PBSD MSTBU Minutes 02/01/2012 Pathways DiscussionPELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION
SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPTION OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2012 PATHWAYS DISCUSSION
MOTIONS, SECONDS, VOTES
MR. GIBSON: "I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to propose that this Board proceed with the pathways project,
that the eight -foot width issue should be modified to flex [down to] six -feet minimum because I agree, I want the
paths to be wider, but do we need eight feet? I don't think so. And I'd also like to put that caveat in because I know
we've had a lot of people very sensitive to trees and nature and I'm one of them. If we have to take a tree out, for
what is the last ditch effort to do that, that that tree be replaced somewhere in kind close by."
DR. TRECKER: "I second the motion."
MR. LEVY: "Would you entertain adding to that motion that a pathway in no instance will be any closer to a
building driveway ?"
MR. GIBSON: "I agree. That's a serious... I do ride bikes and I do walk and I haven't been hit yet, but I'll tell you
what, I've almost been guilty of hitting people, but I'm not on the other side of that ... I know how dangerous that is."
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS ASKED MR. GIBSON: "So, you will accept the inclusion of that in the motion ?"
MR. GIBSON: "Absolutely."
MR. IAIZZO: "We have to agree to one more foot which way we are going to go. We are going to go toward the
street."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "We need to leave that up to the engineers to put it where it makes sense. We are not
trying to disrupt the current landscaping, sometimes it just depends where we are, some places you can go toward
the street, but sometimes there is something in the street, I mean there's trees between the pathway and the street, so
you can't go that way."
MR. CHANDLER ASKED MR. GIBSON what he meant about "flex down to six feet."
MR. GIBSON: "We should proceed and not have the new pathway any narrower than six feet but perhaps there is
a caveat to that with an engineering study."
MR. CHANDLER: "I think the citizens raised a very valid issue about safety particularly encouraging more bike
traffic. I think an eight -foot wide pathway definitely would encourage more bike traffic. For a couple reasons. I
think some people who are marginally comfortable in the street might go `now I've got a nice new eight -foot wide
pathway, I'll go over there. Also I noticed people who do round -trip biking on the berm. They never leave the berm,
but if they have a nice eight -foot wide pathway down Pelican Bay Boulevard they may decide to take a circle route,
so some of that bike traffic on the berm might end up coming down the pathways in front of the driveways.
Speaking as a rollerblader, you give me a nice smooth eight -foot wide asphalt path I might be going down there too
and rollerblading and rollerbladers would be the worst thing you want to have on that pathway because a bike has
some decent braking power, but rollerbladers don't, so I guess I'm thinking that a six -foot wide pathway is fine and
that's a good compromise. I'm just concerned about `flex down to six'. That implies widening to eight feet in some
areas."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS SAID TO MR. GIBSON: "I thought your recommendation was for eight feet, between six
and eight."
MR. GIBSON: "Yes, in between six and eight. There's areas where... and I think your point is a very good one
because don't we want to encourage more bike riding in this community ?"
MR. CHANDLER: "No, not on the pathways."
DR. TRECKER: "Not on the sidewalks."
8532
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
MR. GIBSON: "Okay, then we don't want to encourage it [more bike riding]. Okay."
MR. CHANDLER: "I guess what I'm going at is I fully support a six -foot wide pathway, but I'm uncomfortable
telling the engineers it could `flex down to six. I mean what does the engineer do ?"
MR. IAIZZO: "I don't think that was the motion. I thought the motion was six feet period."
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS SAID TO MR. GIBSON: "When you made the motion, I didn't quite understand
the meaning of the word `flex down to six'. Are you saying...?"
MR. GIBSON: "Neil put it in the best verbiage when he was talking about how certain sections would be a width,
and there would be a gradual transition. That's what I was trying to re- verbalize."
MR. IAIZZO: "Can't it stay at six feet? Let it be at that."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "The motion is for eight feet going down to six...
MR. GIBSON: "Where necessary."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "If you don't like that you should vote that down and come up with another one.
MR. CHANDLER: "I'd support six feet wide pathways. I'm going to vote against eight flexing to six."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Anyone else have any comments before we vote ?"
MS. O'BRIEN: "Well, the original major objective was to widen it and now we're backing off of that and coming
back down to six foot maybe. Then I go back to we're taking a section of the pathway that is not in the worst
condition. We have other areas of the pathways in this community that are in much worse condition. Where you
literally cannot ride a bicycle safely or you can't walk safely because of tree roots being exposed and so forth. And
we're not doing those in the first phase. We're taking... we're doing this area that had been identified for a good
place to widen it and now we're saying well that's not really our objective, we just need to fix them."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I think that's why we recommended the eight feet."
MR. LEVY: "The motion is narrowing down to not less than six or six- and - one -half feet."
MR. GIBSON: "Alright, alright. Let's withdraw the motion and I'll revise the motion as previously stated and I'll
go with six feet."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I'd vote against that. I'd like to see us widen things. Six, six - and - one -half is the bare
minimum."
MR. LEVY: "That's throwing out a year and a half of work and a few hundred thousand dollars worth of consultant
time."
MR. GIBSON: "The reason I'm suggesting it is because 1 see this whole thing going down the rat hole."
MR. LEVY: "The objections have been trees and bushes, to lose those, and it's also been a safety issue of the
pathway being closer to the driveways and the buildings that people don't want to have. You address those two
things in the motion you have made, but I think eight feet is still the right way to go. This is a quality of life issue.
The widening of the pathways is not going to be a safety issue. It's a quality of life issue, a quality of life for the
people living in Pelican Bay."
MR. GIBSON: "Yes."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS ASKED MR. GIBSON: "Have you withdrawn it [the motion]? I was thinking let's vote on
it and if it fails then we'll talk about something else if there is something else."
8533
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
MR. GIBSON: "It should be very clear, but first we need a second."
MR. DORRILL: "Dr. Trecker seconded it."
DR. TRECKER: "I'm certainly willing to withdraw the second."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Is there another second to it ?"
DR. TRECKER: "The motion was made then withdrawn and the second was also withdrawn."
MR. CHANDLER: "I thought that Geoff said that he would revise his motion to be a six -foot pathway. is that
correct ?"
MR. GIBSON: "Yes, because what I'm visualizing happening here this afternoon is that the whole project be ash -
canned for who knows how long."
MR. LEVY: "Well, let's first try to get it the way it was conceived to be in the Community Improvement Plan."
MR. GIBSON: "You mean, no narrower than six feet and no wider than eight feet, reasonable transitions as
verbalized by our [Administrator]."
MR. LEVY: "Yeah."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "So you do it wider where it works and slightly wider where it doesn't."
MR. IAIZZO: "That will be crazy wavy."
MR. LEVY: "No."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I don't think it will be that wavy. Not if you do it gradually."
Someone in the audience wanted to make a comment
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Sorry, we'll never get to a vote if we take too many comments and we've heard
comments."
MR. CHANDLER: "I joined the CIP committee maybe a third of the way through, maybe half of the way through,
just before I was elected to the Board here, and I frankly don't recall any conversation when we were talking about
this potential widening about the potential accidents that might happen to bringing more people onto the pathway
with a wider pathway and the issues we have at the driveways, so even though maybe people put time into going on
a certain way, I think we have to, if we see a problem, someone raises an issue to our attention, `hey there's a safety
issue here' I think we have to recognize it. That's why I'm on the thought that eight -foot is too wide. It's going to
encourage more bikes on the pathway, it's going to encourage more accidents, I think six is probably not going to
bring people out of the streets onto the path, it's pretty wide. I would support six.
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "What is the motion we have in front of us? Is it eight or is it six ?"
MR. GIBSON: "It was eight feet, no narrower than six."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Okay, is there a second to that ?"
MR. LEVY: "Well, he also said that trees should be replaced that need to come out and not be closer to the
buildings and driveways. I just want to get the full motion."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah, with replace the trees in the area and no closer to the buildings or driveways.
MR. GIBSON: "There's no second."
8534
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "If there's no second then that's the end of the discussion."
MR. LEVY: "I second it."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah, there's the three points. Modified eight feet, no less than six feet, nice transitions;
replace the trees in the area where we take them out, and again the idea is to minimize the number of trees we have
to take out, that's why we're going to six feet in those areas probably; and at driveways, no closer to buildings.
MR. LEVY: "And it's a safety issue at entrances and exits.
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "It's in there, that's a good point. Any discussion? I'm going to have a roll call vote just
because I know it's going to be split. Start with the guy who did it."
MR. GIBSON: "Aye."
DR. TRECKER: "No."
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "No."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yes."
MR. CHANDLER: "No."
MR. LEVY: "Yes."
MR.IAIZZO: "No."
MS.O'BRIEN: "No."
MR. DORRILL: "Failed 3 -5."
Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to proceed with the pathways project, modifying the
eight foot width to flex down to six feet minimum with reasonable transitions (along the west side o
Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) and
with the following caveats: (and where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible)
1) if a tree is taken out, for what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere
in- kind close by, and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer
to buildings. Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted 3 in favor (Mr. Gibson,
Chairman Dallas, and Mr. Levy), S opposed (Dr. Trecker, Vice Chairman Cravens, Mr. Chandler, Mr.
Iaiz7o. and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion failed.
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Okay, is there another motion ?"
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "I'll make a motion to make it a six -foot path throughout with the conditions that
were in Geoffs original motion."
MR. CHANDLER: "I second."
MR. MOFFATT: "What about phasing? Do the worst areas first ?"
MR. GIBSON: "Till the whole thing gets done."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah. What we're voting on this year is for that central section. Any discussion ?"
8535
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
MR. LEVY: "I think Susan is raising a valid point. We're essentially replacing the pathway. That's essentially what
we're doing.
MR. GIBSON: "It's a foot wider. That's a big difference."
MR. LEVY: "A foot wider. But if that's what we're doing, I think we should do the worst part of the pathways first.
Why do this part of the pathways which is probably one of the best parts of the pathways that we have from The
Commons down to the North Tram station."
DR. TRECKER: "If that's the best then we're in bad shape."
MR. LEVY: "The east side of the pathways are probably in worse shape."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "You think the west is bad because you walked on the east. There are a lot of sections that
are in bad shape. Other discussion ?"
MR. DORRILL: "On the motion, I have detailed sketches and plans for the west side. If anything other than that
requires me to go all the way back and redesign and re- permit and we've accomplished nothing. If we can stick to
the project as conceived it is much easier to have the engineer issue an addendum for a width of six feet with some
minor design changes. That's what I would recommend."
MR. LEVY: "A number of speakers here recommended adding a foot - and - one -half which is six - and - one -half feet."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "It's interesting. I Googled this when the discussion started coming up. It depends on the
use of the pathway, but besides the eight to ten feet multi -use they say well five feet in a walkway, they are talking
about pedestrians not bicycles. Five -foot bare minimum, six -foot, six - and - one - half -foot is really recommended..."
MR. LEVY: "Well then let's go with six - and - one -half feet."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I feel more comfortable with six - and - one -half but there's some places where you
probably can't get six - and - one -half in, but I'm having the same problem you are. The idea here was to make them
wide enough so they aren't uncomfortable and we're on the bare minimum side of uncomfortable I think."
DR. TRECKER: "You have a motion on the table for six feet."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "That's true. Any more discussion ?"
MR. LEVY ASKED VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "Would you reconsider revising your motion."
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "No."
Someone called out from the audience accusing the Chairman of already making a decision before the vote.
CHAIRMAN DALLAS responded he was voicing his opinion and the Board would make a decision by voting soon.
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "This is a substantial modification to what was originally proposed."
DR TRECKER and MR. GIBSON agreed.
MS. O'BRIEN: "So if we would prefer to have six - and - one -half feet, we would vote no to this motion ?"
There was general agreement that if a member preferred any width other than six feet, they would vote no on the
motion.
DR. TRECKER: "Call the question."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS called another roll call vote.
8536
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
MR. GIBSON: "Aye."
DR. TRECKER: "Aye."
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "Aye."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "No."
MR. CHANDLER: "Aye."
MR. LEVY: "No."
MR.IAIZZO: "Yes."
MS.O'BRIEN: "No."
The Board voted 5 in favor, 3 were opposed, and the motion was passed.
MR. DORRILL would have the engineer issue the requisite addendum and "you will not see this again until it
comes time to award the bid" that he estimated would be in April.
F airman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler "to make it a six foot path
out (along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The
ns to the North Tram station) "with the conditions that were in Geoff's [Gibson) original
(where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible): 1) if a tree is taken
what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in -kind close by;
o address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings.
n Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted S in favor (Vice Chairman Cravens, Mr.
r, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Iaizzo, and Dr. Trecker) and 3 opposed (Chairman Dallas, Mr. Levy, and
rien) and the motion was passed
Transcribed by Lisa Resnick 2/28/2012 3:00:34 PM
8537