not be processed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I'm trying to get
to.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. Do you understand,
Michael?
MR. BOSI: Yes, I believe I do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. BOSI: We have -- I mean, the first motion was make food
truck parks a conditional use. Bring back an LDC amendment to
make food truck parks a conditional use. The second motion was --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Until you come back to us, there is a
moratorium on --
MR. BOSI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- food truck parks that have
October 12, 2021
Page 258
amplified music, that have alcohol served, and what I heard was
semipermanent.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: Okay. I'll work with the County Attorney, and we
will bring something back that meets that.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think Commissioner Solis is
chomping at the bit over here. I can feel it. I can feel the heat, I
think.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I think you had something
you wanted to say, and I'm pointing at Mr. Bosi, that -- I mean, as it
stands right now, if somebody wants to do a food truck park, they
have to go through a comparable-use determination.
MR. BOSI: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the applicant here could do
that and, frankly, you know, you might win that -- you might get that.
So, you know, my -- because -- I think a moratorium is taking it
a little too far, because if the applicant would have gone through the
comparable-use determination process and there was a public hearing
and it came to the BZA, there might be changes to hours of operation
or things that they would have gotten the approval, and we might
agree with. So I just think that -- I don't know. I think it's going a
little too far.
And I don't know, Mike -- and I will say this, if there's litigation
pending and we're wrong on the decision we made today, we're
wrong on a moratorium, right? I mean, you would agree with that?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But we're not -- we're not talking
about months. We're talking about until the LDC amendment comes
back.
MR. KLATZKOW: I can come back at the next meeting with
an executive summary that fully flushes this out, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then I'll withdraw the
October 12, 2021
Page 259
motion. We'll come back in a couple weeks with some --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll work with Mr. Bosi, and we'll come
back with a motion for the Board to consider.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't think we're going to
get caught in the next couple of weeks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, there is a zoning in progress.
That's always a nice flag to wave. Thank you.
Okay. So are we finished with this item?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did we have 8C? We
haven't voted on 8C yet. There was an appeal by the applicant to
overturn the other appeals. We have to actually deny that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I make a motion to reject that
appeal.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Deny that appeal, and I'll
second that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: To deny that one, yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. There's a motion on the floor
and a second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I just wanted to say
something to Mr. Bosi, and I said it in private, but I think it's worth
repeating here in public. You weren't the defendant here. We're all
on the same team, I mean, your team did -- and even before you, you
know, rejoined the county team.
October 12, 2021
Page 260
Our county does great work. And this is a very difficult case.
There's not a lot of precedent. You know, like I said, if you look at
the county ordinances, when it comes to building a house, we've built
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of houses, so there's not a lot of
question or wiggle room. This one's a lot different.
But I think just on behalf of all of us, the work that you and your
team have done is commendable. I know at times you probably felt
like you were sitting at that podium and you were the defendant, and
you weren't. You know, you weren't.
So thank you for the work that you all have done to bring this
case to the table. You've spent a lot of time with all of us privately
to educate us on the process and the decision and so, you know, we
thank you for that.
MR. BOSI: And I appreciate the comments. And, you know,
from myself and Jamie's leadership, we work hard to try to attend to
the needs of the community. We understand not all issues are as
black and white. There's a lot of gray in what we do, and we always
defer to the wisdom of the Board. But when we hear that you guys
appreciate and you support what we do, it does mean a lot to us.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I wasn't including Jaime in
this, actually.
MS. COOK: Wait, wait.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That Jaime.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, that Jaime. Not him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Spoken like a true professional. I
find it absolutely remarkable that you were able to deliver what you
did today given the fact that you weren't present in the
decision-making.
MR. BOSI: Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And it speaks volumes of the caliber
of who you are. Thank you.
October 12, 2021
Page 261
MR. KLATZKOW: You have a last issue hanging, and
Commissioner Solis brought it up. Do you want a clarification that
comparable-use determinations are PUD specific rather than
countywide?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, the motion was to deny
the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, yes. But what I'm saying is that, do
you want -- because I think this really needs to get clarified in your
LDC -- that comparable use would be limited to PUDs, which would
eliminate your concern that comparable uses might be unknown to
other people or what have you. So in other words, it would be like
shopping center specific.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think that needs to come back in
whatever the LDC amendments are going to --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that's what I'm getting at. Would
you like to see that come back?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, I mean, that should be part
of that analysis, I think, yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because this was a straight
zoning issue. This wasn't a PUD.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that, but if you're going to
deny that this has countywide implications, what you're saying is that
you want comparable use limited to PUDs.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Or conditional use.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Limited to PUDs?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Or conditional use in PUDs.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no. I think the -- when we
granted the appeal on 8A and B, we granted -- we agreed with the
argument that it had no countywide application. It was property
specific, not just limited to PUDs.
October 12, 2021
Page 262
MR. KLATZKOW: If you don't think you need to, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, do you think we need it?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you need that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We need something that says that
it's not just limited to PUDs?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you need a clarification on your
entire comparable process.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Well, that will come back
in the LDC amendment?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we need to make a motion or just
it's enough? Do you have -- do you understand that we are going
to --
MR. BOSI: Oh, I understand, because one of the points that I
was going to point out is our current comparable-use determination
allows for a use to be -- to be broadcast over the entire zoning
district, so it would be countywide. So you want that limitation
or -- what I also heard was rather than the limitation of -- if it's site
specific, because then that's just a conditional use. Instead of the
HEX hearing, the comparable-use determination, the BZA would be
the body that would review it, which would require a --
MR. KLATZKOW: Put it another way. Mike isn't being
crucified today. If we have that rule rather than current rule, it takes
pressure off of staff, I would think.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Don't we take care of it by
the direction for conditional use? Don't we pick up --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We make the conditions.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but that's for the food truck park.
What I'm getting at is relook at the entire comparable-use
determination so we don't go through this again.
October 12, 2021
Page 263
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On something else.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, that's -- oh, I see what you're
saying. Just not -- we're broader now than just food trucks.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I think that's a -- I think that's a
good point, yeah.
MR. BOSI: And I would suggest that the -- the proposed
amendments related to the conditional use for food trucks, we
separate that out from the comparable-use action because that's going
to take a little bit longer to sort and work with the County Attorney's
Office.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, they're two separate issues.
MR. BOSI: Two separate issues, but I'm hearing -- and that's
what I wanted the clarification on. I was impolitely pointing to you,
Commissioner. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yep, I agree.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yep, agreed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Do you need a motion to
that effect?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think we have got enough support on
the Board for that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi, do you understand? Are
you comfortable with what we just did?
MR. BOSI: Yes. Yes, Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. Thank you
very much.
All right. So let's move on to –
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
October 12, 2021
Page 264
MR. CALLAHAN: That will take us to Item 15 on your
agenda, which is staff and commission general communications.
Nothing from staff at this time, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The only thing I'd like to say is to
congratulate a couple of staff people. I got a letter from a
constituent who had asked for some help on a couple of issues, so I
just bring to management's attention Camila Perez. And this related
to some help they had asked for with their HOA, who was described
as an ideal employee, resourceful, helpful, knowledgeable, and kind,
and Jack McKenna, who also helped with the lakes and the drainage.
So I just wanted to -- a shout-out to them, and also last, but by no
means least, Angela Goodner, who's highly commended for being
responsive to folks.
So that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have two quick things.
On Saturday I have the honor, for the fourth year in the row, to
chair Senator Scott's Air Force Academy selection panel, so I'll go up
to USF in Tampa, and myself and four of my board members will
interview his 50 finalists for four slots to the Air Force Academy.
So I just say that, because if anybody's listening and needs any help
with academy selection applications or processes, I'm a little bit of a
subject-matter expert. I've helped quite a few Collier County
students already. We have a sophomore at the Air Force Academy
now who's a Collier County resident, Walker Brunner, and a few
others at some other service academies as well, so honored to do that
this Saturday. It will be an all-day event.
And then, secondly, I chair the Affordable Housing Committee,
every one of the chairs in our team, actually, as part of the discussion,
October 12, 2021
Page 265
we had them put together a spreadsheet that I think you-all will find
helpful. And I have printouts here, but I think I'm just going to have
Iexa send your assistants an electronic version. But it lists all the
rental properties in Collier County, how much they cost, the ones that
have affordable units. So you'll see there's a bunch in bold, and I'll
make sure you get a key with this.
But this is a great document to just keep on your desktop or
whatnot. And there's lots of other things on here, so I won't belabor
it. But a lot of effort was put into this by the staff on the Affordable
Housing Committee to give you a good one stop -- you know, one
snapshot in case a question comes up, you wonder how many
properties actually have affordable units and about what the cost
figures are. You can see the ones that are in your district. So if you
want a paper copy, it's obviously an eye chart, but I have the
electronic version, and I'll make sure that you all get it. It's a
valuable document to have.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything to add.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I wanted to ask
you-all's opinion -- and it's just -- it's in the media a lot. The security
of our elections. We've people come before us and speak on topics
not on this agenda or future and such. I was wondering if we as a
board wanted to invite our Supervisor of Elections in to get a brief
report on how secure we are or not and just, in fact, what's going on
in Collier County just to have a discussion about it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One of the things that -- I think there
was a letter written by Dr. Joseph -- and I don't remember.
October 12, 2021
Page 266
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Doyle.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Doyle. And I asked the Supervisor
of Elections to answer that, and you were all copied on that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I called her as well,
because there's more than Dr. Doyle that's made allegations.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But there's a process that shows the
lack of knowledge of how our elections work. And if we discussed
anything, it would be the process.
MR. KLATZKOW: I could give you that process because
we've got a canvassing board. I know that Commissioner Saunders
has recently been on it and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So have I.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- Commissioner Solis has been on it.
And that's the entire point of the Canvassing Board is to ensure that
the process is fair. And, you know, the entire statutory process you
have in Florida, you do have an audit right afterwards. But I can
give that to you, or Ms. Edwards can come. Pleasure of the Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think I'd like to see -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Generally, I certainly
support transparency at all levels and public input on all of those
things, but Jennifer Edwards, as we know, does an incredibly good
job. She has answered all of those questions concerning audits and
all of the issues that could possibly be brought up at a meeting here.
So I -- I really don't want to bring her in here, because I can
envision this becoming just kind of a nightmare in the sense of people
coming in and talking about conspiracy theories and things like that.
I just don't think we need to do that. So, obviously, it's the will of
the Board, but I just think that that's getting into an area where we
just really don't need to. I think she's answered all those questions.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have spoken with her
myself personally and served on the Canvassing Board and am
October 12, 2021
Page 267
satisfied. I just -- I wanted to -- I wanted to have a discussion about
it, maybe set aside some of those misinformation pieces and
misnomers and the like, and not have a public hearing on it where
we're crossing -- you know, allowing or we're crossing -- you know,
asking questions, other than us asking questions. It's not -- it's not a
place for the -- for an actual vote by the public but just receive a
presentation from her about the process and maybe set aside
physically some of the misnomers. That was my thought.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it would be helpful, perhaps,
if we as a board would ask Supervisor Edwards about the process and
about the safeguards for the problems that have been alleged and that
we make that written documents available to anybody who is
concerned about it. That's what I'd like to do, because I think that
bringing Ms. Edwards into this room, we would have a public
hearing, and she would -- we would --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not a hearing. A
presentation by her. I was fairly clear about that. I don't want it to
be pep rally. I would like just to have from her, publicly, talk about
the safeguards that we have in place and the protection and the
integrity of our elections.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If you would allow me to, I will
contact her office and see what her wish is, either in writing --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, I would leave it up to her.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I like the idea of
inviting her but not summoning her here. And if she feels like,
wow --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to invite. There
wasn't a summons in that at all. It was more -- more of, this is how
we do -- we all know -- we all know. It's not for us. It's not for us.
It's just more of an informational. That was my thought. It was --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We'll see how she wants to deliver
October 12, 2021
Page 268
that information.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think that's a good
approach, if she would like to come. But I will tell you, she's got
quite an outreach program herself. So it's not like the public doesn't
have access to all the information. It's not like she's not reaching out
to the public.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: She's been answering these
questions nonstop.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She has.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I've spoken with her. And I
was actually on the last Canvassing Board. And, you know, she's,
my understanding is, spending an inordinate amount of time
addressing these issues over and over and over and over again. But
if she wants to -- if she's inclined to come and do it again, I'd leave it
up to her.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: With your permission, I will reach
out to her and certainly report back at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Great.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was all I had.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right, good.
Well, three small things. First of all, I'm turning to
Commissioner McDaniel who was absolutely stalwart and
courageous and stayed with the RPC until it became apparent that
they weren't even notifying you of the meetings, but it does seem that
the compact that may be formed may need a viable RPC. So if you
say -- if you are still concerned about it, I think we have found
something for them to do.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I would concur. And,
you know, I think -- and thank you for bringing that up, because I
was there on Friday for the -- for the compact, the resiliency compact,
October 12, 2021
Page 269
and it was quite evident from what I saw that the RPC is a place for
that compact to utilize to accomplish the things that could be done for
a benefit of everyone.
I have concerns with regard -- I've expressed them regularly. I
mean, we've stopped our funding to the RPC. The current RPC's not
functioning. It's been a long time since we've actually had a meeting
where we've been able to attain a quorum let alone conduct any kind
of business.
So there are some housekeeping issues that I still have on the
radar with regard to the RPC. But you're spot on. I spoke to one of
my friends today -- today about that, and the RPC can be a
mechanism for that compact as it moves through its organization on
governance processes to utilize the RPC to effectuate the receipt of
the grants and the projects and so on and have a responsible person to
take care of the compliance. That's exactly where we're going. We
just have to push the buttons on the RPC.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good. All right. Very
good.
Well, I think we're really close to hearing the finalists, correct,
or your choice on the sports operators, is that correct, at our next
meeting?
MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, ma'am. The goal it to get that on the
next agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So what if we all here -- I mean, it's a
$100 million stadium. I think we could hear at least maybe a 10- or
15-minute presentation from the final three; is that an agreement?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Who's picking the final
three? Is there a -- do we have -- is it County Manager's staff?
MR. CALLAHAN: There was a selection committee that
October 12, 2021
Page 270
ranked the seven that came in. There were seven qualified
proposals. The decision was made from that selection committee to
rank the top three and negotiate best and final offers to bring to the
Board. So you'll get those with a staff recommendation, and I think
our intent has always been to have all three operators available to
discuss their proposals.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I'd like a -- I'd like a
presentation. It's not unusual. Okay.
And then Florida Association of Counties has a 67-county
initiative to appoint a commissioner from each county to serve as the
county champion for broadband. So don't everybody stand up here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, Commissioner
Saunders is our liaison for the Florida Association of Counties. I
think he's a viable choice.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just have to get somebody
to tell me what broadband is, and I'll be happy to serve in that
capacity.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I'm going to give you these
papers. Thank you very much. You need to register. I've
been -- you know, I have not brought that out to anybody, so here you
are. Advocacy Access 67.
Now the only thing -- my only caveat is please don't suggest we
create a road in order to build the broadband. I would appreciate
that. Because that was the main thrust of M-CORES.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, it wasn't.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, it was. Oh, yes, it was. We
spent many meetings on that. But -- is that all I have to say? It is
all I have to say. Everyone have a lovely --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's not even 7:00 yet.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I could talk a little bit more. Thank
you very much, everyone, and thank you, Terri. Thank you very
October 12, 2021
Page 271
much. Meeting's adjourned.
****Commissioner McDaniel moved, seconded by Commissioner
Saunders and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted****
Item #16A1
AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF AN ACCESS
EASEMENT OVER COUNTY PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
AND PAINTED LEAF LANE
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2021-208: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS,
AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS, FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF VINCENT ACRES REPLAT, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20190001665 (F/K/A VINCENT ACRES,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150002012), AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2021-209: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF PALAZZO AT NAPLES, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20130002119, ACCEPTANCE OF COUNTY
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL SIDEWALK
EASEMENTS (SW.E.) OF PALAZZO AT NAPLES, AND
October 12, 2021
Page 272
AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY
FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A
PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR ROOKERY BAY – GOODLAND FIELD STATION
REPLACEMENT, PL20210002089
Item #16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF EUCLID ESTATES
(APPLICATION NUMBER PL20200002589) APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF SKYSAIL -
PHASE ONE, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20210000065)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN OF
THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN (BCB), A PART OF THE SOUTH
October 12, 2021
Page 273
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD)
Item #16A8
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $37,562.03 FOR PAYMENT OF $2,512.03
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TITLED, BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. PETER A. HELFF, CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. CEV20120016482 RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2080 21ST ST SW, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16A9
TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE AGREEMENT NO. 17-7200S
WITH ETITLE AGENCY, INC. FOR REAL ESTATE TITLE &
CLOSING SERVICES
Item #16A10
SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 21-7900, “DESIGN
SERVICES FOR STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
BCG&CC/CCN AREAS”, PROJECT NUMBER 60102 AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM, HOLE MONTES, INC., SO
THAT A PROPOSED AGREEMENT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK
FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE
MEETING
Item #16A11
October 12, 2021
Page 274
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENT 1 TO THE
TIGER IX – IMMOKALEE COMPLETE STREETS GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH THE US DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION/FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
GRANT AWARD #693JJ32040007
Item #16A12
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $290,000 FROM
FUND (313) PROJECT 60172 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO FUND
(313) PROJECT 60252 – VBR AT LOGAN BLVD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2021-210: AN AMENDMENT TO DEPARTMENT
FUNDED AGREEMENT (DFA) FM# 437103-1-88-01, WHICH
WAS RENEWED BY THE BOARD ON JUNE 22, 2021,
BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) AND COLLIER COUNTY; TO UNENCUMBER
REMAINING UNUSED FUNDS INITIALLY ALLOCATED, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $18,375; TO EXECUTE A RESOLUTION
MEMORIALIZING THE BOARD'S ACTION
Item#16B1
TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE CONTRACT NO. 17-7208
WITH GROUND ZERO LANDSCAPING SERVICES, INC.
Item#16B2
October 12, 2021
Page 275
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK
FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-60, AS AMENDED, TO EXPAND THE
HALDEMAN CREEK MAINTENANCE DREDGING
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) BOUNDARIES
OF THE UNIT TO INCLUDE TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE
COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Item #16C1
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH 23-81 LNT, LLC, FOR
WAREHOUSE STORAGE SPACE TO BE USED BY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT
Item #16C2
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 18-7416 FOR
PUBLIC UTILITIES LIME SLUDGE POND CLEANING TO
ADJUST THE FEE SCHEDULE RATE DURING THE
REMAINING THREE-YEAR RENEWAL TERM OF THE
AGREEMENT
Item #16C3
AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN L3 HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES
(ASSIGNOR) AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (ASSIGNEE)
Item #16C4
October 12, 2021
Page 276
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., FOR REQUEST FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 21-7904, “CEI
SERVICES FOR HAMILTON AVENUE AND DANFORD
STREET,” TO BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR
THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING
Item #16C5
AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX FUND (318) TO
FUND THE JAIL BUILDINGS J1/J2/J3 & PARKING GARAGE 1
(PG1) FIRE ALARM REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Item #16C6
REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 20-
7749, “DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES FACILITY DESIGN
SERVICES,” TO ADG ARCHITECTURE, LLC IN THE AMOUNT
OF $578,508, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO THE SIGN THE
ATTACHED AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D1
CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN TWO (2) SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND (A)
DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC IN THE
AMOUNT OF $261,466.60 AND (B) COLLIER COUNTY
October 12, 2021
Page 277
SHERIFF’S OFFICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $845,280, FOR THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MENTAL HEALTH, AND SUBSTANCE
ABUSE GRANT PROGRAM
Item #16D2
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,315,066 AND
NAMI COLLIER COUNTY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $146,700
PURSUANT TO THE STATE-MANDATED LOCAL MATCH
REQUIREMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Item #16D3
THE FY21-22 CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,495,900
Item #16D4
“AFTER-THE-FACT” CONTRACT AMENDMENT,
ATTESTATION STATEMENT, AND BUDGET AMENDMENT
WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA, INC., ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE INITIATIVE GRANT
PROGRAM FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SERVICES FOR
SENIORS TO INCREASE THE ALLOCATION, REVISE
ATTACHMENT II EXHIBIT 2 FUNDING SUMMARY AND
ATTACHMENT IX BUDGET AND RATE SUMMARY AND THE
SUPPORTING BUDGET AMENDMENT
October 12, 2021
Page 278
Item #16D
TWO (2) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN
THE AMOUNT OF $38,250 AND THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENT
Item #16D6
RELEASE OF LIEN FOR FULL PAYMENT OF $27,907.45
($22,325.96 PLUS INTEREST), PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DWELLINGS
Item #16D7
CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO
THE SUBAWARD AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE INSTITUTE FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RESEARCH FOR THE BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN JAILS
AND COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT FOR OPIOID USE
DISORDER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Item #16D8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE RESTORATION OF
SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK DOCK #4 AND RECOGNIZE
INSURANCE PROCEEDS
October 12, 2021
Page 279
Item #16E1
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL
Item #16F1
RECOGNIZING LUCIA MARTIN, GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION AS THE
SEPTEMBER 2021 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
Item #16F2
FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBAWARD AND GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,650
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY FIRE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IN THE RESPONSE
TO THE 36TH AVENUE FIRE IN MAY 2020 AND AUTHORIZE
THE COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBSEQUENT
MODIFICATIONS
Item #16F3
AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $17,100
FROM FUND (178) RESERVES TO PUBLIC DEFENDER’S
FUND (178) TO COVER PURCHASE ORDERS FOR LAPTOPS
AND DESKTOPS THAT DID NOT MAKE IT ON TO
PURCHASING’S REQUEST TO CARRY FORWARD LIST
October 12, 2021
Page 280
Item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2021-211: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY21-22 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F5
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE LONG-TERM LEASE AND
OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR THE GOLF AND
ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX BETWEEN CCBSG NAPLES,
LLC (“BIGSHOTS”) AND COLLIER COUNTY TO INCLUDE AN
UPDATED EXHIBIT OF THE LEASED AREA FOR THE
BIGSHOTS FACILITY, AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF
THE GOLF COURSE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Item #16F6 – Continued to the October 26, 2021 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT WITH
THE PARTNERSHIP FOR COLLIER’S FUTURE ECONOMY,
INC. (“PARTNERSHIP”) IN CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE
ESTABLISHED PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DESIGNED
TO ADVANCE THE COUNTY’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EFFORTS
Item #16G1
October 12, 2021
Page 281
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 21-7907,
“MARCO TERMINAL PUNCH LIST-GRANT FUNDED,” TO
O-A-K/FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A OWEN-AMES-KIMBALL
COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,885.00, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT
Item #16G2
THE DOCUMENT NECESSARY TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT
TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (FP&L) COMPANY OVER
PROPERTY OWNED BY COLLIER COUNTY AT THE MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Item #16H1
ROUTINE AND CUSTOMARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD BUDGET IN THE
AMOUNT OF $11,207,629.60 FOR APPROVED OPEN
PURCHASE ORDERS INTO FISCAL YEAR 2022
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2021-212: PETITION VAC-PL20210001116, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE SIDEWALK EASEMENT AS
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4523, PAGE 3037
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16I1
October 12, 2021
Page 282
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 12, 2021
Page 283
Item #16J1
TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 AND
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE
136.06
Item #16J2
THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF OCTOBER 6, 2021
Item #16K1
RESOLUTION 2021-213: REAPPOINTING JEFFREY CURL TO
THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2021-214: REAPPOINTING PATRICIA SPENCER
AND FLORENCE (DUSTY) HOLMES TO THE GOLDEN GATE
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Item #16K3
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED PAULA YOANYS ALPIZAR GOMEZ
October 12, 2021
Page 284
V. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, (CASE
NO. 19-CA-3709), NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE SUM OF $65,000
Item #16K4
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $330,000 PLUS $55,358.75 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND COSTS AND EXPERT FEES AND COSTS, FOR THE
TAKING OF PARCEL 215FEE, REQUIRED FOR THE
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT,
PROJECT NO., 60168, AND DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO PROCESS
PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL STATUTORY ATTORNEY’S
FEES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY, AS
AUTHORIZED BY CH. 73, FLA. STAT.
Item #16K5
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$75,000 PLUS $15,820 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL
239FEE, REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60168
Item #16K6
OVERVIEW OF AGENDA ITEM 7, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON
GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE
AGENDA
October 12, 2021
Page 285
Item #17A – Continued to the October 26, 2021 BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATIO TO CREATE THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE BOARD ON ALL
MATTERS RELATING TO THE PUBLIC ART WITHIN THE
ENTIRE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY,
INCLUDING THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2021-215: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FY21-22 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #17C – Continued to the October 26, 2021 BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE
DISTRICT RESTUDY AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE
URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL
FRINGE SUBDISTRICT AND THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED
USE DISTRICT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO
REQUIRE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR INCREASED
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY; AMENDING THE URBAN MIXED
USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT
October 12, 2021
Page 286
TO REMOVE THE DENSITY BONUS CAP ON RESIDENTIAL
IN-FILL AND REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO USE
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WITHIN ONE MILE
OF THE URBAN BOUNDARY; AND AMENDING THE RURAL
FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT TO CHANGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
REQUIREMENTS, TO INCREASE DENSITY ON RECEIVING
LANDS LOCATED ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD, INCREASE
DENSITY ON RECEIVING LANDS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, ADD TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
CREDITS, ADD USES IN RECEIVING AREAS, AND ADD A
CONDITIONAL USE FOR RECREATION IN SENDING LANDS,
AND TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RURAL
VILLAGES; AND CREATE THE BELLE MEADE HYDROLOGIC
ENHANCEMENT OVERLAY; AND FURTHERMORE
DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.
[PL20200002234]
*******
October 12, 2021
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:43 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SP C DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
PE AYLO , CHAIRMAN
ATTEST;.
CRYSIAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
%-';
atoiN ;a . St-IttL
signature'' y5j‘.,'
These minutes ap ved by the Board on I Ui I' OI , as
presented . or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS
COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C,
COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 287