Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 03/07/2019
Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 2/28/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 March 7, 2019 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings 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. March 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 2/28/2019 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. ***This item has been continued from the February 7, 2019 CCPC meeting.*** An ordinance providing for establishment of a Water Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance, providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 87-79, as amended, and Resolution No. 88-311; providing for inclusion in code of laws and ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Danette Kinaszczuk, Pollution Control Manager] March 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 2/28/2019 2. LDC Amendments - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to add outdoor lighting limitations on single family dwellings, two family dwellings and duplex dwellings; to provide standards for tree replacement and tree removal in shopping centers; to allow additional pricing signage for facilities with fuel pumps and allow electronic message boards for price signage; to add standards and requirements for permanent emergency generators for single family and two family dwellings; by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements, Section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements and Section 4.06.05 General Landscape Requirements, Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards, adding Section 5.03.07 Permanent Emergency Generators, and including Section 5.05.05 Facilities with Fuel Pumps, Section 5.06.00 Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification, and Section 5.06.06 Prohibited Signs; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] 3. ***This item has been continued from the January 31, 2019 CCPC meeting, and from the February 21, 2019, CCPC meeting.*** PL20180002258/CPSP-2018-5: 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 Immokalee Area Master Plan Restudy and specifically amending the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element and the Immokalee Future Land Use Map; and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity [Coordinator: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Principal Planner] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 03/07/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes Meeting Date: 03/07/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 02/21/2019 1:23 PM Submitted by: Title: Dept Head - Growth Management – Growth Management Department Name: Thaddeus Cohen 02/21/2019 1:23 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/21/2019 1:23 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 03/07/2019 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 February 7, 2019 Page 1 of 100 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 7, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 2 of 100 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everyone will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Dearborn has an excused absence. He had some conflicting business this morning. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addendum to the agenda: We have quite a few things on for today. We're going to be going forward with a continuation and a finishing of the Allura project. That will be the first thing up. We have our Pollution Control Ordinance that was brought forward from January 17th. That's the second item. Then we get into a series of LDC amendments. That will be the third item on the regular agenda. Then under new business, we have some deviation considerations to look at. So with that in mind, I expect we'll probably be here longer than usual; after lunch for sure. Does anybody have any time limitations in the afternoon? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We usually try to quit around 4 o'clock. Is that everybody's general acceptance? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll miss my tee time this afternoon. COMMISSIONER FRY: You could just play nine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll aim for 4 o'clock, and if we just have a little bit more to clean up at that time, we can finish it off. Planning Commission absences: Our next regular meeting is February 21st. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a quorum. And I'd like to remind everyone on February 28th at 5:05 in the afternoon we have a LDC meeting on two items that have to be heard after 5:00 by requirement. So does anybody -- I think we've polled everybody previously. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll still have a quorum that will work. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You still have a quorum? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Thank you. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 3 of 100 Approval of minutes: I don't believe we had any come through this time. And that takes us to BCC report and recaps: And Ray's not here, but Mike is. Do you have anything? MR. BOSI: I came unprepared, Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Oh, boy. I've got to write that down. First time you ever had to say that. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do have one issue, but we can discuss it when we get to the LDC amendments. I understand the Board -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it has anything to do with the BCC report, that's what we're on right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, I understand the Board did not approve an LDC amendment that we approved, and that had to do with the housing definition and density. MR. BOSI: That was the LDC amendments to increase the affordable housing density bonus from eight to 12. That was -- it failed to receive a supermajority vote, but it was -- it's being brought back on the 12th of February for reconsideration. So that, there's still a -- that item's still going to be heard before the Board of County Commissioners at the next hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is the reconsideration -- has it changed in any way from what we approved? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the reasons were for the decline for any of the people who didn't vote for it? MR. BOSI: I believe there was just a slight confusion related to whether there was any imposition of inclusionary zoning. It was one of the questions that kind of confused the issue. We're hoping to be able to provide for more clarity when we present it on the 12th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think we considered it under the auspices of inclusionary zoning, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. MR. BOSI: It's simply the opportunity to increase the affordable housing bonus from eight to 12; that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, we made it clear that this was not a density by right. It had to go through the rezoning process. It had to go through the approval process. And from -- what I believe, there was a misunderstanding in that. There was a misunderstanding in regards to -- possibly involve some kind of zoning by right, but also, I believe, there's some confusion on where some of this could be applied. And I don't think the Board really understood that there's pretty significant limitations. It's not like I can go to Lely Resort and put up 12 units an acre in a PUD. I think they kind of got spun around on a lot of where could this be and, of course, the issue of concentration in certain areas of the county, but I believe that was kind of what happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Anyways, if you could track that and let us know what happens. MR. BOSI: Most certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, they certainly can remand it back to us if they want us to address some kind of an issue with it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there is no chairman's report today, and no consent agenda items. ***That takes us right into the first public hearing. It's Item 9A1. This is an item that has 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 4 of 100 been continued from our January 17th meeting. It's PL20170004419. It's an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard residential subdistrict. It's commonly known as Allura. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to speak on this matter, please stand up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've had disclosures before. I think, from an assumption, all those disclosures are still valid. And is there any additional disclosures? We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: I received several emails that are part of the public record. I had an email from Bob Mulhere explaining some changes and revisions to the project, and I had a brief -- that will also be part of the public record. I had a brief conversation with Rich Yovanovich regarding changes to the project, which are part of the public record as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just emails that are part of the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Emails and one additional brief conversation with homeowners in Barrington Cove, one set of homeowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure as the past except a couple of additional conversations with staff members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've had similar emails to what Tom Eastman has stated. I didn't have any conversations that I recall since the last meeting. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails, as everyone else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Emails, same as described. I briefly talked to Rich Yovanovich and Bob Mulhere regarding the proposal for affordable housing now in the range of 80 to 120 as it was proffered and sent to us, that Tom just alluded to. I also talked to staff about the proposal for the inclusion of affordable zoning -- affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, before we start, we typically -- well, last time we had left off with public speakers, and we had a series of people who spoke then and some of you who were registered then didn't get a chance to speak. So the original opportunity for today was to hear the rest of the public speakers, but because the applicant has introduced a change to the amendment, we're going to ask that they address their change today, we'll ask what questions we have of it, then, for those people who spoke last time, if you -- generally you only speak once on a subject. So if you spoke last time, because the subject matter has changed, we're more than welcome to hear your comment again today if you feel like speaking again. And then anybody else coming forward today to speak can address the new information that's being supplied by the applicant or, of course, talk about what they previously had in mind. So with that, Bob, I'll turn it over to you to start. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, this is a continuation of the January 17th CCPC hearing. I'll just go through these real quickly. Maybe there's somebody that wasn't at the first hearing. But this slide simply shows the location, which is at the intersection of Veterans Memorial and Livingston Road. It shows the zoning. This shows the zoning. There are two zoning categories within the proposed Subdistrict A and PUD, De La Rosa PUD designated presently urban residential subdistrict. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 5 of 100 Size of the property is -- let me just spend a minute talking about there were a couple of different acreage amounts thrown around. At the last meeting, I talked about 35.92 acres and a density of 9.74 acres. And I had spoken to Mike Bosi. There are some small slivers along Livingston where there are some title issues. That's the differential between 35.92 and 35.57. We are just about completed in the process of clearing the title on those slivers, which amounts to .35 acres. But in conversation with Scott Stone, since we don't have that resolved now, we're sticking with the density absent those two small slivers, and we assume we will have those resolved in plenty of time prior to adoption. So I just wanted to clarify that because it may have been a little confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I don't mean to interrupt your train of thought. But -- so your intention would be on adoption to add in those slivers to the total? MR. MULHERE: Yes. It's .35 acres along Livingston, and we're just about completed with that process. We talked to Mike and -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. So you want to submit to the State a Comp Plan amendment that's not complete? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the piece I was trying to get to so I could get a legal call on whether or not you have to be part of transmittal for the whole piece or you can do what you're proposing. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I think we could certainly add to the data and analysis or to the application some discussion of those slivers so that that the state would have that information. I don't think that they will object to -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. When you have a complete package, we'll send it to the state. You've had how many years to get this taken care of? All right. Literally years to take (sic) this title taken care of. When you've got a full package to get to the state that's ready to go, we'll send it to the state. MR. MULHERE: I don't know about years. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll tell you what. We'll go with the 35.57. We had previous discussions about the .35. We thought it was taken care of, but if it's not, we'll go with the 35.57 so we don't delay this any further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the objective was to make sure that if you needed to do this in transmittal, that it was addressed now rather than wait and find out we have to go back and start transmittal over again at the time of adoption, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why we had the 35.92 in it originally, because of the slivers. If we didn't have the slivers at adoption, we would obviously take out the .35 acres. But we'll -- if we have to have the slivers today for transmittal, we'll stick at the 35.57. This was not a secret. We had discussed it with staff, and it seemed comfortable with everybody, because there's some title glitches. But whatever the Board and the County Attorney advises we have to do to go forward today, we'll go forward today, either at 35.57 or 35.92. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't believe the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not working. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't believe they own any additional -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's still not working. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't believe they own the additional property that they'd like to add. So if they had wanted to add them, they would have had to get an affidavit of authorization from the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're proceeding with 35.57 as the number today. That's what it boils down to. Thank you. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 6 of 100 Go ahead, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. You referenced -- most of the Planning Commission members referenced a change that we proposed, and this slide shows the highlighted changes. Obviously, as I said, we reduced the acreage in this language to 35.57, which changes the density from 9.74 to 9.84. The number of units stays the same at 350. And we've added this following -- this sentence. "Additionally, 10 percent of the dwelling units constructed shall be set aside for persons who are in between 80 percent and 120 percent of the Naples/Marco Island Metropolitan Statistical Area, MSA, Annual Median Income." And under the second paragraph, "allowable uses, conditions, and restrictions," we've added the same language. Number 6 was a staff recommendation which says, "As an alternative to all of the above, the subject district may be developed in accordance with the urban residential subdistrict." I'm going to ask Rich to come up and speak with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now, wait a minute. This was for you to introduce the changes that you made since the last meeting. The rebuttal that you're asking about should occur after all public speakers are going on. MR. MULHERE: Appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now -- so let's move to the Planning Commission questions on the changes to the document to begin with. Does anybody on the panel have any questions based on their highlighted yellow changes? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm going to have a number of questions and comments, but I'm going to reserve them, if I may, until after hearing from the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I would like Cormac Giblin to give us a projection of what this change means at 80 to 120, if you have that data. I know you've tracked this data quarterly, and what this means and what the market is demanding at 80 to 120 or are they -- because my issue here is, if it's 80 to 120, it will be most likely 120. So I'm just curious to see what the market trend shows. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. For the record, Cormac Giblin, housing and grant manager. The page I just put on the visualizer shows what the corresponding rents -- allowable rents would be per income category for Collier County in 2018. If this property were to offer units up to 120 percent of median income, a two-bedroom would be allowed to go up to $2,025 per month. To answer your next question about what our market studies show, our housing demand methodology, we update that quarterly. And if you would focus on the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're going to have to zoom in on that, Corby, if you would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, please. We'll get there. We need everything recorded and transcribed, so I've got to ask you not to talk out from the audience. It's important, I think, too, Cormac, we get the column on the left. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I need the column on the left as well so you can -- MR. GIBLIN: Oh, you mean the income? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The column on the left that's called tenure, at least on the -- MR. GIBLIN: Gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's your unit types and targets. So your rental goes from extremely low to low and then owner -- then you kick into owner, and you drop the word "rental." MR. GIBLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's going to be one of the things that I think we need to 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 7 of 100 address, because their 120 range doesn't occur under the rental category that I can see. MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. You can -- I'll start with the far right three columns, or the far right of the four columns. Total units needed per year stratified by income level, and then available units in the market is Column No. 12, and we get that by our quarterly survey. And then the remaining units needed yearly per income category are the far right-hand column, No. 14. And what this latest survey says is that the market is adequately addressing the needs of the moderate and the gap income levels in Collier County. Where we have the needs are at the extremely low, very low, and low-income households. I also have -- I apologize. These are very small, but this is our quarterly apartment survey, and this is a telephone survey that we conduct by the county of every apartment complex in town and Immokalee. And we call them every quarter, ask them how many units they have, how many are available, and what their current rents are. What we find is that rents in Collier County change on a daily basis even within the same complexes. And what we see is that there are virtually no vacancies available for those apartment complexes that offer rents at the lower end, but as we move further up, we do tend to start to see that there are units available already in the open market for units, you know, above 15-, 16-, 1,700, 2,000. So I would just summarize by saying that the market looks to be taking care of the rents for over $2,000 a month. For the public benefit, we would want to see units at less than 80 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a similar breakdown like this but broken down by area? For example, does North Naples have more deficiency in any particular category? MR. GIBLIN: The only breakdowns we have are Immokalee versus Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was going to be my exact same question. I know -- okay. You're showing Grand Lely. Of course, we're looking at areas in that part of the county, but now we're -- this is up in North Naples near the -- not that far from the Lee County line. Can you go back to the other chart again, just so I can see the numbers. MR. GIBLIN: The first one? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that one; that one there. If you could -- so, clearly, from the 81 (sic) to 120, right now you're saying there's 191 units available out there. MR. GIBLIN: As of the date of this survey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The date of this survey in November, which was the quarter that -- the last time you got this information. But the real need is 524 units at the 51 to 80 percent. When you rent -- if you have a criteria 80 to 120, do you find it mostly around the 80 percent or 120 percent? MR. GIBLIN: Their rent limits will be set up to 120 percent, up to 120. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So do you look at that span? Do you look at -- how many are at 120 versus the 80? MR. GIBLIN: The income limit would be that of the 120, so it would just be anything less than that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you don't track if they're closer to the 80 category versus the 120? MR. GIBLIN: No, as long as their rent is at the 120 or less. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The area that you need, though, is not -- doesn't have any availability or -- doesn't have any shortcomes (sic) for the ones they're talking about. They're at 80 to 120. And from the chart you just showed us on the page after this one, or the one before it, there's nothing needed in that category at this point. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 8 of 100 MR. GIBLIN: Certainly, there's a need for all market-rate housing in Collier County. I'm saying from an affordable perspective, those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't fit the affordable needs. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, again, you don't have the site specific, though, because North Naples is a little different than East Naples and South Naples and out in the rural area. So we don't know if these numbers are relative to the location. They're just relative to the county as a whole. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. The apartment survey does have each complex by address. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you send us the -- not this page but the page after this, the one that you just -- the second page you showed with all your survey so we can have that. That will be a handy tool to look at for other applications that are coming in. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. And this is also available on the front page of our website. Like I said, it's updated quarterly, and it's out there as a service to the community when someone's looking to -- look for something for rent, they can start with this list and see, well, are there any available at that complex? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's already been announced that the school is going to be going in just on the opposite end of Veterans Memorial Boulevard or the -- and I believe you said you did a recent market analysis for employees of the public school system. Do you have that? MR. GIBLIN: I don't have it with me today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You don't have it. Let me ask you this: From an affordable housing standpoint, if we were looking at trying to provide and fulfill market needs for employees of the high school, what is the criteria that would best serve that need? Is it the 80 to 120 or 50 to 80? MR. GIBLIN: We recently completed an employer survey of many large employers. The school board was, by far, the largest with 5,600 employees, and by far, the majority of their employees fell in the very-low, low, and some moderate income categories. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: These are -- MR. GIBLIN: These are school board employees. They could be teachers, administrators, bus drivers, janitors. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll ask Tom. Tom, are you aware of the needs of the school district in regards to housing up in that area? Does it -- MR. EASTMAN: I don't have any specific data on that. Cormac's correct; we employ a wide variety of people at many different levels, from cafeteria workers to part-time bus drivers, et cetera, all the way up to the superintendent, but I don't have any specific data. Generally speaking, Commissioner Schmitt, the school district is in favor of affordable housing projects, especially those for essential service personnel. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I would believe that the location of this would be -- of this proposal would be very conducive to providing needed housing for employees that work within that school. What's a typical high school employ? Do you know? MR. EASTMAN: Again, I don't know. Mike may know. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Referring to the work that Cormac just recently performed -- I'm looking at the PowerPoint that he sent out, and of the 5,684 employees within the Collier County school -- public school system, 2,647, roughly about half, fall within the moderate -- the moderate income range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is what percentage; 80 to 120 or 51 to 80 then? MR. GIBLIN: That would be the 80 to 120. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 9 of 100 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So about half of them fall within 80 to 120; is that what you're saying? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, thanks. Thank you for the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff at this time -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a rough -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or the applicant? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Maybe Tom could find out for us the next time. When I hear "school board," I think teachers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What percent of -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Teachers and teachers' assistants. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. What percent are teachers; do you have any idea? MR. EASTMAN: The vast majority, I believe, but I don't know the exact figure, yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So what; half? MR. EASTMAN: I would say roughly half, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Before we go further I would like -- we had left over from our last discussion the TCMA issue and the traffic. I'm wondering if Trinity had time to take a look at it and brief us on what she has come up with. MS. SCOTT: Good morning. For the record, Trinity Scott, Collier County Transportation Planning manager. And over the last few weeks I have been diving into the early 2000s of board minutes, CCPC minutes and backup documentation. This TCMA, Transportation Concurrency Management Area, information was the pelted throughout over many years. And so the reason that the TCMA was developed, based on my research, is that we were in the process -- and I think this is a lot of some of the things that I said at the last meeting. Were in the process of implementing checkbook concurrency where there had to be available capacity before a development could move forward. We were just coming out of a time frame when we hadn't built many roads in Collier County, and we had a large backlog. So we implemented a TCMA strategy that allowed us to look at concurrency for an area-wide, and that would allow for infill and redevelopment to occur within our urban area. Some of the reasons for that were so we could discourage that eastward movement of our density. If we started having concurrency issues in the urban area, there was a fear that people would just go develop out east. Obviously, we don't have goods and services out east, and so those folks who live out east all come to the urban area for their services. So this was a way to reduce trip lengths and vehicle miles traveled by allowing for continued development in these areas but looking at an overall area of -- if 85 percent of the vehicle miles or the roadway miles within that area were functioning at an acceptable level of service. There was considerable -- oh, Commissioner Fryer, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll wait until you finish. Go ahead. MS. SCOTT: There were discussions as well during that time about density bonuses. Nothing that I could find was a silver bullet, if you will, to tell me this is exactly why they were looking at density bonuses. But in -- or my conversations with Mike Bosi and what you've heard 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 10 of 100 we're talking about these type of developments that come in and provide a mix of uses within our urban area, it was to, in my opinion and conversations with Mike, increase some density levels to be able to make alternative modes of transportation more viable as well as to look at the reduction of those trip lengths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Trinity, I remain concerned over the impact of TCMA bonuses on traffic congestion. It almost seems counterintuitive to me. I get the concept that you want -- we don't want urban sprawl, we don't want people spreading out when they're close together. Perhaps, perhaps, they're closer to their workplace, but it's almost -- it almost makes me want to ask the question, shouldn't it be a TCMA penalty rather than a bonus? Because the result is going to be more traffic on already near congested streets. MS. SCOTT: It's funny. That was actually some of the conversations that occurred back in the early 2000s. And, no, it's more to allow for those mixed-use developments as well as those shorter trip lengths. So if I have the same unit that develops in the urban area versus it going east to develop, that person who lives in the east, their goods and services are still in the urban area right now. And so they're still impacting the road network, but they're impacting a much larger area of a road network. They're driving 15, 20 miles to get to their goods and services versus someone in the urban area who lives in the urban area, works in the urban area, their trip lengths are much less. And, yes, I understand it's kind of a funnel we're all here, and until we see some different development patterns out in the east where we can change that commuting pattern and have those goods and services in the east, which we're working on through the RLSA, we're going to see a level of congestion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The assumptions that have been made behind granting a bonus for TCMA, have they been tested empirically since going back to the year 2000? Are there any results that could be pointed to to say yes, indeed, the traffic has not gotten any worse or perhaps has gotten better? MS. SCOTT: What I can tell you, in my research I only found one other area that had a TCMA density bonus that they actually pulled out. They reduced their density after the fact. So they didn't wind up utilizing the density with the TCMA bonus. But what I can tell you is that based on our AUIR, is that this -- the north transportation concurrency management area is still continuing to function well. Yes, there are certain roadways that see peak -- during our peak hour, see levels of congestion. We recoup from them. But in the overall Transportation Concurrency Management Area, it is meeting -- I'm going to actually quote the number from our AUIR -- 98.9 percent of the lane miles are operating at an acceptable level of service based on our AUIR. COMMISSIONER FRYER: However, Segment 42.1 of Immokalee, in the 2017 AUIR it was indicated it would -- it would be overburdened in 2023. Then the 2018 AUIR came out, and now 2022 is when it's estimated to become overburdened, and I believe the remaining capacity has now been reduced about 50 percent, if I recall, like from 305 to 193, something like that. So that particular segment is in -- it's in trouble, and it's even worse trouble than we thought back in 2017. MS. SCOTT: That particular segment is projected, and these are based on growth rates. It's not failing today. But when we are doing the AUIR, we apply growth rates, and we project when we anticipate so we can have planning studies in place, we can have all alternative corridors in place. Veterans Memorial is an alternative corridor that will be within our five-year work program. So we're looking at building out the network. We also have a corridor study that's actually going to pick up at Livingston and go further east with Immokalee Road. So we do these projections so that we start looking at what other items that we can be 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 11 of 100 doing within the corridor, within the entire TCMA to be able to move traffic more efficiently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Trinity, you said something that we don't have any -- the road's not failed now. If Immokalee Road were to stand on its own today and it wasn't part of a TCMA, would it be considered failed? MS. SCOTT: As of the current AUIR, no, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The current AUIR doesn't take into consideration the TCMA volume -- the TCMA overlay when it determines if a road is at Level F or Service Level F or not. MS. SCOTT: We assess every roadway as if it's not in a TCMA, and then we pull all the TCMA roadways together, and there's actually a separate exhibit within your AUIR that looks specifically at the AUIR and every individual link within the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those -- MS. SCOTT: Within the TCMA, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those determinations are made on the 250th hour not including, basically, what excludes the two peak months of the year; is that a fair statement? MS. SCOTT: That is correct. That is a common misconception from folks when I'm out speaking to them, that we build our roads to accommodate season. We do not. It is within our Transportation Element that we build our roadways, we factor out the two peak -- highest peak months out of the year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then anybody else have any questions on this piece of the -- there's one more transportation issue. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You said you're in the process of initiating checkbook concurrency. MS. SCOTT: No. I said that back in the early 2000s, that's when they were initiating checkbook concurrency, and there was some concerns that because we had had such a backlog where we hadn't built any roadways that we would force, essentially, sprawl to occur out east, because if we implemented checkbook concurrency by having such a large backlog, people would not be able to develop the vacant parcels, our mixed-use -- our activity centers, our business parks, and so there was a concern that all of that was just going to move east, and so that was why they looked at strategies, and one of which is the TCMA. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So concurrency has to do with the ability to build because your infrastructure can take it? MS. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And right now that doesn't really -- MS. SCOTT: We still have checkbook concurrency; however, there are three areas within the county that have exceptions, if you will. There's a transportation concurrency exception area, which is down off of U.S. 41. Actually in this area. And there are two transportation concurrency management areas that allow a developer, as they proceed forward, to ask to be exempt from link-by-link concurrency by initiating strategies that are identified in the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Hi. COMMISSIONER FRY: In public comments previously there was a lot of concern about the new school adding to traffic, the Seed to Table -- I believe that's the name of it, Seed to Table on Immokalee and Livingston adding traffic. You mentioned that Veterans Memorial Boulevard will be continued on through, I believe, to Old 41. MS. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's where it would terminate. Is there any information as to whether the continuation of that road -- it would seem obvious that that would let people travel 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 12 of 100 west to get over to Old 41, so it would be of use to people heading over toward closer to the coast. Is there any data of how that might impact the really challenged segments of Immokalee, the traffic that would, right now, go down and travel on those really challenged segments of Immokalee right there at Livingston? Is there any impact analysis on Veterans Memorial on those segments? MS. SCOTT: Not specific. However, our Long Range Transportation Plan looks at what roadways that we can afford through 2040, and that is one of the roadway segments. Veterans Memorial is one of those roadway segments. And so it is analyzed, but it's analyzed on an overall basis and not a subarea model. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Trinity, I had brought up some questions last time about what we know the population and the unit counts to be on this project. Now they're at 350 units. We have a census done that says we have an average -- I think the latest census says that persons per household is at 2.52, although we had testimony from the applicant's manager who rents out the apartments that they have about two people -- they usually see two people per apartment. So they need -- 700 people most likely going to be there. Looked at their SDP. They've got the amount of parking spaces for 700-plus cars. So I still am troubled by the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic problems. So out of 700 cars on that project, and these are supposedly young professionals, who generally means they're working in jobs that start at a regular time and stop at a regular time, I doubt if they're laborers working at Seed to Table down the street on the second or third shift of the day. So according to their TIS, in the morning, heading out, only 104 people are leaving during peak hour, and coming home at night only 107 are coming home at that period of time. Well, I know your argument is that people are going to stop somewhere on the way home so they will be getting there maybe outside the peak hour. I don't think people are going to do that in the morning. Usually they're rushed, and if they have to be somewhere at the peak hour time they're going to have to leave. How could -- how do we look at our county road system and legitimize the fact that, you know, that 100 out of the, what, one-seventh of the entire project is all that's going to leave in the morning during peak hour? I mean, it's peak hour for a reason; that's when most people have to leave. And I looked at the variable ITE uses that you could have used. They used multifamily housing, 420. There are some others that may be apartments, there's an apartment mix and a few others in there, but none of them seem to really address this. And I know the ITE manual's for all of the nation, but Southwest Florida seems to be a little different in a lot of issues, especially in our popularity, the fact that we're a constrained county, and we've just got a seasonal population that is problematic. And I know we've dropped off two months a year to kind of help with that forgetting it doesn't (sic) happen. But that doesn't mean the rest of the year that we don't have a problem. Now, I had the unfortunate opportunity to have to drive to North Naples recently, and it was -- it was literally terrible. MS. SCOTT: You should have done it in July. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but that's not when I have to do the things I have to do. So how can we say out of 700 cars only 104 are leaving? I just don't understand how we get there. MS. SCOTT: Let me go to -- we utilize the ITE trip manual because it is the best data that we have available. Collier County does not have the staff time -- I'm telling you from Transportation Planning's perspective, we do not have the staff time or the resources monetarily available to be able to go do individual trip generations for land uses within our area, very specific. So we utilize the best data that we have available, which looks at -- this is decades of data 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 13 of 100 that they have collected, that they continue to collect. On an annual basis they are doing exactly what Cormac is doing with his surveys of how many units are available. This is data that's collect -- so am I going to tell you that it is 100 percent applicable to every situation that we have here? It's not, but it's the best data that we have available. So when I start looking at the fact that you have 700 -- you're assuming that -- so there's a lot of assumptions that are in there. When we're saying, well, they have 700 parking spaces, so they're going to have 700 cars. And so if you have 350 units, everyone's going to have two cars. That's an assumption. I can tell you that I love to assume that, but I can look at my own office and know that I have several people in my office that are one-vehicle households by choice. So someone comes to work and someone stays home, or they have another alternative means to get to work, or they carpool. The a.m., people are waiting for buses, for their kids to get on the bus. They're leaving to go take their children to school. If you have a high school student, they've got to be there about 7 o'clock in the morning. A middle school doesn't start until 9. So if you have parents that are trying to do those type of things, there's a lot of different things that go into it. But what I'm telling you is the ITE is the best data that's available. And, Commissioner Strain, you and I had the conversation, and what I found ironic about it is we're looking at the 25 percent only coming home in the evening, and during our conversations, you and I talked about your work hours. That are off peak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, to avoid the roads. MS. SCOTT: To avoid the rush. But other professionals don't necessarily work an 8 to 5 job. I wish I left at 5 o'clock every day. I don't. Things happen. I stay till 5:30. I carpool with my daughter. There are -- it's just not the society where we continue to work a 9 to 5 situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And have you or your department ever researched any other trip generation documents that would maybe have a more -- what I would consider more realistic approach to the amount of trips coming from projects such as this and with our conditions? MS. SCOTT: We have not on an overall perspective. Now, with that being said, that there are -- when we get special land use -- land uses in that maybe the ITE doesn't adequately address, we will do special studies. Actually, usually it's -- the applicant is doing it, and we're reviewing the data. So those do occur. There -- they just don't happen very often. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's just something that, intuitively, just seems odd, and we'll just have to deal with it. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us -- we finish with the applicant, and anybody have any -- Corby, is there any addition to your staff report? MR. SCHMIDT: Not this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Stone asked me if we could put back what's on the visualizer or Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's Mr. -- Scott? MR. YOVANOVICH: Scott Stone, yeah, asked me to change one thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't even see him here. That's why -- oh, there he is, way in the back. Okay. He's one of our County Attorneys, and I thought he'd be over at that table there, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: As you can see on No. 5, it says, shall be set aside for "persons" who earn between. He wants to change that to "households." And there's another reference to 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 14 of 100 persons earlier. So he asked me to put on the record to change the words "persons" to "households." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's consistent then. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Yeah. I just wanted to get that on the record as part of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, your intention by adding this is that by the time you get through another round of reviews, or whether it's adoption or PUD or whatever, you would be establishing an affordable housing agreement to be attached to that document that would -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- make this consistent, then, with our housing demand? For example, I know that there's an attempt to deed restrict for 30 years instead of 15 specifically for apartments, and whatever percentage that they're talking about would be all that would be locked in. Is that something that you expect to come next, or was this all the statement that you intended to provide? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We anticipated that at the adoption hearing, at which you would hear both the adoption of this and the PUD, there would be an agreement that went along with that addressing all of those typical affordable housing income-verification restrictions you've seen in the past with other projects, including length of restriction. So all of that would be part of the adoption hearing, part of the PUD approval. That would all come back at the same time for you to be able to review like you, historically, have done -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- on other projects. Vincentian comes to mind. I think you saw -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a few others. I don't remember all of them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think you saw the agreements for that, and that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We get them usually with the PUDs, but that's why I was asking. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what we anticipated to be the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move into public speakers. Now, we're going to take a break at 10:30 for the court reporter, about 15 minutes. Then we'll usually break at about quarter to 12 for lunch. So those of you that want to speak, we'll start with the registered speakers that we have today, and we ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes. And if you're just like what the speaker in front of you said and you just want to say "I agree with the previous speaker," that's great. We can understand that. Mike? MR. BOSI: Chair, Corby did bring the 18 slips that were submitted last hearing that did not get to speak. So we could start with those, if you would like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, yeah. We'll start with those. But anybody that doesn't get a chance to speak that's registered or that isn't registered, at the end of all the registered speakers, I'll ask for anybody else who hasn't spoken that would like to speak. So we're here to listen to you, and we're here to get your comments. And so one way or another we'll hear you today. With that, Mike, as he calls you, please come up to each one of the other mikes, and at the same time let us know if you stood to be sworn in, because some people came in after we were sworn in, and if your name's complicated, please spell it for the record so the court reporter gets it right. Thank you. Mike. MR. BOSI: The first speaker would be Kathy Potts, who would be followed by Anne-Marie Cadwallader. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Kathy Potts couldn't be here. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 15 of 100 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, sir. You'll have to use the -- everybody has to be recorded and transcribed, so we're going to have to need your -- if she's -- MR. BOSI: Well, these are the ones that were signed in last time. I think if they're not here, if they're not responsive -- he's saying that she's not here. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Kathy Potts had an emergency and had to return to Atlanta. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. Next speaker. MR. BOSI: Anne-Marie Cadwallader. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so the next speaker after her is aware of it, could you announce the next speakers. MR. BOSI: Marti Aufdenkampe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be next speaker after Mrs. Cadwallader's done. MS. CADWALLADER: Good morning. And my name is Cadwallader, C-a-d-w-a-l-l-a-d-e-r. I live in Barrington Cove. It seems that this is a project in search of a reason. Now, affordable housing is thrown in just to get the density, the number of units, that is good for Stock's bottom line. The word "compatible" has been used frequently regarding this Allura apartment proposal. Compatibility is also a major part of Collier County's Growth Management Plan. It was for the original planners, and it is now when Collier County's looking at plans for growth. Much has been made by Stock that Brandon PUD, which is Barrington Cove, was zoned multifamily with a density that would have allowed multistory buildings, but DR Horton did not build it that way. Barrington Cove was built as a low-rise low-density single-family community, and it has been this type of community for four years. Barrington Cove joins other older communities of similar densities, similar character, all owner owned 10 to 15 miles in either direction on Livingston Road. Our neighborhoods extend from Vanderbilt Road to Bonita Beach Road, from 75 to Airport-Pulling. The word that describes this community -- these communities is "compatible." There are no four-story buildings in a 10-mile radius. The closest four-story buildings are the new Addison Place on Immokalee east of 75 near Collier Boulevard. Apartments Windsong, Bermuda Island, Malibu Lakes are 10 or more miles away. It seems to me that a Planning Commission's mission is not just what can be built but what should be build. The biggest question that has not been answered here is how is the Allura apartment proposal compatible with the community and the neighborhood where it will literally be in homeowners' backyards. How is this not spot zoning? There's nothing like what Stock is proposing to build within 10 miles or more of that corner of Livingston. Why build a four-story apartment building on this corner when the established neighborhoods impacted by this project are so opposed? Why are these apartments needed, as Stock claims? The HUD analysis and the rental statistics from the Department of Numbers survey that are presented to the Board show that the apartment demand is balanced and is predicted to level off in the years ahead, especially as more builders are already building apartments in Collier County and Bonita Springs. There are eight new apartment complexes just opened or in the planning stages of our immediate area, Greater Naples and Bonita Springs. That is a total of 2,272 new apartments for this area. How is this not spot zoning? What is being contemplated is a permanent change to the character and well-being of our neighborhood. Four-story apartment buildings are forever. We see you as Collier County Planning Commissioners as representatives for the citizens of this county who live here and pay taxes here because we love its low-density, single-family 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 16 of 100 character. Please keep this corner compatible with our neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question for the lady. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. Then Joe. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Cadwallader, I am in complete agreement with your conclusion about compatibility, but I want to make an observation, because I spent a fair amount of time between these meetings trying to scan the panorama of Google Earth and zoom in on complexes that are within the area. And I think largely what you say is the case about within 10 miles but possibly with one exception and I just -- I want to put that out there, and somebody tell me if I'm wrong. But the Viansa at Talis Park seems to be three stories over parking, the equivalent of four stories. Now, you said that the overall neighborhood areas that you feel a part of extend all the way to 75. Personally, I think there's quite a bit of difference between, for instance, this Viansa which actually is abutting 75 and where this project would be and where your home is, so -- but are you familiar with the Viansa at Talis Park? MS. CADWALLADER: Slightly. I know that it's being built, and that it -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MS. CADWALLADER: And that it -- but those -- that would also impact Veterans Memorial because those same people would be coming out on this two-lane road. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, once again, I agree with your conclusion about compatibility, but the way I get there is different than the way you do. I don't think that Viansa on I-75 is compatible with where you live. I don't think it's -- I think it's different kinds of neighborhoods. So, for me, I think where you live and where this development would be going is rather different from where Viansa is. MS. CADWALLADER: Exactly. It's -- Viansa is in Talis Park, and it's all enclosed, and it's part of their neighborhood; whereas, Barrington Cove is a one-story, two-story, 135-home community, and all of a sudden we have four-story apartments that will be literally in our backyards. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I understand, but I just am questioning your -- when you said within 10 miles there's no four-story, and that's not what I found. MS. CADWALLADER: Well, it's three stories in Talis Park. COMMISSIONER FRYER: With three over parking. MS. CADWALLADER: Oh, over parking. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. About 63 feet actual height. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you aware that the existing zoning on site allows for the construction of apartment buildings? MS. CADWALLADER: On the Brandon PUD, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So you're -- MS. CADWALLADER: De La Rosa, sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- aware that under the De La Rosa PUD that the developer has rights today to build -- MS. CADWALLADER: I understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that could possibly be more -- MS. CADWALLADER: But that's 140 units. It will be less -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- more intrusive to your neighborhood than this proposal. MS. CADWALLADER: I understand, but then I wonder why a builder would do that, to build a multistory building within 125 feet of someone's backyard. I know it can be done, but should it be? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 17 of 100 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Shouldn't and -- from your perspective, but the law allows it. MS. CADWALLADER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was just curious, like Ned, where you got the 10-mile number from, because you're only less than five miles from the beach, and there's massive buildings there. You're, like, 10 miles from Orangetree. It goes all the way up into Estero that's -- 10 miles is a big radius to make that claim. I'm wondering where you got the number from. MS. CADWALLADER: Well, in driving, and I'm thinking more of up and down north and south of Livingston Road where all the traffic is. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Because I've seen that number on a few emails, and I just -- you know, I started looking, like Ned, at Google Earth and just couldn't -- that's a big area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker? MR. BOSI: The next speaker is Marti Aufdenkampe followed by Alan Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did he say that last name right? MS. AUFDENKAMPE: This time he did, pretty close. Marti Aufdenkampe from Barrington Cove. That's A-u-f-d-e-n-k-a-m-p-e. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you were sworn in to begin with? MS. AUFDENKAMPE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. AUFDENKAMPE: I agree with everything that Anne-Marie has said. I agreed with everything -- I'm from Barrington Cove; I think I said that, right? I agree with what was said the last time. I just really feel that having the traffic issue as bad as it is, none of you would want to have to deal with that day in and day out, nor would any of Stock people want to have to deal with that day in and day out. It's just an issue that is hard on those that have to drive it. I believe Commissioner Strain said that you had to do it the other day, and it was ridiculous. And if I remember correctly you said that you traveled -- or live in that area, so this is -- Commissioner Eastman, and that you deal with it quite often. I'm retired. I can work my time around whatever it is, but I feel sorry for people who have to work. I feel sorry for the parents who have to take their kids to school. I feel sorry for whatever emergency might come up and you're stuck in that mess of traffic. I don't care what surveys say. I don't care what issues are brought out that this is okay, but it's not, and I don't think anyone would want to have to deal with it. No one here would. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Alan Johnson followed by Bob Aufdenkampe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either Mr. Johnson or the other gentleman here? I'm not even going to attempt the last name. Thank you. MR. AUFDENKAMPE: Same spelling. They throw a lot of acronyms around here. Most of us don't even understand them. But I did take the opportunity to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry, sir. Would you state your name again. MR. AUFDENKAMPE: Robert Aufdenkampe. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 18 of 100 MR. AUFDENKAMPE: Barrington Cove. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. AUFDENKAMPE: I did take the opportunity to listen to it, kind of an introduction to the ITE trip generation revision No. 9 presentation. And, basically, it's a combination of a lot of studies that they sell to developers to kind of put the spin on that a big apartment complex is not going to be an issue with a lot of the surrounding communities. And based on what they've submitted, they're telling us that it's based on the peak hours between 9 and 11 on 53 studies and on the basis for the hours between 4 and 6 it's 60 studies. That doesn't -- and there's -- I mean, if you've seen the thing, there's all kinds of X's and O's, the highs and the lows, and they use standard deviations. I don't believe in studies because they make no sense most of the time. I had the opportunity last Friday to be in Los Angeles, and I drove the 405. If anybody's been there, you understand, the most congested highway probably in the United States. It was just like driving on Livingston. So the only difference there was we have three lanes. They have six. But it's the same thing, and it's going to get worse. The other thing that they keep bringing up is they're going to extend Veterans to Old 41. If they do that, that's fine, except that old 41 is what, two lanes. So I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to get off Livingston, go to Old 41, and take the curve around to get onto 41 and come south. That's my opinion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Mike. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I make a little comment to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Sir, you have to get back to the mike. Thank you. MR. AUFDENKAMPE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was a licensed professional engineer my whole career. I let my license expire because I'm just too old anymore to worry about it. And when I was in school, we learned in transportation that you use certain standards, and the standards are there because -- and you see this with stormwater. You see this with utilities. You see this with transportation. It's difficult for everybody to come up with -- like, the Stormwater Management District has a standard storm. It drops 15 inches of rain in three days, 12 inches in the third day. That's the standard storm. They tell people, when you design a project, you design it by this storm. Well, you're going to get storms down here that drop 24 inches in a day and people are going to flood. And I tell them always, you know, buy flood insurance for that reason, because it's a standard storm. It's a design storm. The ITE manual, the people that design sanitary sewers design to a standard. These are standards that people just use because not everybody can -- you can't go out into every project and say we're going to -- we're going to rent to just all teachers, and these teachers are just going to have this certain flow pattern of traffic, and they're going to get off work at 2 o'clock and go home, and that's -- we're going to miss the 5 o'clock peak. It just -- you know, you need a standard. And I appreciate what you want to say, that, you know, these people come up with these standards and sell them. And the ITE manual is fairly expensive. I mean, you can go to Open Source software online and get somebody else's opinion of what it's going to be for flow, but you have to start somewhere. And engineers need a starting point, and the government tells them what the starting point is or some institute tells them what the starting point is, and that's how it's done. I'm just -- that's the way it is. MR. AUFDENKAMPE: And I certainly agree with that statement. I don't -- I don't say that it's wrong or it's right. I just say that they're basing this on the study. Nobody's taken the time to go and really do a study. And I understand that not everybody has the time to do that. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 19 of 100 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have to build it out to do that study. MR. AUFDENKAMPE: And I certainly -- I'm -- you know, I'm not here to argue. I'm just saying that if it was a good deal, if it was this is what should be in that location, there would be nobody in this room except you gentlemen and the Stock people. They'd say, okay, it's great. We love it. But there's a lot of people here saying it's not the right project for that area. I mean -- and there's -- with traffic and the density, it's just too much. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, there's an old saying about engineers. MR. AUFDENKAMPE: I'm sorry if I offended you as an engineer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig. After a while you realize the pig likes it. MR. AUFDENKAMPE: I'll have to write that down. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Mike, before we get off on another tangent. MR. BOSI: Next speaker, Dan Ortbals, followed by Francis Smith. MR. ORTBALS: My name is David Ortbals, O-r-t-b-a-l-s. I was sworn in. I live on the east side of Mediterra immediately north of the planned apartment project. I'd like to thank the commissioners for giving us the opportunity to express our thoughts today and also three weeks ago. Many of my comments have already been eloquently expressed by other speakers, but I want to briefly highlight some of the issues I think are key in making this decision. I'll preface my comments by saying that Stock Construction Company built my home, single-family home six years ago. My wife and I have been extremely pleased with the quality of construction of our home and also with their post-completion handling of issues. In my opinion, Stock is a first-class organization, but they've got a totally misguided concept regarding this project. My main concern is in regards to traffic implications associated with a 350-unit project. The only entrance and exit paths of this development will be on Veterans Memorial Boulevard, which is a two-lane road intersecting a six-lane major thoroughfare. There are already existing traffic issues on that road, and they'll be magnified many times by this project. I don't think the traffic light -- I'm not an engineer -- can be adjusted adequately to compensate for the addition of 6- to 700 cars and vehicles entering and exiting several times daily. As several speakers have already said, Livingston Road is an even greater concern. Traffic on that road is really a nightmare during the rush hour daily. As Commissioner Strain said, I only wish the commissioners had had the opportunity after the last meeting three weeks ago to drive up there that evening. The traffic was backed up from Bonita Beach Road all the way south to the Naples firehouse, over three miles, and this is a normal pattern. In fact, it was there the next night. Now, I'm not nuts enough to go out there and look every night, but I know it happens very frequently. You can take the studies from ITE and, excuse me, and from Stock's analyses which they paid for and disregard them in my mind. Todd Rosenthal spoke here three weeks ago, and he said -- he'd talked about his experience picking up his two daughters in the afternoon. He says, if you want to see it firsthand, forget the studies. Just drive up there, and you'll see what we're talking about. In addition, there's going to be several hundred lots that are going to -- that are still available in Mediterra, in the Strand, in Talis Park, and in the Enclave, which has just started, which are going to be sold over the next several years, and this is going to add further to the traffic issues. By the way, the Talis Park buildings, I believe, are condominiums, and they sell for about a million dollars, so I'm not sure they really are comparable to what we're talking about here. But anyway. In fact, Mediterra is even considering not allowing left turns out of their two Livingston Road exits because of the terrible traffic. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 20 of 100 One other traffic note involves the Veterans Memorial Parkway -- Boulevard, rather. It was stated in -- the engineer said earlier that extending a road through to Old 41 would relieve some of the pressure off Immokalee. Actually, to have this road exit onto Old 41 is another potential nightmare. Anyone -- whoever drives on Old 41 either in the morning or the afternoon knows it's terribly congested already, and to add this congestion on it will make it overwhelming. This is going to -- nothing -- this, in my mind -- and, again, I'm not an engineer. This will do nothing to reduce congestion on Immokalee Road. My final comments involve the aesthetics along Livingston Road. The area on Livingston Road between Immokalee Road and Bonita Beach Road has many -- currently has many very pleasant, attractive single-family neighborhoods. In fact, the beauty of these neighborhoods is the major reason we moved there. A 350-unit, three- and four-story development is totally incompatible architecturally with these surrounding residential areas. Our property values, I predict, will decline 15 to 20 percent at a minimum, and our quality of life, our privacy, and our safety will be equally adversely impacted. The effects, unfortunately, will be permanent if this project is built. In summary, I think Stock would -- I would ask Stock to return to the original concept of a beautiful single-family neighborhood and not continue to place profit above consideration for all the individuals in this room and the other residents who all -- who also live in the affected areas. I have to say that the Stock that built my home is not the Stock we're talking to today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Frances Smith, going to be followed by Bernard Gunderson. MR. SMITH: I have been sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. SMITH: My name is Francis Smith. My family and I live in a Milano townhouse in the Milano complex, and that's about a half a mile south of the Allura apartment project. I have two pieces of information that I would like to share with you today. The first is across from our entrance/exit on Livingston Road is the entrance to Royal Palm Academy. That's a small Catholic parochial school, K through 8, and we have 265 units in our complex that has only one ingress/egress, which is right across the street from that academy. The parents there have to deliver and pick up their children, and their cars usually spill right out onto Livingston Road. Now, adding traffic in either direction to Livingston Road is going to add significant congestion and the risk for those parents trying to deliver or pick up their children at the school. Even if only 25 percent of the additional residents that are being proposed end up on the road, I fear for a disaster. It can be avoided by rejecting this unnecessary building project. Second is that when these taxpaying citizens chose to live in the adjoining neighborhoods, most of them knew that the open property could be built out in the future. Well, when they checked on the zoning in effect, most of them saw that it was single-family homes, minimum density population that was going to be built there. Well, shame on them for being so naive as to think that zoning wouldn't change if a company with some big money and connections came in with a proposal. These owners are entitled to develop their property at a maximum profit but, of course, a company was able to develop all the properties in that vicinity with single-family homes, and they made some money in the process. So it's not unreasonable for them to have believed open property would be similarly developed. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 21 of 100 These good people need to have you protect their backs. Keep money and power in search of greed from muscling through the zoning changes that will give them more money. None of these residents here will consider this project an improvement for their sleepy little bedroom community. Stock will build out the property and sell it to someone else, and they'll move on, leaving the carnage for us to live with. If a parent or a child is seriously injured in unnecessary traffic congestion, that won't be on their conscience at all, but it should be on yours and mine. They won't be concerned about those of us who will be forced to sit in Los Angeles type of traffic for the undeterminable traffic but, of course, you should be. We moved to Naples to choose to live in a quiet, little community. We were forced for many, many years to drive in this intense traffic to get to and from work, but now, you know, we think that we have a quiet little community and can be in peace for our retirement years and not have to fight traffic every day of our retirement, too. Some of your predecessors set up a plan for Naples to protect sections of their community for people like us. No, we didn't anticipate this change, and we don't want this change. You can't blame us. Just say no to this proposal and let another developer fulfill the plan of your predecessors at a comfortable profit, and we'll all be better off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, ladies and gentlemen, if you could refrain from clapping, it will delay things further, and it really is not necessary for these kind of meetings. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Bernard Gunderson, followed by Don McDaniel, and Mr. McDaniel will be followed by Carole Norch. MR. McDANIEL: Good morning. My name is Don McDaniel, and I live in the east section of Mediterra. I have two grandchildren in Barrington Cove, and they go to the two schools that are across the street from -- across Livingston from Barrington Cove. And rather than rehash or support many of the speakers that have already made some very valid points against this project, I just wanted to point out two safety hazards that I don't think have been adequately explained. The first problem is if you're locating a high-density project next to the fire station. I think there's a problem both with the fire and medical hazards that are created because the additional traffic on Livingston could block the fire engines and the EMS vehicles from exiting onto Livingston Boulevard, especially when you've already been told that it's not infrequent that the traffic backs up all the way from Bonable (sic) Boulevard -- I mean, excuse me, from Bonita Beach Boulevard. And I don't think from watching the traffic when it backs up in front of the fire station that it's going to be realistic for the fire engines or the EMS to get out very quickly to take care of the emergency. Because of the high curbs on Livingston, the cars just can't move. They can't get away -- they can't get out of the way of the emergency vehicles. And adding significantly more vehicles at this exact location I think would just exacerbate the problem. The second problem that I wanted to point out to you is created for the schoolchildren that are crossing Livingston Boulevard. It's not reasonable to use the general national traffic statistics to evaluate the danger to such students and how many cars are going to be on the road at that time when we all know, and everybody has stated, this is a different situation. And so I think we ought to look at the reality of the traffic in this particular area rather than use the national trends or the study that, really, everybody recognizes does not apply. Because when there are going to be three schools across the street on Livingston, that's 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 22 of 100 going to just, obviously, create potential problems and risk for those students that are crossing the street. So I urge you to consider the actual adverse impacts by putting this high-density development at this particular location rather than some general national traffic statistics that have no relevance to the reality of this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: A quick comment, if I may, sir, about Engine House 48 there on Livingston. I'm looking at the statistics, and it's really pretty much right in the middle of meeting the eight-minute standard of getting advanced life support help to patients. So, you know, it's not certainly among the worst. I just wanted to point that out. MR. McDANIEL: No, and I recognize that, but the problem is if you're the one needing the help and the traffic is blocked, especially if it's a stroke victim, as you know, the timing is critical. And now there are procedures, if they can get to that person soon enough, that they can reverse the effect of the stroke. And I think that that situation is going to be exacerbated if we have this additional traffic at that location. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't mean to be argumentative, and your point is well taken about a stroke. It's a three-hour window from the time of the first symptoms, onset. But my point, again, is that advanced life support, which are people who can administer stroke medications, get there with half the time -- excuse me, about half the number of times they get there within eight minutes after they're called. So, I mean, that's kind of in the middle of the range, but it's pretty good, and it's certainly way better than the numbers for the Estates. MR. McDANIEL: And I would just suggest that that's probably overall time for that location. But if your problem occurs at the time that the traffic is backed up, then I would think it's logically correct that those numbers would not apply. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Next speaker, Carole Notch, followed by Pamela Wood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Ms. Notch or Ms. Wood here? MR. BOSI: Followed by Dick Gustimone (phonetic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's standing up, so let's go to the next one. MR. BOSI: Zannos Grekos. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not doing too well over there today, Mike. Barbara Hurt-Simmons? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mike, are you still in the 18 that didn't speak? MR. BOSI: Yes, correct. Arthur Bourque, followed by Larocca, Frank. MR. BOURQUE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Arthur Bourque, B-o-u-r-q-u-e. I live at 16491 Seneca Way. Almost everything that I would like to say has been covered, but I do want to go back to some discussion about the FLUE and about the policy under which this is being proposed, which is under 6.5, if I'm correct. And I believe that policy was very well drafted as was the forward-looking plan on how to accept or how to change the long-term plan. And it has four provisions in it that allow you to change it, and I just don't think that this plan meets it. The neighborhood commercial uses, the answer is no. Provide any vehicular access to abutting commercial properties, the answer is no. The two that could possibly provide transit shelters within the development, I don't think the founders or the designers of the intended bus shelters that would never be used -- if you look at the long-term transportation plan for Collier County, there are no bus routes planned up beyond 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 23 of 100 Immokalee on Livingston through the year 2035. So we're going to build a bus shelter here that will never have a bus in it, at least in the next 15 years. And providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities with connections to abutting commercial properties; I guess a curb cut or a cut in the fence is consistent with what it's looking for here. But I really ask you to use your practical sense. I think in listening to what you've said to others that have spoken here, it's pretty obvious to me we have a pretty intelligent group of people here. And while I am neither a lawyer, an engineer, or a pig, I do respect the fact that some of you have a different way of looking at this. And I think we've seen some really interesting comments made from the Board. You know, I look back when I was a kid and I used to go shoe shopping. My parents would take me to the store, and a really, really good salesman would convince my mother that the pair of shoes that they were trying to get me to buy or get her to buy were the perfect pair of shoes for me, and they hurt my feet, and I knew they hurt my feet. My mother would be convinced by the salesman to buy those shoes. And with all respect to the gentlemen representing the developer on this project, they are effectively shoe salesmen who are trying to sell us a project that doesn't fit. And if the shoes don't fit, you really shouldn't buy them. And I would suggest that's where we are with this project. Now, the impact on the Fire Department vehicles -- we've heard a lot about the traffic on Immokalee. Drive up 41, take a right on Immokalee going northbound, and follow Immokalee up to Livingston, and then go up Livingston to Bonita Beach Road at 4:30, 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock. And I realize, you know, there is seasonal traffic, but I'm here. I'm a full-time resident here. I'm one of the newest full-time residents here, but I was here in October, November. There was plenty of traffic going up Livingston. It bottles up where Livingston goes from three to two lanes just after the Veterans Memorial intersection. The traffic specialist -- and she's obviously very well versed and speaks very well -- tells you that this is going to solve -- the Veterans Memorial connector will solve certain problems. I would strongly suggest to you it doesn't solve any problems. Cars coming up 41, instead of taking a right on Immokalee, will stay on till Old 41, come up Old 41, cut right up Veterans Memorial Boulevard, and be a problem at this intersection. We're going to build a high school down on Veterans Memorial. That's hundreds of trips every day coming into the intersection of Livingston at Veterans Memorial. We have 250 additional condo units to be sold at Talis Park. That's anywhere from 250 to 500 trips coming into that intersection. We have a developer that wants to develop these 360 units. That's 360 additional trips. There's 27 housing units on Livingston Road still to be built. I think when you look at all of this in totality and what the impact is going to be on that traffic, it's clear that this shoe just doesn't fit. And we need to seriously consider what we're going to do here. In addition, the point made by the Fire Department and the response time, I think you're absolutely right, Mr. Fryer, the eight-minute response time. All we're going to do is delay that if we add additional traffic. And it backs up right by the fire station almost every evening. And so I think we really need to think about this project. I'm not concerned that there are four-story buildings going in there. It doesn't impact me. I'm far enough away. I am very concerned about the traffic. I moved down here from Sarasota to get away from what was an overload of traffic up in that area. It's not well planned out. It was very important to me that this area was well planned out, and I think it is, and I think the prior Planning Commissions, which many of you sat on, did a very good job of laying that out, and I would ask you to stick with your plans, stick with the policy. You know, if the shoe doesn't fit, just don't buy the shoes. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 24 of 100 Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Frank Larocca followed by Jack Ouellette. (No response.) MR. BOSI: John Henry? (No response.) MR. BOSI: Barbara Hurt-Simmons? (No response.) MR. BOSI: And that's the end of the previous speakers. Jeff Wothke. MR. WOTHKE: I'm for a different issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the gentleman, he's here for the LDC. MR. BOSI: Okay. Tim Diegel followed by Jerry Garland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We may not -- we're going to break at 10:30. So we'll hear from Diegel, and if he finishes before 10:30, we'll hear the next gentleman, and that will -- till break. Go ahead, sir. MR. DIEGEL: Good morning. I'm Tim Diegel from Barrington Cove. I've been sworn in. It's D as in David, i-e-g-e-l. I'm going to abbreviate some of my points because of other well-spoken people here. I have three areas of comments to make in regards to this proposed development. These include the incompatibility, the loss of quality of life, and the traffic-safety issues at Livingston and Veterans. The first is incompatibility that you've already heard about. There's nothing -- there's no apartments, as you may know, within a four-mile stretch from Bonita Beach Road to Immokalee. The original planners zoned this area for single-family homes, as was mentioned. Many apartments are already being built fairly close. Some in Lee County. And this intersection is about two miles from -- or a mile-and-a-half from Lee County border. So what's being done in Lee County will have some effect on the availability of apartments. The development's massive four-story behemoth with 350 units doesn't belong in this neighborhood. It will overlook single-family homes in Barrington that are about 125 feet away from these structures. Allura does not belong here due to the incompatibility of our settled neighborhood where the home were purchased in this quality area. The second proposed development will take away the quality of life that our families have enjoyed, expected to continue to enjoy, and have a legal right to retain. This quality loss includes the addition of noise pollution from the increased traffic on Livingston and the potential noisy parking lots abutting our development. Also, air pollution from the stop and go of traffic at the intersection and the light pollution removing the enjoyable dark sky. My children need to grow up with the ability to see the stars, which will not be possible. These lights will also shine down all during the night every night for decades from the four-story buildings onto our one-story homes. No fence, wall, or landscaping barriers can mitigate these annoying and unwelcomed pollutants being forced upon us from the four-story buildings. Third, we all learned from the last meeting that the disingenuous applied traffic analysis was not really based very much on this development in question. That's why some of the pages in that analysis listed Bonita Springs on the top of some of the headings. The Livingston/Veterans intersection is unusual. Veterans is a dead end each way. All exit morning traffic going north or south would exit onto Livingston as in the design, a design which I feel may be flawed and I will describe in another minute or so. More than half of the existing cars onto Livingston would go south towards Naples, and probably less cars will be going north. This traffic presents many risks, especially dealing with the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 25 of 100 left turn lane. This lane is already backed up as mentioned almost to the fire station or beyond during the morning peak hours from the school's drop-offs. Any accurate analysis would have discovered this situation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that about half of all the crashes in the United States occur at left turn lanes. We have to be careful here. Crashes will increase at this intersection causing death or disability due to the increase in the cars. In addition, the Florida Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design states that, quotes, "Driveways should not be placed near intersections or other points that would tend to produce traffic conflict," unquotes. The exit of this proposed development is almost directly opposite where cars at times back up waiting to turn left. Check the map. This would occur when the backup is so long that it flows over into the fast left-hand lane during the peak morning hours, especially. This was occurring this morning. Exiting cars would have to cross over two lanes of speeding cars to reach this backup lane to turn left. Livingston is known in the area as sort of a racetrack. Although the speed limit's 45, usual is at least 55 up to 60. That's a setup for stress and crashes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, we do have a five-minutes limit. You've already gone over it. It's fine. If you could just start to wrap it up, that would be helpful. MR. DIEGEL: Oh, yeah. Just have one more sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DIEGEL: I hope the Planning Commission will insist on an objective traffic analysis report for this development as required to better document these obvious safety concerns. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And with that, Mike, we're going to hold off on further speakers till we come back from break, and we'll come back from break at 10:45. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll please take your seats. We have a very anxious speaker. Just a minute. As soon as everybody sits down and we get collected here. I'd remind everyone to, when they come forward, to let us know if you were sworn in and state your name or at least, after you state it, spell it if it's complicated. And did you need something, Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, I have a request, if it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know what it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: As people from Barrington Cove speak, we allude often to the De La Rosa PUD, which has been approved 10 years ago or so. And I guess I wonder if it would be appropriate. Mr. Mulhere had a slide in his previous presentation that kind of showed the positioning of De La Rosa and the height of the buildings and their proximity to the existing roads within Barrington Cove. Is it possible to put that -- and appropriate to put that slide up for reference? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's certainly appropriate if he can find it. If not, we might have one through staff. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, you also have Google Earth on that computer. You can pop that up and show everything. MR. MULHERE: Well, let me just start the slide show here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. This shows the De La Rosa. Yeah, this will work. Does that work for you, Karl? MR. MULHERE: Well, this -- in blue -- excuse me. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Bob 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 26 of 100 Mulhere, for the record. In blue it shows the juxtaposition of the De La Rosa -- first of all, the De La Rosa PUD and the location of their -- the buildings that were in the approved SDP for De La Rosa. The red reflects our proposed site plan. So you can see there's -- De La Rosa had buildings here, here, here, here, and here. This was 26 feet from the property line right here. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the height of those buildings, the blue buildings? Well, how many stories are they? MR. MULHERE: Four. COMMISSIONER FRY: They're all four-story buildings? MR. MULHERE: Over parking. COMMISSIONER FRY: Over parking. And the proposal for the Allura, the buildings that are in the -- on the lower left are -- what's the height of the buildings there? Those are four stories? And then the ones at the top are three? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, correct, that's correct. This building right here -- and my recollection is it was just under 69 feet actual when I looked at the site plan, all of those buildings were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The object, though, is to get the right plan up here that you wanted. Is this the plan you were asking about? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, it is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Now let's move back to public speakers. And, sir, it's all yours if you want. MR. GARLAND: Thank you very much. First of all, I want to appreciate the time the commissioners are giving us today to discuss this project. My name is Jerry Garland. I have been sworn in. Spelling is G-a-r-l-a-n-d. I live in Mediterra, and I would like to submit brief comments, and then if there's any questions from any of the commissioners, I'd certainly like to entertain those. I submit this comment as a homeowner's response to the proposed Allura project before this commission. My wife and I are year-round residents residing at 16453 Celebrita Court, a single-family home we purchased in 2009 inside the Mediterra Reserve. We will be directly impacted by this project due to our proximity to the corner of Veterans and Livingston Road, a distance of less than 200 feet. If this project is approved, it will negatively impact the appeal of the area. Development in the form of single-family homes and small apartment complexes limited in height was expected, not three- or four-story gigantic apartment buildings. A proposed project with this high of unit concentration will change the neighborhood dramatically and esthetically. This project would be the largest and tallest residential project between Immokalee and Bonita Beach Road in the Livingston corridor. Beyond the contour of the area being dramatically impacted, the parking area for what will possibly be over 600, and I found out today, 700 cars, will be forever changed. In addition, the amount of impervious surface that will be added to the land between building and parking lot would create demand on already a stretched draining system. In season, traffic on Livingston, as you've heard, already backs up from Bonita Beach Road to Veterans at 5:00 making it virtually impossible to leave either Mediterra gate on Livingston and also difficult for first responders to address emergencies. The majority of traffic in this proposed project will primarily use the intersection of Veterans for ingress and egress, creating more congestion and more noise. Eastbound on Veterans will forever be impossible due to Interstate 75. I could continue on the downsides of this project, but the largest impact will be our quality of life and home valuations. This is not what the current area residents signed up for when they 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 27 of 100 invested in this section of Collier County. When I look for what primary motivation for the developers is to pursue this project, I came up with only greed, maximizing future income for the property with no regard for what the neighborhood has already created. There is plenty of space in other parts of Collier County to build a project of this size to meet demand without leveraging the investment of current homeowners. It's obvious the landowners has limitation on how much of his land he can develop. So his answer is to spread the land cost over more units, more prospective renters, by seeking to become a skyscraper in a single-family area. The developer's interests will get enhanced at the expense of current taxpayers. The Allura zoning request should be denied. Are there any questions for homeowner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you, sir. MR. GARLAND: Thank you. Appreciate your time. Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSI: Next speaker, Katie Wrede, followed by Mark Roos. MS. WREDE: Good morning. Thank you, Planning Commission, for this opportunity. It's my third trip down here. The first time canceled; second time, ran out of time. So thank you for continuing today. My name is Katy W-r-e-d-e. I live in the Strand. And I come to you today not only to speak for myself but for -- as a member of the Strand master's homeowners' board of directors representing over 1,074 residences. Would like to thank you for considering our appeal. I am one of those naïve people. Many of my comments were prepared before the last hearing, so I've learned a lot, and I'm heartened to hear some of your questions. And some of the things that have been said about traffic safety, the fire, and schools, I'm not going to repeat but hope to elucidate and add to. I'm one of those naïve people that, when I bought my home in the Strand 18 years ago, part time, loved the forested areas and thought they would stay that way, and I only learned at the last hearing about De La Rosa. I was not aware that that had already been approved, and I'm assuming -- I'm not sure when it was approved, but that it -- Barrington Cove had not been built when that was approved; otherwise, perhaps it would not have been, given that it's even higher and closer to the property line. And I don't understand, if it's such a good idea, why Stock didn't go ahead and hasn't gone ahead and developed it. But I am very naïve about Collier County politics. Nevertheless, want to go on to request that -- as a Planning Commission I believe your job would to be hear us and to -- the only thing that's going to make us happy is to stick with the original 170 single-family home developments on that corner. First and foremost is traffic, as you've heard. I'm not going to reiterate any of that. I'm only going to speak to the four-mile stretch between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Bonita Beach Road on Livingston and the four-mile stretch between I-75 and Airport on Immokalee. The neighbors -- all the communities that live whose ingress and egress are on Livingston are virtually currently house-bound. Oh, by the way, I've also learned about our transportation statistics, and a lot about that, and the inadequacy of their data and heartened to hear your questions that more realistically reflect what we actually live (sic), which is what I'm going to describe. Right now we are house-bound in the mornings and afternoons, in the morning from 7:00 to 8:30 and the afternoons from 3:00 to 6:00 both on Immokalee and Livingston. Going north and south, the traffic's at a dead stop from Bonita Beach Road to Immokalee. Immokalee is at a dead stop from I-75 to Airport. That is before the new Marriott Hotel opens on Immokalee soon and the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 28 of 100 Oakes Farm Seed to Table on the corner due to open November 2019 and before a high school is built in 2023 on Veterans. I'm also heartened to hear that they're going to continue Veterans, because I don't think that's going to alleviate problems, as we've already heard from previous speakers. It is a two-lane road, and what I'd like to speak to is currently the neighbors, Barrington Cove, Talis Park, and Strand use that half-mile two-lane road of Veterans Memorial Boulevard to go in and out. In the mornings, all of the traffic for Talis by law has to use that back gate. The residences of Barrington Cove and Strand, we use that for everyday traffic in and out. When Talis Park has their landscaping, they put cones out and take up one of those two lanes. So now we have both east and west traffic on one lane of road waiting, hopefully waiting, because somebody's coming at you, and that doesn't even always happen. There was also mention about the Fire Department and response time. And I agree, I'm not going to make the argument about that, but because of the three schools all in close proximity to the fire station and the fourth school when the high school happens, when the -- when the fire station does have to turn on their lights and parents are dropping off children and they use that Livingston as a U-turn, traffic backs up and becomes very dangerous, not to mention there's no crossing. I think there was something in the paper about a month ago, parents requesting a crossing there for their children. North Naples has quickly become oversaturated. When I bought my home, Livingston didn't even exist north of Immokalee. But at an alarming rate -- in the last five years, four new homing -- four new developments have arisen. Two more are currently already underway, the Enclave project and another one next to Siena Reserve, whatever that one's going to be called. So that's going to have to be added. It seems like we need to be more forward thinking in looking about our traffic, regardless of what ITE or TPE or whatever it is say. Some points that haven't been brought up that I quickly want to touch on before my time is up is because of this oversaturating, not only do they impact traffic, but also natural wetlands and flood zones. I believe this parcel of land that's being considered for Allura project is a wetland. It's easy to see what all of the building in these past years has done when there's a hurricane or profuse rain, such as Hurricane Irma. All the residents along the Imperial River were flooded. I don't understand how we are not planning where that water is to go if unabated development continues with all the concrete. It seems like there surely are larger tracts of land available for a development such as Allura that would be more appropriate as well as more compatible. Additionally, you've heard a lot of talk about compatibility, and I would just say that I would agree the people -- that people -- what people said when they bought their homes many years ago: We assumed this was going to be 170 single-family homes, and we bought in good faith. Now that it is being considered for something else, it does considerably detract. And I don't care what studies say, it will affect the property values of homes. They will go down, and that ultimately will affect the Collier County tax coffers. I can't see that the mitigation fees that developers are able to pay will address the concerns that will arise from this. Another thing that I haven't heard mention -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, we do need you to start wrapping up. MS. WREDE: Okay. Another thing that I haven't heard mentioned that -- and people may not be aware of, is we have an alarming bear problem in these neighborhoods that we've been addressing. There's even a bear committee that has met with Kathleen Passidomo and Andy Solis and with Southwest Florida Wildlife Commission. They have no idea what to do with the bears who are appearing in our driveways and garages during daylight hours, not just dawn and dusk, and nowhere to put them when they do there (sic), and this is one of their habitats. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 29 of 100 Lastly, I would just like to say that -- well, I'll just wrap it up there and plead with you to please consider only allowing for 170 single-family homes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSI: Mark Roos followed by Mary Loftus. MR. ROOS: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. My name is Mark Roos. It's R-o-o-s. I live at 16501 Boonasera Court. It's in Mediterra on the east side. The various points I had this morning have been adequately and eloquently addressed by others. I just wanted to make a personal witness for the issues of traffic congestion and public safety. I'm a full-time resident, and I've experienced the traffic along Livingston at various hours of the day both in season, out of season, during the school year, and during the summer. And it's already a public-safety hazard. There are a lot of people making left turns or U-turns on Livingston, and I believe this will seriously add to the public-safety situation. Fortunately, I've not yet witnessed a serious or fatal accident, but I think it's only a matter of time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Mary Loftus followed by Sarah Spector. MS. LOFTUS: Hi. My name is Mary Loftus, L-o-f-t-u-s. I live in Mediterra. I agree with nearly every speaker at this hearing and at the previous one that are speaking for the residents of the surrounding communities. I think the only thing I have to add is that my personal experience -- I'm a grandma, and I have personally had to drive with a carful of little children in their seat belts to leave Milano and to try to get to Veterans Elementary School. In the morning you have to leave Milano, take a right, go south, go down to Delasol, take a U-turn, which is scary enough, and then come all the way back up to Veterans, get in the left lane, wait there for at least two lights, sometimes three, and then get down to the elementary school. In the afternoon the line -- the car serpentine line up and down the driveways when you pick up the children frequently backs up all the way to Veterans Memorial. So whatever two-lane road is going to open there that's going to connect the nightmare of Livingston with the nightmare of Old 41 has other problems that are going to be from the new high school and already from the elementary school. So I'm very concerned about the traffic. I'm concerned about the quality of life that we came here to find. We were at the Strand previously. As I say, we're now at Mediterra. We've enjoyed Naples, North Naples, and that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike? MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Sarah Spector, followed by Michael Madden. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your name's familiar. MS. SPECTOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MS. SPECTOR: I've been before you before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Aren't you an attorney? MS. SPECTOR: I am an attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought so. MS. SPECTOR: For the record, Sarah Spector with Roetzel and Andress. I'm here on behalf of Bob Pritt. Roetzel & Andress does represent the Mediterra Community Association in 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 30 of 100 this matter. I'm not going to repeat what Bob presented at the last meeting, since I understand that he gave a full presentation, but what I wanted to do is provide you with an update on what happened since your last meeting. As I understand it, the Commission had suggested that, perhaps, the applicant and those who were in opposition to the project, including Mediterra, get together and, perhaps, see if they could reach a compromise. Initial conversations between Mr. Pritt and Mr. Yovanovich did take place, but there was never a meeting of the parties because they could never come to an agreement as to where to start the negotiations. So we didn't get anywhere with that. So in order to have something to report to you today, the board, the Mediterra Community Association Board, did meet. They met on January 24th and unanimously agreed, in accordance with the presentation that Mr. Pritt gave, that our planner, Mr. Depew, gave, and also everyone here today and at the last meeting today gave and, again, unanimously approved that they do not want to see anything more than four dwelling units per acre, what is allowed there today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SPECTOR: Thank you. MR. BOSI: Michael Madden followed by Jen Moen. MR. MADDEN: Good morning, all. Thank you for allowing me the chance to speak to you today. My name is Michael Madden, M-a, double d as in David, e-n. I'm not licensed in the state of Florida, so I'm here today as just a resident of Mediterra. I've listened to eloquent arguments being made today in opposing this project. Normally I'm the developer. I spent 35 years in corporate real estate development, so I was usually the bad guy. You know, Mr. Stormwater Management. This particular development, I have only one strong objection which is -- my understanding of Florida law is that comparability is a critical metric when you're doing redevelopment, and I don't see a reason to rezone this property and to change the plan other than somebody has determined that they can't make money as the property is zoned, and to me that's not a legitimate reason to change the plan. The points made by other folks about traffic, I think, are quite cogent. I mean, frankly, I live in Mediterra with my wife. I'm here with my neighbors. Livingston Road is very, very heavily trafficked, but that's life. I also would like to point out that that corner is going to be developed at some time, the residential part and the commercial 1.5 acres. It's going to be developed. It's life. I would just ask you folks to just keep the standards that are in place. There's no need to change anything. And hopefully we won't get a 7-Eleven on that corner in the next 10 years because I think then you're really going to have a hard time here. And thank you again for your time. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Jen Moen followed by Irene Benfatti. MS. MOEN: Hi, Jen Moen, M-o-e-n. I agree with everyone else about the compatibility and the traffic issues. You know, I live -- and I live in Barrington Cove. And I'm sitting here listening to everything, and I'm wondering how Veterans would even alleviate traffic with the traffic going north and south and Livingston essentially being another 75. So I'm kind of perplexed because, like, you can go more west on there to go to 41 that's trafficky, or you could go Livingston that's full of traffic, or you could go 75 that's full of traffic. So I don't know how that would really alleviate it down the road if and when they build it. And the other thing that I have, the De La Rosa is already -- I've been sitting listening 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 31 of 100 about the De La Rosa already have planned, I don't -- I mean, I live right behind over here, and to tell you the truth, I almost -- 120 feet, 20 feet? It's close. And I personally would almost rather have 140 apartments than have 350 to reduce that traffic. So that's about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Irene Benfatti followed by Sharon Griffith. MS. BENFATTI: Good morning. It's B-e-n-f-a-t-t-i. I was sworn in, and I'm speaking on behalf of Barrington. I had a compelling need to come and speak to you because I had taken some information regarding who would be the renters in this proposed project, and the assumption would be that it would be senior citizens and that it would be professionals. Well, being part of that senior citizen community, and I have a broad base of friendships and connections here, I can tell you senior citizens are downsizing their large five-bedroom homes and moving into smaller homes like Barrington Cove. They are looking for a community. They're looking for a place where they can have connection, or they may be going into a retirement community, or if they need assisted living. They are not looking for a rental. I have not spoken to a single person -- and my connections, I mean, we talk about these things all the time because I'm at that point myself. No one talks about rental. The only rental that they talked about was when they downsize and the house -- their house sold and they don't have a chance to move into the new house because it's still being built. Young professionals, that's another area. I happen to have worked in Collier County at the administrative building. I provide professional development for teachers. I now work at FGCU. I work with student teachers, aspiring teachers, alternate route teachers, and I help work with them so that they can be placed in the school district. I can tell you, they're pretty savvy financially. They don't want to pay $2,000 for a rental when they can purchase a home. Barrington Cove, I think the Horton development were wise in providing an incentive for professionals. If you can take a look at who lives in Barrington Cove, why do they care about this? Because the predominant group of people there are senior citizens, and the other predominant group are teachers with little children. The community is a safe community. It's gated. The children are playing in the front. They're riding their bicycles. The senior citizens feel that there's a connection there. These are not the people that are going to be putting for a rental. And if there is an incentive that's provided for professionals to be able to have something that they can have of permanence, and many of them start families. Jen Moen is one of them. The schools are nearby. It's so convenient. We look for a tranquil, positive community both in a young age and our older age. There's got to be that justice for all. You know, I understand the money aspect of that. I think all of you are in that position, too. Would you want that in your community? Would you want that next to your home? I think you really need to give some thought to that. People moved here for a reason. We love the community, and it's nice to be able to have that kind of harmony. So when we said the Pledge of Allegiance and justice for all, I'm really hoping that we have justice for the residents in all these communities that would be affected by this project. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Sharon Griffith followed by Desiree Mortensen. MS. GRIFFITH: Hi, Sharon Griffith, G-r-i-f-f-i-t-h. I live in Barrington Cove. I'm not going to take up a lot of your time because everybody's already said -- I agree with all that, but the only thing that I'd like to say is that we lived in Lee County for eight years. We moved from 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 32 of 100 Chicago, one of the worst traffic areas in the country. And when we moved to Lee County, we were in a wonderful family neighborhood, and as time went on, Corkscrew became an absolute nightmare. And we moved down at to Collier County three years ago to Barrington Cove for the schools but also for the ease of the area in North Naples with traffic and the ability to get around, back up to Naples, and back to Estero to see friends. Now, given that the traffic is definitely at a capacity, we are having the same issue with the kids in the morning of trying to get them ready out the door, and if we're not out the door by a certain time, the line that backs up to turn into Veterans and the line that backs up to turn into North Naples has become a terrible problem. And both my children have asked if they could ride bikes, and both my kids have asked if they can walk to school and, unfortunately, because we don't have a crossing guard there but also because of the traffic and the lack of awareness of people seeing the children, it is such a hazard to even think that we would add another 700 cars at that area to put these kids in danger. I know that a lot of the high-schoolers are going to probably wind up wanting to walk, especially the freshmans and sophomores, as we add into that area. And so I just would ask that you would consider the safety of our kids, ask that we would consider, obviously, everything else that everybody's said and know that I definitely think for affordable housing, there's so many wonderful opportunities that we can provide for those people, but I have a hard time understanding that young professionals will eventuality want to live across from three major school areas. To me, they all will have two cars, and to me they will all want to live in more of the booming areas such as, you know, the Mercato area or different places like that. But thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, miss. Next speaker? MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Desiree Mortensen followed by the last registered speaker, Amanda Walczak. MS. MORTENSEN: I am Desiree Mortensen, but I was not sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. MORTENSEN: Yes. Thank you. I appreciate you all. I have sat through these meetings, and I've been fascinated, to tell you the truth. I recognize that De La Rosa has already been approved. I've been thinking about that. When we moved into Barrington Cove two years ago, I had never been told about that. In fact, I had been told a whole bunch of different things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, that was approved, I checked, in November of 2007, so... MS. MORTENSEN: I totally believe it was approved, of course. I was ignorant when I came in. I'm one of those naïve buyers. We were told that things would be preserves that turned very quickly to go a different direction. Tommy, I believe, spoke about that the last time that we were here; Tommy Griffith. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon me. I have a question. MS. MORTENSEN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry I'm breaking your stride here. But on account of my inattention at the moment, I missed your name. Would you mind repeating it? MS. MORTENSEN: I would love to. My name is Desiree Mortensen, and I live in Barrington Cove. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. MORTENSEN: I'm retired -- or I am retired. My husband is working full time. He owns a small business, and it's related to real estate. We are definitely excited to be part of a 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 33 of 100 community where real estate sales are obviously so high, and -- but that proposal for De La Rosa, we've looked for it, we've wondered about it once we heard about it last time we were here, and it just makes me wonder, the people that owned it obviously did not -- they got approved for it, but they did not build, and I don't think that Stock actually wants to build that proposal, or they would have already done it. It's already been approved. So I'm just wondering, would it be possible -- let's just keep things the way they are. How about that? It's not compatible, obviously. We've heard testimony after testimony about the traffic. The traffic is a nightmare. I have an 11-year-old son and two grandchildren. We adopted our son recently from foster care and, to tell you the truth, he has some special needs. He gets panicky in a traffic situation. Often he says, are we stuck? Are we stuck? Are we stuck? And it makes me just wonder why. We all know it's an issue already. Why not wait? The comment actually from Trinity was offensive to me when she said to you, Mark Strain, you should have tried it in July. You should have gone in July. Almost like it's so foolish to even attempt it at this point unless you have to. Don't be a fool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She would never say anything to offend me. We know each other quite well, so thank you. MS. MORTENSEN: It offended me, to be honest. And I know you don't want to be offensive, but the fact is we all recognize that the issue is there. The question is why. It's not compatible, and it's not wise. So I appeal to you. Don't approve it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, by the way, the reason I had mentioned De La Rosa's date was you reminded me by saying it that another lady had come up and was wondering when it was approved, so I just wanted to make sure for the record it was stated. MS. MORTENSEN: 2007? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: November 2007. Thank you. MS. MORTENSEN: Thank you. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Amanda Walczak followed by Zannos Grekos. MS. WALCZAK: Hi, yes, my name is Amanda Walczak. I was not sworn in. I was a little late, stuck in traffic on Livingston. (The speakers was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. WALCZAK: I do agree -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your name just -- MS. WALCZAK: Yes. W-a-l-c-z-a-k. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We would have needed that. I appreciate that. MS. WALCZAK: Pronounced it correctly, though. I do agree with everything all of my neighbors and surrounding neighbors have said. I am a registered nurse, and my husband is a fireman. So we don't fit into that 8 to 5 working bracket, but we still are very much affected by the traffic, which keeps being mentioned. It's a huge problem. We have three boys, often going to activities. The schools are -- the school traffic and what Sharon had mentioned I was going to go into. I don't need to now. But it's very, very concerning to add even more cars which, again, is life. Something will be put there, but I, too, just pray every day that there's not going to be a fatality there. Our children cannot walk to school. They can walk to school; we parents won't allow it. It's too fearful to cross over six lanes of traffic without a crossing guard, and now we're adding more schools, another school across the street. And with the combination with everything everybody said, the traffic, the schools, the Fire Department, we just please beg for -- that this does not get approved. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. BOSI: The last registered speaker is Zannos Grekos. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 34 of 100 MR. GREKOS: Good morning. I raised my hand and said "I do," as I was walking in. You were swearing in Desiree. Does that count? COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to spell -- and I've never had anybody asked to spell their first name, but could you just make sure we got your name right? MR. GREKOS: Z-a-n-n-o-s. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And your last name? MR. GREKOS: Grekos, G-r-e-k-o-s. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GREKOS: Thank you. Good morning. I live in Barrington Cove. My house backs up right up to the property in question. When I was looking at buying homes, I did my due diligence. The zoning behind my house was four per acre, and I request that it remain that. The reason that I bought the house was -- part was that. The reason that I paid extra for that location was that zoning and that density behind my home. My exact home in a different area of Collier County in a similar development is $50,000 less, and in Lee County it's $100,000 less than what I paid for my home by the same developer and the same builder. So I wanted to bring that to everybody's attention. A lot of that has to do with the nature and profile of the community and the neighborhoods in that area. I think that most, if not all of the people that live in that area, want to maintain the same type of environment that they bought into with the good-faith expectation when we did buy that the rules would not change at some point in the future as far as who would be our neighbors. I think that there's about 3,000 rooftops in that area that will be affected, and with the exception of the young lady that works for Stock at our last meeting that said she thought this was a great idea, I don't know that anybody else has come up and stated that. So, again, my plea is that things stay the way that we expected them to stay when we bought into this area and into this neighborhood and that the Planning Commission listen to the residents in that area and honor their request. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mike, do we have any other registered speakers? MR. BOSI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody here who has not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that takes us to wrapping this up. And the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal, if they so choose. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I make a comment, Mr. Chair -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- before we go to that? I had an opportunity of speaking with some of the residents during the break, and I think I have a pretty clear understanding of what they want and, frankly, it's what I would probably want as well if I were in their shoes, and that is to retain the single-family dwelling character as the only way of achieving compatibility. That would be -- that would be what I want; however, I don't believe that that is necessarily realistic. And although highly desirable for the residents in a situation where the population is clearly going to increase in the county, I think -- I think that certain flexibility is needed with respect to the planning side of this to prepare for the people who are coming in. Now, having said that, I do believe that further changes really must be forthcoming from the applicant in order to get my vote. And for one thing, the affordable housing piece, I don't think 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 35 of 100 a case has been made that it is necessary or that there is sufficient demand at the present time. Down the road, after there's another school there or something else, maybe so, but right now I don't think the case has been made. But the case, I think, clearly has been made on the basis of just empirical observations that the traffic situation is a very severe one. And I believe that -- well, I could not, in good conscience, vote for an additional 350 dwelling units. And I would earnestly request the developer to consider reducing their size of this to 304 units of market-rate housing. That's where my head is at this time. Certainly I'll keep an open mind during your rebuttal, but I wanted you to know what I was thinking right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's your rebuttal, guys. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather -- now, this is the kind of stuff we could do at discussion, but if you guys want to do discussion before the rebuttal, that's not what we typically do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Clarification. Market rate meaning not for rent? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, market rate meaning market rate rental as opposed to affordable. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just wanted a clarification. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I'm just trying to get to a number of the issues that were raised here, if you'd just give me a second. So I heard a lot of reference to some previous plan that limited this property and this area to, A, single-family and, B, some number of units. What I heard was 170 or 175. I've been doing this for 30 years. I worked for the county for a number of years, was the former planning director. I'm unaware of any plan that existed for this area. I do recognize that I have probably more insight into what those plans are than maybe just somebody buying a home would have, and so I can see where there might be some representations by others, maybe a real estate agent, I don't know. But the fact is that this property is urban, urban residential, and there is a base density that's allowed under the Comp Plan of four units per acre, and then there is a range of density that's allowed based on other characteristics. Within that urban residential area, single-family, multifamily, a mixture of uses, commercial; all of those uses are allowed. So there is -- so then you get to another issue that was raised, which is compatibility. I'm going to avoid talking about this Ambler -- Euclid v. Ambler. It's a 1926 Supreme Court case. I'll let somebody else, maybe an attorney, speak about that. But let's talk about compatibility. Collier County adopted its Growth Management Plan in 1989. It's been amended a few times, but it's largely functionally the same kind of plan that was adopted in 1989 under mandatory statutory requirements from the State of Florida. As I said, the subject property is designated urban. It's located within the urban residential subdistrict. The urban residential subdistrict, under its purpose and intent, states that it is to provide for higher densities where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. It further says, "The maximum density shall be determined through the density rating system but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre." The zoning ordinance adopted by Collier County is consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. It has to be. The Land Development Code, which implements the Growth Management Plan, provides for standards between various uses. So how is commercial in this urban residential area compatible with nearby or adjacent residential? How is multifamily compatible with single-family? And the Land Development Code provides provisions for those types of things to ensure compatibility. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 36 of 100 The LDC requires, for example, a Type A landscape buffer, which is a 10-foot-wide -- or 15-foot-wide landscape buffer between multifamily regardless of whether it's six units per acre, 12 units per acre, or 16 units per acre, and Estates and single-family, regardless if it's RSF1, which is one-acre size, all the way through RSF6 from larger to smaller single-family lots. So I think that's actually a typo. The LDC actually requires a Type B buffer, and a Type B buffer is 15 feet wide with trees spaced no more than 30 feet on center. So if you had RMF12 or RMF16 zoning adjacent to single-family, the Land Development Code requires a 15-foot-wide buffer with three trees spaced 30 feet on center. The proposed Allura project provides an enhanced buffer with significantly greater vegetation, trees, midstory planting shrubs, and decorative aluminum fence. The point that I'm making is that from a -- from a compatibility perspective, multifamily is not incompatible with single-family. It absolutely is not. It exists all over Collier County. What makes it compatible or more compatible is how you treat that relationship adjacent -- between the two uses. And in Collier County, under straight zoning, I can build RMF16, 16 units per acre, next to single-family and provide a 15-foot-wide landscape buffer. Another example: The LDC requires a minimum one-acre lot size for RMF12 or RMF16. We have 35 -- more than 35 acres, so certainly the size is compatible. Your setbacks, your building height, RMF12 allows for a maximum building height of 50 feet, and the reason I'm using RMF12 is because it's the closest in terms of density. We're at less than 10, but RMF12 is the closest in the straight zoning districts in the code in terms of density. So your setbacks are determined based on a percentage of the building height. So if you have a 50-foot-high building, which is allowed in RMF12, 50 percent of that is 25 feet; that would be your setback. And as you know, where Allura is adjacent to single-family, we've provided a minimum 125-foot setback. So if, according to the LDC, a 25-foot setback from a 50-foot building is compatible, and it is because it's allowed, then certainly 125 feet enhances that or increases that compatibility. There are many examples, as I said, in Collier County of both straight zoned and PUD zoned projects that have multifamily adjacent to or in close proximity to single-family. And just a few examples. On the visualizer you've got a PUD just south of Immokalee Road along Livingston that provides multifamily housing immediately adjacent to single-family housing. That also exists in several other locations. This location right here is Victoria Park, south of Immokalee, west of airport. There is RMF12 zoning, if you look at the zoning map right here immediately adjacent to single-family, and it's actually constructed immediately adjacent to single-family. There are many other examples within PUDs and outside of PUDs of multifamily existing and even taller, significantly taller than when we are proposing, existing in close proximity to single-family or low-rise multifamily development. So the point that I'm making is that compatibility between multifamily and single-family is achievable. They're not incompatible uses. They're both residential uses. The question is what elements do you impose in the site plan, which, by the way, we're really not talking about here, but -- because that's sort of the next step, the zoning step. But in deference to everybody that has concerns, we certainly wanted to provide enough information to demonstrate that we would be compatible to our neighbors. The question -- there were questions that came up with respect to, you know, why hadn't De La Rosa been built. I don't know why exactly. I do know that in 2007 the world changed, globally, in terms of the economy, and a lot of things didn't get built for the next 10 or 12 years. So we believe our site plan is far better than what was approved for that project, but 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 37 of 100 whether or not it will get built, who knows, you know. This is the master plan. I just wanted to point out there were some questions about preserves and stormwater. You know, as -- we're required to design the site to manage stormwater to prevent flooding on our neighbors. There is a significant lake here that we positioned to minimize the impacts on our neighbors. There's also a significant wetland preserve that is 15 -- slightly over 15 acres in size. That's -- 42 percent of the site is protected wetland preserve. So, I mean, we do have to address those issues that's required both by the federal government, state government, and local government. I think most of these items were pointed out. We did reduce the height from four to three adjacent to the single-family to Barrington Cove. These landscape buffers, we went over those at the last meeting, but just to show, for example, the enhanced landscape buffer elevation, this area in here, right here, shows the location of this enhanced buffer, which is immediately adjacent to the single-family in Barrington Cove. It's a significantly enhanced landscape buffer. That concludes my response to the comments that I heard. I do think Rich has a few comments to make, and I may have to get back up and respond to something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's see. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon -- whoops, morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I did want to address a couple of comments, and then since Mr. Pritt discussed his analysis of Euclid and other cases, I wanted to give you my perspective of what those cases really hold, which is, first of all, I want to talk about people ask, why did Stock not already build this project? Well, Stock just closed on the De La Rosa parcel in 2018. They've been trying to assemble the property, the additional 20 acres, so that they can come in with what they believe to be a better land plan than what's currently allowed under the De La Rosa project with regard to being able to move buildings further away from De La Rosa than is currently authorized under the existing zoning. I do also want to point out for those who were not here last week or couple weeks ago that the De La Rosa PUD was a -- as Mr. Strain pointed out, approved in 2007, and it was for a multifamily project which included apartments. So since 2007 this property has been identified to be a potential multifamily apartment site at seven units per acre with structures up to approximately 20 feet from what is now Barrington Cove. Barrington Cove was also approved with the PUD for flexibility as to what the then developer, DR Horton, might want to do on the property, which was either going to be multifamily as an option or single-family. They made the marketing determination that a single-family community next to an already zoned and approved apartment project at, basically, four stories not to exceed 69 feet would be compatible with the project they proposed to construct. That's the history of where we are and the entitlements that are there on the property today. Now, we had some discussion about what does the Comp Plan currently allow as far as various density bonuses that are out there to get to 10 or even 16 units per acre under the existing Comprehensive Plan. We had those discussions about residential infill, plus the TCMA, plus you could do affordable housing. All of those could be stacked up to get to 16 units per acre under the existing Comprehensive Plan. We didn't try to stack residential infill of three and then another three for the TCMA. We came in and said, let's go in with an honest, unified project that incorporates all of the property so it could be a unified nice development, and if anybody thinks that Stock is not going to build a nice project on this property -- and I've heard some comments that I found to be unfair about the quality of Stock Construction and their motivation for what they want to do on this site. But go to Inspira, and you will see what you will see at this property and the finishes that are in each of those individual units. So with that being said, we have taken the community's/neighborhoods' concerns into 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 38 of 100 consideration as we evolved our request for the Growth Management Plan. And there are already existing provisions on the Growth Management Plan -- in the Growth Management Plan to get to the same density we're asking for today. We thought creating a subdistrict instead of going straight to a PUD to get to 10 units per acre was the better way to go and provide the community better certainty. Now, there's some interesting -- I went back and I watched the video from what Mr. Pritt said and what Dr. Depew said regarding the project. Dr. Depew said that we do meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements for transportation. We meet it. He said that. There's no question, your staff agrees we meet the transportation analysis for this project. We do not violate your Comprehensive Plan. We do not trigger a link-by-link analysis, and we don't have to provide any of those TDM provisions in our Site Development Plan because they only get tripped if we failed the link-by-link. Staff asked us to include some of those additional TDM strategies. Now, I know people are making fun about the bus station, but I think people are forgetting that recently the Seed to Table project has a drop-off and pick up for CAT as part of that at the corner of Livingston and Immokalee Road. It doesn't stretch the imagination for the county to use that as a basis for bringing in a new bus line up and down Livingston Road if they want to. We will provide them the opportunity to have a bus stop drop-off. That's part of our proposal. Again, we didn't have to do that. That was an additional request as part of going through this process. Now, Mr. Pritt talked about the Village of Euclid, Ohio, versus Ambler Realty Company. I'm sure Mr. Fryer, Heidi, and Jeff and I are probably the only ones who reminisced about law school many years ago about -- oh, and Mr. Eastman, sorry, and Mr. Stone, if he was here, about what did that case really mean. Because although I was never very good in law school about being able to cite cases by name, I was pretty good about remembering the facts, and I remember Euclid. And what Euclid stood for was the proposition that local governments can adopt reasonable zoning regulations to determine what can happen on the property. That's what this case stood for. Now, Mr. Pritt read for you some sections about apartment houses and how sometimes they're not a good thing near single-family and sometimes they may be. He read you that quote, but what he didn't tell you was the zoning scheme in the Village was broken down into six zoning categories. And like our zoning categories in commercial, they build upon each other. The first category was single-family; second category was single-family and two-family residences; third category was single-family, two-family, apartments, hospitals, hotels. All of those uses in the third category were determined to be appropriate next to each other by the Euclid town village, and, in fact, the United States Supreme Court said all of those uses are compatible with each other when the town decided that that's what it wanted to do. And that's what the Euclid case says. It didn't say apartments were not appropriate next to single-family. In fact, it said they can be and were determined to be appropriate for the village. He also brought up the Bird Kendall Homeowners' Association versus Dade County case regarding spot zoning, and he made a global pitch that, you know, spot zoning is spot zoning because you may have one use that's not consistent with another use next to it, but he didn't tell you the facts of that case. The facts of that case involved a .23-acre parcel of property that was rezoned to a business use that was totally surrounded by agricultural property that specifically prohibited the business use Dade County rezoned the property to. So the Court said, when you have a small, little piece of property that is totally inconsistent with everything around it, that is spot zoning. In that particular case you allowed a prohibited use next to uses that were not intended to have that use there. We don't have either one of those scenarios here. We have a 35-acre residential PUD next to other residential PUDs. Bob took you through the compatibility of how residential is compatible with residential. Your own Land Development Code recognizes that. We have some straight 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 39 of 100 zoning in Collier County. We don't have very much, because when we did our Comprehensive Plan in 1989, we had a lot of agricultural land. It was determined to be a holding category for people to come through and rezone the property to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And in Collier County, the rezone of choice is through the PUD process. So we can usually negotiate with neighbors bigger setbacks, bigger buffers than you would find under your typical straight zoning. And, in fact, the one or two times that I tried to do straight zoning in Collier County, it became very difficult because you guys weren't -- not you personally, but the Planning Commission and the Board didn't get to see a master plan. They didn't really know what to do with straight zoning. PUD zoning under the case law is perfectly acceptable zoning not only in Collier County but everywhere else in Florida and throughout the country. To imply that Collier County somehow was abusing the PUD process is not supported by the case law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, rebuttal usually is 10 minutes, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm almost done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but you and Bob combined in one minute will be 20 minutes, so we've kind of gone extensive, so if you could just wrap up, that would be helpful. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got three sentences to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The data that we have provided clearly shows there's a shortfall of residential -- I'm sorry -- of rental housing. There's no question about that. The TIS was reviewed and approved by your staff. We did offer up some additional income-restricted housing because there was discussion about should there be more than just meeting the demand of the need for more rental housing. We offered that up. If it's something that the county doesn't prefer and would like us to be a purely market-rate project similar to Inspira at 304 units, we're okay with that. But we offered up the additional income restriction because Corby Schmidt made a comment about that and others asked about what else is there going to be in addition to meeting the need. We request that the Planning Commission follow your staff's recommendation and send this to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of transmittal to the DCA, and then we'll come back and hash out the PUD and adoption in a few months. And we'll answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Are there any questions of Rich or Bob from the rebuttal? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did I hear you say, sir, that you would accept 304 maximum dwelling units market rate? MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's the pleasure of the Planning Commission, that is fine with us. Again, we had added that 10 percent because we believe that there was a need for it and a request from others that we provide that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just not sure, Rich, you answered Mr. Fryer's question. He was asking about the 304, and you seemed to be talking about the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I said yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- affordable housing 10 percent. So you would accept the reduction? MR. YOVANOVICH: I said the reduction from 350 to 304 market rate, yes, if that's the desire of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's certainly my desire. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, how did you come up with 304? COMMISSIONER FRYER: There was a calculation, and I don't have it in front of me, but 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 40 of 100 I'll bet Mr. Yovanovich knows. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think what happened was is we're -- what's the acreage for Inspira? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was based on the 35 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The actual Inspira project was 304 units on roughly 20 acres. We're almost double the size in acreage, but the project at 304 units allows us to deliver the well-amenitized project we had previously showed you, the enhanced buffers and all that. So that's how -- I think it was just lift what you've already done that has been very well known and worked for you financially, put it on a bigger piece of property so you can do the enhanced buffers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Rich or Bob? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. So, Rich, what I -- putting myself very easily in the position of the homeowners in the Barrington Cove and surrounding communities, I think a big question or a bigger question is, what right of expectation does a homeowner have when they buy a home and they check the zoning, and it's zoned four units per acre, to that being the way it stays? Now -- and let me go on -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I understand. I have a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- in saying that in my neighborhood we faced a number of these issues over time. We've always put ourselves in a position of trying to weigh the totality of what's been proposed. I do believe a homeowner, a property owner has a right to profit or make the most ultimate use of their property in general as long as it doesn't -- it's not detrimental to the rights of the people that are near by. So -- but there has to be a balance, I think in my opinion, in terms of that benefit and what the expectation, the right of the people that live near by it had to what they bought into. So I see -- and, I mean, I'm -- it's so common to me it's very unfortunate that homeowners don't have an easy way to really know what the zoning is of the properties next to them. People bought next to De La Rosa PUD and didn't know it was there. Never were told. I know other residents -- there's a PUD to the south they bought thinking it was going to be a preserve, and it was a PUD within six months. So I see a precedent from the De La Rosa PUD, which was zoned at seven units per acre. And the reason I asked to have that site plan put back up is as a resident of Barrington Cove, I'm thinking, well, would I rather have this, which is -- I think you've done an excellent job of redesigning the site with the buffering, and I like the sightlines where you literally can't see the main buildings from the residential areas that can see into the property. You did a very good job of that. You have the preserve where you would have had four-story buildings with De La Rosa. Some residents have expressed skepticism that, well, if they were going to build De La Rosa, they would have done it by now. And so I guess I have a sense or I saw a theme, I think, from the nearby residents that if De La Rosa would never be built, so they have a choice of let's just leave that the way it is, it's going to stay open, and then the rest of it will be zoned at 4 units per acre as is in the land use. So I see a precedent in De La Rosa at seven units per acre, a possible view of that as a precedent, and I wondered if it ever came up or if it would be considered where this project, which I think is softer in the impact on the nearby residents if that were seven units per acre for the entire 35-and-a-half acres for a total of about 250 units possibly with only three-story buildings, would that be something that would be worthy of consideration? And just to point out, finally, before I let you respond is -- there seems to be a disconnect between ITE studies and what every person in this room observes and the traffic that they live with. And so I find I personally have to be sensitive to the fact that adding 350 units has a lot more traffic 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 41 of 100 304 units, has a lot more traffic than 250. They can expect, or they can possibly expect 140 units plus whatever's built in the remaining acreage there. So somewhere near 250 units very likely. So I just ask, is that reduction to 250 or three-story buildings protecting the sightlines from all homeowners with the buffers and setbacks, is that something that would be considered by the applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not prepared to consider and respond to that today. We could do that -- you know, we can go, transmit, come back for adoption, and lay something out. But let me -- can I answer your first question first about expectations and rights? COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, let's not forget that Collier County has a Growth Management Plan, okay, and under that Growth Management Plan, all property owners have a right to look at that, apply it to their property, and under a prorated circumstances, if it doesn't work, come back and ask for a Growth Management Plan. You're not unfamiliar with that. That happened on a few apartment complexes that we talked about at the last meeting because at a base density of four units per acre, you can't build an apartment complex, and there's a shortfall. So how do I get to 10 today? Very easily. I'm a fairly creative guy. I've got a 15-acre parcel that under today's Comprehensive Plan I get -- I can ask for four units per acre base. Since I'm less than 20 acres, I can ask for another three as residential infill, and because I'm in a transportation -- a TCMA, I can ask for another three. So under today's Comprehensive Plan, there's my 10. I do a 15 -- I do a 15-unit project. I take the other 20 acres, I do the same thing. Four units base, three units residential infill, three units TCMA; I'm consistent with today's Comprehensive Plan. Now you end up with two separate projects instead of one, but -- so you want that or would you prefer one unified project with better buffers with the lower height that we brought down on the north side of the property with, you know, increased sightlines, increased setbacks by creation of another subdistrict that meets the needs that your staff is already saying? So there is that balance of what's already allowed to how do I get to 10 versus is there a better way to address a need. And that's why we go through this process. And, you know, there's always the -- there's always the affordable housing density bonus provisions that are in your code that apply throughout the urban area, and that would get you up to 16 based upon the most recent change to the Comprehensive Plan, and that applies throughout Collier County. So there are provisions to get there. Is there a better way to get there? And I think there is; what we suggested through the subdistrict. And we hope that, you know, the Planning Commission can see this is a better project than doing it as two separate projects under the existing Comp Plan language that exists. I'm done. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just ask staff, you mentioned four with residential infill, bonus of three within the TDMA. MR. YOVANOVICH: TCMA. COMMISSIONER FRY: TCMA, thank you. Those concessions for another three, are those entitlements -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- by right or are they discretionary? MR. YOVANOVICH: I never said they were by right. That would be consistent. (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let Mike -- he asked staff. Let Mike answer the question so we can get clarity when it's not a question after that. Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. They're eligibility. They're eligible to ask for that type of density by the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 42 of 100 MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what I said, I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thanks, Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you, Joe. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The purpose of what I had said earlier was in hopes that we could achieve another concession that I believe has been made, and that, I believe, will mitigate significantly the extra burden -- and, of course, there's going to be an extra burden -- on the traffic. And so I'm focusing exclusively on traffic right now. But compatibility remains a serious concern of mine. But I think we'll have another bite at the apple when we come to the PUD to talk about such things as lease durations and actually building height and the like. I do have to concede the point that in some circumstances multifamily and single-family together can be compatible, but I personally, when this comes back for PUD, if it gets that far, I'm going to insist upon more efforts to achieve the compatibility between the two different uses. But for the time being, I just -- I want to see the GMP limited to the 304 number, because I think that that gives us some level of comfort with respect to a less severe impact on traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's team at this point? Okay. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question of Mike on a clarification on the density. You said they're eligible, but is it a given? Meaning -- say they're eligible for three more for being within a TMCA (sic), and they meet two or three of those TDM procedures. Now, does it become more than eligible meaning it's an entitlement because they met those procedures, or is it still something that it's not a -- it's not an entitlement -- right? MR. BOSI: Density by the Growth Management Plan is always an eligibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But even if it's subject to criteria and those criteria are met, it's still not a given. It's still something that is to be decided. MR. KLATZKOW: And I've been sitting here for 15 years, more or less, and it's always been asked for the maximum because we meet all the criteria, and it's very difficult to say you can't get it even though you meet all the criteria. That's the problem we have; that we say it's "up to," but it's almost always given in the entirety. MR. BOSI: With a clarification. With the criteria you're talking about is satisfying to the TCMA strategies. That's -- those are two -- that's a set of criteria. The other criteria is compatibility, other issues that are always evaluated for any zoning proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we had a similar discussion, something simpler, called a boat dock extension. You meet those criteria, there was an argument that you've got to approve them. No, that's not true. If they still meet the criteria, we still have other issues that can factor in, and that's what I wanted to make sure everybody understood. So, with that, if we're done with our questions of the applicant, and we'll close the public hearing, and we can go into a discussion. First, if anybody has any discussions. Does anybody have any? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I may have lost track from the last meeting. But we did get our staff report; is that correct? Corby provided staff analysis? Because I have -- I do have questions on -- but did we have our staff report? Otherwise, I'll go right into my questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've had a staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. The real issue here is -- well, I'll talk about compatibility. Compatibility is number one. I totally agree with Mr. Mulhere's assertion that we have multifamily and single-family next to each other throughout this county. In fact, almost every 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 43 of 100 large PUD has multifamily and single-family, multifamily across the street from single-family. You can go to Lely, you can go to Fiddler's Creek. You can go to -- we talked about other places as well. It's just a common practice. So I have a difficult time -- though I understand the homeowners, I don't think there's any legal position I can sink my teeth into to say that it's not compatible. The issue with transportation; this is an intuitive analysis versus analytical analysis. I don't like pulling out of the street onto Collier Boulevard because I have to wait for traffic to clear, and I understand. I fully understand. But I am looking at the staff report. I've looked at every element that Mr. Schmidt, Corby actually went through. I read the final analysis: Transportation planning staff finds the petition consistent with the GMP. With noted development commitments, staff will recommend as part of the companion Allura PUD and RPUD, it goes on, that will forward the petition with recommended approval. They found nothing within the criteria. And I turn to the County Attorney. If it's found consistent and it complies with all of the policies other than an intuitive analysis, I don't see any legal way to say it doesn't meet the transportation criteria. It states specifically it meets the transportation criteria. MR. KLATZKOW: That's why you're here. You review the criteria, and in your opinion, if it meets the criteria, you make your recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, I do have to say that if the Board of County Commissioners believes -- and they certainly have the ability to make a decision beyond what was on the policy, but as the Planning Commission, I think I'm obligated to have to comply with the policies as written. I fully support the unit reduction of 304. I really do believe this is a better alternative than what was proposed under the previous PUD. Though it is more units, it's a better development. I would still like to see the commitment of the affordable housing rentals, and I like the 80 percent arena. But I'll stay with the 80 to 120. I still think it -- but, in reality, I think Stock Development's going to -- they'll rent what the market will bear, and -- they really will. I mean, I'm not sure of their current development at Lely. I would suspect it meets the requirement of 80 to 120 in most cases. So my position -- and, Corby, you put something up. Did you want to make a statement based on transportation before I conclude? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. This is all part of discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Because I really -- I looked at the -- I mean, fundamentally, you state that that is compliant with the GMP as proposed? MR. SCHMIDT: Our original staff report, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. With that, I would support this as proposed. I would support the reduction at 304 units an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any discussion before we go to motion? Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I liked this area back in the early '90s. I had friends used to hunt in that area before the Strand was cleared without building permits, without any clearing permits or anything like that. We had deer and bear and everything. And then the area just started growing and, you know, it is what it is. As far as traffic, I have a hard time reconciling -- I hear that Livingston is such a high-speed road and yet it's so packed with traffic. Now, fatalities happen when you have high-speed traffic. When you have a lot of traffic and it slows itself down just because there is a lot of traffic, you have fender benders, but you don't have fatalities. So I'm a little torn on this issue here. I drop my grandkids off at Veterans Park Elementary. I pick them up. You show up at 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 44 of 100 2:00, and I take along a nature magazine because it's long reading, and you sit there for an hour, and I'm usually one of the fist 10 cars in line. And by the time I leave -- I tried counting, and I think I got up to 95 before I hit the Livingston Road. And you're right, they just about go all the way out to the road. I don't know why so many people don't put their kids on school buses around here. Everybody uses cars to take their kids to school. And, you know, I'm guilty, too. I get called, and I get asked, hey, can you pick the grandkids up tonight? Sure. I got nothing to do this afternoon. I'll go sit in line for an hour. You know, I'm from the New York area; you were from Chicago, one of you. This isn't traffic down here. You know, no offense, this is just a lot of cars. I kind of have to agree with Joe Schmitt's comments here. Everything I'm seeing says that this project is allowable, and Joe's -- what, the 304 that Ned came up with -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- yeah. If we go with that, I have no problem. I agree with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion from anyone? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make a motion. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, what? This is discussion? What do you have at this point? MR. SCHMIDT: Well, before a motion then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what did you want to say? You're standing there. So why don't we just get over with it. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, quickly. Since last meeting, you've seen a few versions of the language being proposed, and especially the version put up either by email or on the overhead by the agent or applicant themselves today. What was left in front of you last time is something more like you're seeing on the overhead now with the correct acreage, except for the number of units, because the 350 was last left in front of you, and your motion would be 304. The correct policy reference, the language as staff left with you last time, the conditions as they were last written, some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, you sent out a supplemental report. We got a copy of a report, and there was a bunch of yellow highlighted in it. Are we not discussing that today, or are we? Is that what's being voted on or not? MR. SCHMIDT: The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last -- the one that went out in Thursday's packet to all of us officially. MR. SCHMIDT: The items that were in Thursday's packet was from the agent, and it was written on eight-month-old version that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We got a packet from Judy Puig who supplied it through, I thought, your office. So we're getting now packets for the Planning Commission from outside? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry. The packets themselves were accurate; however, in the language that was given to you that has the most recent language, that included the insertion of the affordable housing offering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was given to us on Thursday of last week -- I mean, I'm -- MR. BOSI: Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, can someone help with this. MR. BOSI: What was provided to you was the -- was this language with the inclusion of 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 45 of 100 the commitment for the 80 to 20 (sic). I think Corby was trying to make aware that with the removal of the commitment of the 80 to 120 percent for the affordable housing commitment, this is how the language would be presented with the modification to 304. So what you're contemplating now will be reflected within the subdistrict language that goes to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the record, the online version does not have any proposed text in it. So I think he's clarifying the record so everybody knows what they're approving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The record -- the textual part of this item has several pages to it, does it not? MR. SCHMIDT: It does. It's just not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could someone put those pages on the overhead one page at a time so we all know what we're voting on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark, the packet that was sent out for this meeting did not have any of the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm asking to have it put on so we all know what we're doing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had to go back and look at the December -- or correction -- the January meeting for the latest update. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why I'm asking to have it put on, Joe, so everybody knows what they're voting on. This is Page 1? The changes are in blue; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How does that correspond to the yellow pages that we've received? We received a yellow highlighted page that added the language for the affordable housing. MR. BOSI: It corresponds correctly with that. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. BOSI: The modifications that we have made today we will make within the density allocation with the reduction to 305 (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you show us Page 2. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And, Mike, this is staff's version of what the applicant proposed today, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the last page, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now that we've got the right document in front of us, we've already had discussion, is there -- do you have anything else you want to add to it, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Just this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for one way or the other on this project? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make one quick precatory statement and then my motion, and that statement is that I don't believe the affordable housing piece, the need for the 80 to 120 percent, has been demonstrated, so I'm glad that that is out. I also believe that affordable housing would have created more traffic per dwelling unit than market-rate housing. And the other point I want to make before my motion is that when this comes back at the PUD level, I'm going to continue to insist upon more concessions to be made in order to achieve even greater compatibility, although I do concede the point that under some circumstances multifamily and single-family can be compatible together. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 46 of 100 Having said that, I make a motion to approve the document, the four-page document that is on the screen with the following change; that it would be not to exceed 304 dwelling units of market-rate rental housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Is their discussion? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will not support the motion. I believe the product is a nice product. I actually went down and looked at Inspira. It's actually similar to what I used to live in 40 years ago when I went to college. So I think it's an excellent project. I have no problem there. But it is more density for an area outside of our standard allowances in the GMP. I see no reason to provide that additional density. Compatibility: The character and scale of the buildings are greater in mass and density now than what I think is typical to the neighborhood. And from a public safety and also compatibility, the traffic that will be added to that road, nothing's to be gained that outweighs the added traffic, and we're only going to be exacerbating an existing problem. And as far as the Euclid reading, I read it, and I found elements of that case that I thought were more pertinent to this than not, so I would agree with Mr. Pritt in that regard. So with that, that's my comments. And I -- anybody else have any discussion? If not -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Just to add to your comments. I'm in agreement with you. I feel it's a beautiful project, very well engineered, kind of place I would have loved to have lived in my younger days with a lot of sensitivity to the adjacent neighbors. I find the density just higher than I think is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and what their expectations legitimately should be for what's built there. I don't see great benefit to the TDM strategies. You're talking about interconnection to a commercial property that isn't there, a bus shelter transit that -- for a bus stop that may well be there, but I guess we're talking about three units per acre for those strategies, interconnection for vehicle and pedestrian to the commercial areas. I just don't see the benefit of those strategies in this case being worth an extra three acres (sic). So my maximum I could support is seven units per acre extending what's the De La Rosa but as a much nicer treatment and much more gentle neighbor to the Barrington Cove and other neighbors than the De La Rosa PUD, which I can't imagine -- I think it would have had a much tougher time if Barrington Cove had been there, you know, when it came up. So I'm in concurrence with Chairman Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion for a recommendation of approval of this transmittal, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 4-2. Thank you all for coming. We're going to take a break, and we'll return at 1:15 to move into the pollution control ordinance. (A luncheon recess was had.) 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 47 of 100 MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody, if you'll take your seats. We have a little bit of a dilemma. I wanted to -- there's only one member of the public here remaining for the rest of the day's issues that I can see so far. In trying to accommodate him. I wanted to make sure we could move to the one item he's here for and then go back to our agenda item, which is the pollution control. And the gentleman is here for the outside lighting requirements of LDC Section 4.02.08, which is the first item on our Land Development Code amendment. So with that, here's the -- and, sir, if you'll let me explain what we can do. I don't want to see you have to sit here all day, and if we don't get to that, you'd still have to come back, so we'll be glad to hear you right now on this item. And we may not be able to talk about the item other than listening to you. MR. WOTHKE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you could leave, and we have your testimony, and we can use it when we do discuss the item either later today or the next time we discuss it. Does that work for you? MR. WOTHKE: I think that -- yeah, totally reasonable. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, what if we have questions for him? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can ask him questions. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to say, staff's not here on this item right now, which I understand. It's out of order. I'm just trying to help this gentleman have an opportunity to not spend another four hours here. MR. WOTHKE: Not that you guys aren't gracious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you -- first, you've got to talk closer to the mike, and if you could tell us your name and spell your last name if it's a complex one. MR. WOTHKE: My name is Jeff Wothke. It's W-o-t-h-k-e, and I've been sworn in already, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: And this is Packet Page 79, by the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's LDC Amendment 9A3, Page 1. You ask your -- we've each got something different up here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, anyway, what's the -- tell us what your issues are, and we'll be glad to consider them. MR. WOTHKE: So the story is that -- if I can be kind of brief here -- that I just don't think that the, you know, proposed amendment goes far enough. What it's saying is that if you have a lighting fixture that's in the aggregate of 60 watts or 800 lumens, that you need to shield it or point it away from residents. Now, if we kind of take a look here at the overhead, this is my home in yellow, right? I'm just getting inundated with light. I mean, this is my neighbor's guest home. And none of those lights, believe it or not, they're not directed toward me at all. That's just light that's, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, see, I thought they showed this as an example of what they are trying to do. This is what we're trying not to do. MR. WOTHKE: Exactly, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So the pink guest home, they're directed -- the lights are actually directed to the side of his home, and then the other one in the corner, that's on a, you know, three-dimensional mount is what it is. And it's actually, you know, focused away from my home. But what he's done is he's put a wind chime to the side of it, so it reflects light back into my property. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 48 of 100 So the whole -- I mean, even my neighbor next to me, on the other side of me, adjacent neighbor, they are sleeping with a hurricane shutter on their bedroom window since this started. And I haven't slept in my bedroom one time in the past year. I mean, it's that dark (sic). And even with my putting up bath towels on my windows, my bedroom windows -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WOTHKE: So that's kind of the history of what's going on. You know, in looking at the proposal, in terms of, like, property rights, you know, it kind of limits even the individual to have the lighting anyway, right? If we are to say something like how Sanibel has where they say, look, do what you want. Just don't trespass with light onto other people's property. Then it preserves both parties' rights. It would preserve my rights of not having somebody trespassing with light on my property and, at the same time, people can light up -- do it -- however much light you want to use, go ahead and use it. Just don't cross that sacred plane which is the property. So, you know, the other issues that are kind of with that is it protect both property owners' lights -- and I'm only talking about residential, you know. And this is really only a code-enforcement issue. What I did is I kind of took the liberty of talking with people in Volusia County who have a very similar no-light-trespass ordinance and also in Sanibel, Code Enforcement managers and individuals. They both said the same thing. It's very easy to enforce, you know, they just go out. They typically just have an enforcement officer go out there. If they see their shadow in, like, where the moon isn't, they know right away, look, you need to talk to the people that have the light. They can either reposition them, put different bulbs in, you know, or put shades on there or, you know, they also usually have a light meter in the event that they don't see a shadow just to be, you know, proof positive that there is no light trespass. They can just measure it, you know, for the record. So it's easy to enforce. You know, like the Sanibel rule. You know, I really think it's something, that, you know, we should do it right the first time. You know, make it so it really does have some teeth in it, and it protects both parties, you know. So that's kind of my conclusion and my concerns about this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity, the one on the -- well, my left. MR. WOTHKE: The yellow home. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's your house? MR. WOTHKE: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that light on your house is not from lights that you have? MR. WOTHKE: No, absolutely no lights of mine whatsoever. No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's coming from your neighbor? MR. WOTHKE: Yeah, my neighbor. That's their pink guest home, and that's their lighting just, you know, from that side over there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reflecting off their house onto yours. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Reflecting off their house? MR. WOTHKE: Oh, absolutely, yeah. That's a reflection. And also, if you look at the dot that's kind of in the center there, that's actually a -- it's an 11,000 lumen light, right, that is -- it's away from my home, but they have a pendant behind it, and then they also put a metal wind chime, so it reflects the light off the wind chime and the pendant back to my house. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've got to ask. Is this landscaping lighting, or is this outdoor security lighting? MR. WOTHKE: I know what he wants to call it, you know. I mean, it's very high 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 49 of 100 intensity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it's not a low voltage landscape light? MR. WOTHKE: No, no, no. Absolutely not, no, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't look like it's low -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is a spotlight -- MR. WOTHKE: Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Flood light. MR. WOTHKE: They're really for commercial grade, you know, like parking lots, et cetera. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is he concerned about the Taliban coming in or something? MR. WOTHKE: That's a question, you know, I've been trying to ask, and I get no response. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Have you had a conversation with your neighbor? MR. WOTHKE: Oh, absolutely, yeah, yeah. I tried that first. That didn't work. Then I also went to Code Enforcement and, you know, they just did a kind of friendly intervention. Asked him, hey, look, can you shade it or point it down? And he said, oh, thanks for your time, and that was it, you know, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: My question was the same as Ned's, whether you talked to your neighbor. I assume that you had started there. MR. WOTHKE: Oh, yeah, I did. And then, like I say, I went to Code Enforcement to ask them, hey, look, can you just give him, like, a nudge or something, and that failed, too, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Where do you live? MR. WOTHKE: I live on First Avenue Northwest, right off of Collier between Pine Ridge and Vanderbilt Beach. You can come by. He has it from dusk to dawn, I mean, if you're interested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. I'm glad you've got him as a neighbor. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Karl, you do this for a living, so we're going to depend on your input when we get to this. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I just have an observation for you. So part of my business is landscape lighting, and my fixtures are one-and-a-half to 9 watts. MR. WOTHKE: This is -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Maximum might be a thousand watts, but that's going to be directed at a tall Royal Palm in order to light up the canopy or something like that. Never use it under normal circumstances. You're talking about an outdoor construction site utility light being used for an application it wasn't designed for -- MR. WOTHKE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- I believe, which is quite a bit different from this language we're seeing, which is 60 watts, 800 lumens. That, literally, is four -- like, four of my standard landscape lights. If I uplight four shrubs or four small trees, that would be 800 lumens. That would mean any home with even a tiny assortment of landscape lights would be subject to this code enforcement -- I guess my question is, how do you enforce something like that? What you're describing, this is a very extreme case. So as we go on, I guess my question is, how do we create something that's practical, enforceable, and doesn't create, you know, conflict in every single neighborhood, you know, around town, every homeowner against each other? MR. WOTHKE: Well, the issue is that whether, one, it interferes anyway, right? Do you have any -- if you're going to have them pointed up, I don't see a case where you would be -- you know, have that trespass onto another resident's property anyway. You know, so that's kind of 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 50 of 100 a -- you know, I realize it's an issue, but I don't think it's applicable here. Also, this -- if we just modify, you know, what's proposed here to say, look, just don't let light trespass, then you're totally safe. Do whatever -- have a party with however many lights you want until you cross that plane, right? That's the sacred plane in my mind. You know, it guarantees your right as a property owner to use what you like, but at the same time, I shouldn't have to, you know, deal with the trespass of the light on my side. See what I'm getting at? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'll defer till we get to this, but we have very clear and very restrictive lighting for parking lots and light shields and other things. MR. WOTHKE: Yeah, but not residences -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let me -- yeah, none of that applies to the residential, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, we can talk about that as part of this LDC, Mark. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I just wanted to finish my train of thought with this gentleman. MR. WOTHKE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The language that we've added, I think, is ambiguous. MR. WOTHKE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it wouldn't even affect this provision because it said, shall be shielded, which, obviously, it's not -- it's shielded away from your house, because it's pointed to some other house, or aimed away from abutting property. It's not aimed at your property. MR. WOTHKE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got the reflection problem. So the whole purpose of this language is not going to work for -- MR. WOTHKE: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this was -- and this is the example that was in our packet. So I think when we get to this today, we need to talk about what really needs to be done to accomplish the goal of the issue that you have. We've got your picture of your house in there with the house next door, and now that I realize what the -- what this was supposed to do, it certainly isn't doing it. MR. WOTHKE: That's right. And can I offer one suggestion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you go over this with staff when they were writing this code? You've got to use the mike when you speak, unfortunately. That's that little -- MR. WOTHKE: You know, I offer -- about a year ago is when this started, so I got in touch with Jeremy, who said, yeah, yeah, it's something that we're kind of considering. So I just offered my, you know, input then. I just happened to be around the December time frame just, you know, kind of searching through the Collier County Government stuff, and I noticed this had -- I was like, hey, hooray. At least they're doing something. So I really didn't have that much input other than the email I just kind of threw together rather quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the light trespass language is a little bothersome, too, because what you think is a trespass may not be what's enforceable as the word "trespass." I had suggested they tie this to some kind of candle power; .2 candle power at the property line or something like that. That way a code enforcement officer can go out with a light meter and measure it. Then you've got something you can sink your teeth into. MR. WOTHKE: Okay. I agree with you. I would prefer to have "no light trespass" language; however, if that's not something that everybody -- you know, sits well with people, then fine. Have something like .2 seems to be, you know, what I've noticed around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got that in other projects, and it seems to be one that is somewhat acceptable. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 51 of 100 MR. WOTHKE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that was the direction that I had talked to staff about yesterday for discussion today. So I'm -- as we get -- when we get back into this subject later on, whether it's today or next week, we'll see if we can fix that language and do something about it. It won't solve your problem, and it should solve your problem, but it certainly won't the way it's written. MR. WOTHKE: No, no, not at all. And I've done some research on this. And if you want information from, like, the IES or something like that, Illumination Engineering Society, I have that, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got one of them right here. Here he is. Sitting -- this guy right here. MR. WOTHKE: Okay. So I'm also an engineer, too. So I appreciate you guys letting me drag you through the mud in this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no problem. We're going to -- we wanted to get your testimony now so you're on record. We'll -- we're certainly aware of what you had to say, and we'll discuss the rest of this when staff -- some of the staff members need to be here as well. We'll go into this when we get into the LDC section of today's agenda, but this will afford you the opportunity -- you haven't got to sit here and listen to us the rest the day if you don't want to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll say this: I guarantee something will change; it will be more restrictive than what's written. MR. WOTHKE: I appreciate it, yeah. MR. EASTMAN: You've been living with this situation in the photograph for over a year, and it's each and every night? MR. WOTHKE: Oh, absolutely, dusk to dawn. It's actually got -- this is actually better, right? It used to -- I can show you other pictures where -- when he first did this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you -- I can't imagine living in the Estates and having to put up with this. It's just -- everybody goes out there for just the opposite of this. MR. WOTHKE: That's what it was originally like, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy cow. MR. WOTHKE: So to show you -- you see the yellow blob in there? So you know that I'm not altering this image. That's a normal light, that yellow little blob. The rest of this stuff is, you know, just his, you know, monkeying around, you know. And he does from time to time. He'll just go out there -- like I said, it's on a mount, that corner one. He'll just flip it all on my property at will. You know, he keeps a ladder there for a year now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, so I think you've made us very aware of what the issue is. We will do our best to clean it up, and we'll keep an eye on the -- I guess you can watch the tape on that, or you get ahold of staff to get the revised language, or if you can leave the staff members your contact, they can forward you whatever we resolve when we finally do get to it. MR. WOTHKE: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for waiting all day. I didn't want to see you wait any longer. With that -- MR. WOTHKE: It's been educational, so I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's one way of looking at it. MR. WOTHKE: No tuition either. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. ***That takes us to our next regularly scheduled public hearing. Item A2, which would be a discussion of the water pollution control and prevention ordinance. This was continued from our January 17th meeting. So with that, I'll ask the staff to provide whatever level of presentation they'd like to, and 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 52 of 100 then we'll go a page or a couple pages at the most at a time in order to walk our way through the document, so... MS. KINASZCZUK: So I'm Danette Kinaszczuk, Pollution Control manager. I do have a brief presentation, or I can just go to questions if you guys would like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'd just as soon you want to familiarize us with your -- that will be helpful. It might answer some questions, and there will be less. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. So just real quickly, why am I here in front of you? I know ordinances aren't typical for you guys to see, but it was determined that the Planning Commission, sitting as the EAC, should review this and then make a recommendation about the ordinance. So let's start with a status report of our surface water quality conditions. This is of the non-beach variety. This map shows the different watersheds in Collier County. The red shows that 33 percent of the water bodies are impaired, meaning they're not meeting their designated use. For example, the Cocohatchee is designated for shellfish harvesting, but we have a bacteria impairment in that water body, which means the water quality isn't good enough to harvest shellfish there. The two yellow and the one orange areas are watersheds that have total maximum daily loads assigned, meaning that there's a pollutant load that we're not allowed to exceed. For example, in the Gordon River extension, there's a TMDL for nitrogen, meaning we need to limit the amount of nitrogen that can go into that water body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Danette, you might want to slow your talk -- she's got to type as fast as you speak. MS. KINASZCZUK: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And she's mad enough at me when I talk too fast, so you're just as bad as me, I think. So maybe slow down a little bit. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. So that's why it was so important that the county and the city and, I believe, the Water Management District recently partnered to do a septic-to-sewer conversion and stormwater project off of Goodlette Road. Not only will that help the people with their flooding issues, it will also stop all the nutrients from septic tanks going into the Gordon River extension. If we don't meet the requirements of a TMDL, total maximum daily load, the next regulatory step is getting assigned a BMAP, or a Basin Management Action Plan, which are -- can be hard to implement and are typically very, very expensive. For example, over the last five years, Lee County spent 27'ish million dollars to implement three of their BMAPS, and they're only one of their stakeholders. I mean, City of Bonita and everybody else had to kick in as well. So we are in the middle of an assessment cycle right now, and we could be facing additional impairments and TMDLs. And where I'm going with this is not even from the environmental perspective, just from a financial and a regulatory perspective, we're at a point where we need to do something to address our water quality and improve our water quality. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I ask a question since we have this up. Go back to the map again, I mean, water quality, as you certainly understand, any development, especially in the red areas at either -- probably over the last 25 years have gone through water certification, water-quality standards through the South Florida Water Management District. If I look at this, the red says impaired? MS. KINASZCZUK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's the WBO? Water body? MS. KINASZCZUK: WBIDs, Water Body Identification Area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Water -- MS. KINASZCZUK: It's essentially a watershed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But does this indicate that the TMDLs have reached 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 53 of 100 the -- exceed the limits in these areas and that they're not meeting water-quality standards? MS. KINASZCZUK: The yellow -- the two yellow and the one orange have TMDLs assigned from FDEP, so those are not meeting requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: The areas in the red aren't meeting requirements either, but they haven't gone to the next regulatory step yet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you have a statement here, 33 percent of the water bodies are impaired. They're impaired because they exceed TMDL limits? Or what makes them impaired? MS. KINASZCZUK: They're impaired based on -- we've taken water-quality samples for 20-plus years, and we enter all that information into a database, and then the Florida Department of Environmental Protection determines whether they are impaired or not for various criteria, metals, bacteria, nutrients, what have you, based on that information. So the flow is -- first you got impaired, then you get a TMDL, then you get a BMAP, Basin Management Action Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, Section 107, the Clean Water Act, you have to have a water-quality certification from -- and we get that in this part of the state from South Florida Water Management District. Am I to assume that those certifications no longer meet the requirements for -- I'm looking at all this red area, and there's a lot of new developments and a lot of PUDs, and I'm just puzzled. When you say 33 percent of the water bodies are impaired, am I led -- am I to assume that they no longer meet the current requirements or the existing requirements when they were permitted by South Florida Water Management District? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what might help -- and I think Joe's expressing the same concern, and one of them I have, what proof are you showing us that all these red areas are impaired? Because my house is in the middle of one of those red areas, and I can assure you nothing I'm doing's impairing any water body because there's none near me. So how is this factoring into anything? Can you produce the water-monitoring locations? Can you produce the water-monitoring tables and everything that shows they're impaired? Because I don't necessarily know how we get here. MS. KINASZCZUK: I can; not right now I can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But this isn't going to be done today. So the next time you come back, before you do, can you send us the water-monitoring well, especially the locations, and all the colorations that are believed to have any impairments. MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if you don't have wells spaced properly throughout those red areas, then I'm not sure how we can just condemn the entire red area. And I'm worried about that, because the government has this nice way of showing something's wrong and saying, well, you know, you guys accepted it being wrong two or three years ago. Now that you did, we need a new fee to go in and correct all this, and everybody that lives in those areas is going to have to pay some. And I don't even want to start going down that path until I'm absolutely sure we have an issue to begin with in all those areas. I believe there are issues, but this is pretty encompassing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm looking at -- basically, I look at this and say the entire Rookery Bay watershed is impaired. MS. KINASZCZUK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all of the Golden Gate Estates, the RLSA, practically. It's tons of stuff. Well, okay. We need -- your level -- your concern over impairment needs to be validated and that's, I think, a big issue for this whole program, so... 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 54 of 100 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And with that data, I'd like to know if -- does it not comply now with Section 107 of the Clean Water Act? I believe it's 107, if my recollection is right. Because that's basically what your water-quality certification is from the South Florida Water Management District. Part of the permitting process is a water certification for watershed management and water quality. It's a water-quality certification. And this says to me, wow, everything we've been doing isn't working. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how does the red tide factor into your measurement timetable? Because I notice you have a different color red outside in the water south of Marco Island. Is there a reason for that? It's more of a reddish -- purple red other than the red red over the land. Is there -- is that just the way all -- or they're all supposed to be the same? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. We're all the way down into Caxambas Pass and -- MS. KINASZCZUK: Those are all supposed to be the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've actually gone out and measured the gulf and taken samples out there, too? MS. KINASZCZUK: We might not have; another agency might have. That's kind of a -- that's a really, really tricky area, and I'm really sad at this point that Rhonda left. She's really very good at explaining all this a lot better than I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who? MS. KINASZCZUK: Rhonda, she's the one who's been doing the water quality for pollution control for 20 -- I'm not going to say how many, but we'll say over 20 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's not here? MS. KINASZCZUK: She was. No, she had another speaking engagement at 2:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, please give us data to prove this red map. MS. KINASZCZUK: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're going to need to do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I highlighted -- on Section 2, Paragraph C, I give the same -- you state the same, 33 percent of the surface water bodies, and I had that note on there as well. So thank you, Mark. I agree. I'd like to see what the criteria are. MS. KINASZCZUK: Absolutely. We can do that. We can bring it back. Just so you know, it does get adopted by secretarial order by the DEP when the impaired waters list comes out. But we can bring back something much more detailed next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but, you know, Joe's being ex-Corp understands this stuff probably like nobody else, and if his assumptions and concerns over whether or not permitting should be issued any further in these impaired bodies is true, then we've been making some major mistakes. So somehow that's all got to come together and be explained. And I know you're not ready to do that, but that's what we're going to be looking for, at least, as part of the explanation when we come back. MS. KINASZCZUK: I look forward to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Interesting. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. So I have to tell you it has been challenging trying to protect and improve our water without a relevant ordinance. The ordinance, first of all, needs to be updated because we have a stormwater -- our MPDS permit requirement asks for specific language that we don't have. Also, because our ordinance is 30 years old, it doesn't address our current water-quality issues. And as we just talked about, we have a lot of impaired water bodies. Actually, believe it or not, we don't have any enforcement authority. We've gotten really, really far without having any authority, but that really only works if the customer wants to do the right thing. For example, we have a customer in the Pine Ridge industrial park that discharges 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 55 of 100 petroleum-contaminated stormwater every day during the rainy season. The Taylor Road Canal is part of the county stormwater system, and part of our permit requirement is that we maintain or improve the water quality in our stormwater management system. And, obviously, we can't allow this kind of ongoing pollution. That picture that you see up on the screen, that is the canal where the customer discharges that stormwater, and it's like this any given day during the rainy season, and under the current ordinance, we have been unable to make them stop. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They're in violation of the Clean Water Act. MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes, and we have reached out to DEP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: DEP? And -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think part of the issue -- and I've had conversations, Danette, very similar to what you're having right now, is that the enforcement agencies aren't enforcing anything. And so if they're in violation of state or federal law, there's nobody to enforce it. And I think that what Danette's looking at is to make it into a county ordinance so that at least we'll be able to enforce it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well -- and I clearly understand that, Jeff. So what you're proposing is a local enforcement for us to enforce the Clean Water Act and our policies as well. And I certainly agree with you there. It's just, when you say there's no enforcement, there is. It's just that probably somebody from the feds or the state say, oh, that's minor. I'm not going to make an issue of it. But certainly our political elected officials can make an issue of this. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question for the county attorney. The county has no authority to enforce state pollution laws? MR. KLATZKOW: No. I think that's why Danette's having this conversation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You would have to go to DEP, and if it's in violation of the EPA, you have to go through the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife or the EPA. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: People get the government they vote for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? MR. KLATZKOW: Make it all great again, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Danette, let's go to the next slide. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. So on a more positive note, two really good things about this ordinance is the focus on pollution prevention and source tracking. So that will allow us to find the trouble areas and work with the customers to actually implement best management practices instead of always trying to go behind and clean everything up. So there's nothing extravagant in this ordinance. Nobody is requiring that we do DNA testing of pet waste or anything crazy like this. This is really just getting us current. Pollution Control, we're an education-based group. We always work towards compliance and not in a punitive mode. It doesn't do me any good to correct somebody's behavior one day when myself or my staff is standing there watching them. We want to change it for a lifetime, so we are always, always education and pollution prevention. So we went through a pretty extensive review process, and we got a lot of positive feedback. And the only stumbling block we had was with DSAC, and DSAC unanimously approved the ordinance with one requested addition. They wanted us to exempt existing developments from having to implement structural best-management practices. Obviously, we don't support the grandfathering of existing developments, because that's where some of the issues are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since we were starting to talk from slide to slide, could you go back to that slide for a minute. What do the fire inspectors have to do with this program, just out of curiosity? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 56 of 100 MS. KINASZCZUK: One of the rules that we had previously before we took the list of Florida Administrative Code out was the fire inspectors do a lot of work on the planning portion of tanks, aboveground and underground storage tanks. So their rules and regulations were in there. There was a gap they were trying to close, so they took a look at it as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in their review of tank installations, they would somehow involve themselves with pollution? Or isn't that set by -- I mean, I had to put double-wall underground tanks in at the marinas and stuff when I was in the private sector. That was all run by DEP and was pretty heavily inspected. So -- what okay, I'm -- MS. KINASZCZUK: That -- the tanks program, the inspection has been -- it's a delegated program from DEP to Collier County, and there was a small gap in it that we were trying to capture for the program that runs it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nine or 10 -- well, wait a minute. Probably 13, 14 years ago all the gas stations had the -- it was the yank a tank. They had the yank-a-tank program, but that was all DEP directed, and our gas stations had to upgrade to double-wall tanks. They're not doing that anymore, or that's not -- it's still part of the review process now for a new gas station, correct? MS. KINASZCZUK: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: The program has been delegated from DEP to Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it makes sense now that -- if a gas station -- all the old gas stations had to come into compliance. MS. KINASZCZUK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So now if I put a tank in the ground, it's the building codes, and the review the plans and codes. So, yeah, it's now deferred locally for enforcement. I can understand that. Okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: So staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission, sitting as the EAC, provide a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance consolidating, repealing, replacing Ordinance No. 8779 regarding the transportation and disposal of sludge and repealing Resolution No. 88-311 regarding fees for sludge, transportation, and disposal permits. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Was thought given to granting preexisting owners, not a grace period, but a period of time within which they could remediate these problems over a longer period of time, such as two or three years just to spread out the cost? MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure; absolutely. I mean, every incident is site specific, and whatever is going on at that time, we will work with the owner to remediate the issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- so you're saying that you have discretion to allow for grace periods or -- MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes, a reasonable time to cure, I think, is the language that we use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, is that language in the ordinance? MS. KINASZCZUK: I believe so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Reasonable. MS. KINASZCZUK: It was at one point. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Reasonable time to cure. MS. KINASZCZUK: Can you find that? Nick's going to look that up for me real quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, you had -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 57 of 100 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The Clean Water Act was codified and approved by the Congress in 1977, so I think people had more than sufficient time to come into compliance. MS. KINASZCZUK: I guess I wasn't sure if you were talking about a particular item or if there was a spill and to remediate it, is more what I was referring to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: When we get to spills, I'll talk about that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's move into the document. And who knows what copies of what documents we have here today. I have a 44-page document I'm working off of, and the first two pages of that document, or first three pages -- yeah, four pages of that document are the staff report, and that basically is a requested action, what we're going to be getting into in the real language. Does anybody have any questions from the first -- from the staff report before we get into the page-by-page discussion -- well, we've got the DEP letter next and then the page-by-page discussion of the commitments. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, Danette, under your DSAC recommendation, I do want to talk a little bit more about their request. And I don't have a problem with you not agreeing with it. I just want to know what the extent of what it is you want to do so I know how carefully they may have looked at it. When you said you don't know of structural changes to existing improved properties, does that mean -- what parts of those improved properties? What issues are we specifically talking about in every instance that you can think of? MS. KINASZCZUK: DSAC actually formed a subcommittee, and we met one or two times to discuss it further, and what they were worried about -- I guess the best example I can use is, okay, you have a water body that's impaired for copper, so then eventuality we are able to narrow it down to a development that we see discharging copper above the amount that's allowed to be in that water body. So we would go to that development and say, hey, can you please stop putting copper-based algicide into your ponds to treat for algae or stop putting nutrients in your ponds or plant a littoral zone, whatever the best management practice. If they don't do those things, then at one point they need to put in some sort of structural best-management practice, some sort of filter or something that will take care of that pollutant so it doesn't discharge to the county's stormwater system. Does that answer your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that makes sense. No, that's what I was trying to -- I wanted to make sure I understood why DSAC said what they said and why you're taking your position, and I don't disagree with your position, especially if they have a choice. They can knock off using copper, or they can fix their system so that the copper doesn't roll over into ours. That doesn't seem that problematic for whatever it would take. So I don't have a problem with it. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. And then it is specific to drainage, not anything else? MS. KINASZCZUK: No, not necessarily. I mean, say they have a nutrient problem, one of the suggestions we're going to make is that you put a pet-waste station with bags to scoop up pet waste. So, yes, it's specific that we're trying to protect the drainage system, but the best-management practice might -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: -- encompass something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a population of about 80,000 people in Golden -- well, half of it now. But Golden Gate Estates will have about 80,000 people at buildout, and those people are huge -- it's a people big sprawling community, as you know, and we all have septic 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 58 of 100 tanks. And I can tell you the county's septic system failed during Irma, but our septic tanks did not. We actually -- everything ran fine, at least the people I've talked to and I know out there, yet the -- the county probably polluted more with their problems in the systems they had than we could ever have done out in ours. So I don't want this document to develop into a document that is used to attack systems that are working and cause problems with upgrades and things like that that we don't need because our systems are doing fine. That was my concern. So does -- the preexisting residential permitting properties, does that have anything to do with the septic systems in places like Golden Gate Estates? MS. KINASZCZUK: I think it would fall under there if there was to become an issue and it was able to be traced back to. But I think with the size of the properties there -- and we've actually looked at the nutrient concentration out in Golden Gate Estates and the lack of impairments in those downstream water bodies for nutrients, and where we're at right now, we don't have impairments for nutrients there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that contradicts the red map you just showed us. That's kind of why I wanted to see -- MS. KINASZCZUK: Well, it could be impaired for something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: It's not necessarily impaired for nutrients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just read where the City of Naples has blamed -- is trying to blame things along the septic tanks on Goodlette -- on septic tanks, and I think they're completely wrong in their assumptions there. I just don't want that to roll over into other parts of the county. I don't think it's warranted at all. That was my concern. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have to be worried about some things with septic tanks, though. When you start getting too many septic tanks in a given area, it can cause a problem. When your water table starts going up, it can cause a problem. There are a lot of things that can go wrong in septic tanks, probably not going wrong now, but that doesn't mean if we get a little bit of, you know, wetter weather, you might have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's exactly why -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I agree, we don't have a problem right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, that's exactly why I keep telling you we don't need more density out there. We don't need commercial out there. We don't need churches out there, but then you-all disagree with me. So make up your mind. Which side of the table do you want to be on? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's not going to stop the water table from rising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, you know, you said quantity, and that's what I'm worried about. We don't need more quantity, so... If there's nothing else on the staff report, following the staff report are a couple letters from DEP. Does anybody have any issues on there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if you -- that's on Pages 5 and 6. I don't know if anybody's reviewed them or not. And I think, Danette, I did ask you about this when we met, and I think you clarified my questions on that. We're doing all the things that DEP recommended on the second page of that document, are we not? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yep. This will be the last one is to get the specific language into the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Okay. Then after that we get into some of the old ordinances that have been taken out, and they go on for several pages. In fact, I'm going to 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 59 of 100 roll down. I think we got those -- they go all the way down past Page 19. On Page 19 is the one ordinance that's retained. It's No. 89-20. And I want to ask you, Danette, if nobody else has any questions on Ordinance 89-20, which is around Page 19 and 20 of the electronic document, there's a -- in the middle of 8920 on page, Section 5, it says, "The Board of County Commissioners may, by ordinance, designate an advisory board composed of residents and electors of Collier County with advisory authority and business affairs of the program and such duties as may be assigned from time to time by the BCC." Was that board ever appointed? MS. KINASZCZUK: From what I recall, a conversation with Bill Lorenz, is that it was eventually rolled into the EAC. I don't have a 100 percent answer for you, but I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that makes sense. I just wanted to know if it existed out there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I think that's correct. It was -- that became an EAC function. It was part of the EAC, which now is our function. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then after that we have one more ordinance that's being discontinued, and then we get into the ordinance we're here for today, and that's on Page 25 of our electronic document. And the first page or -- first page is a bunch of fun whereas clauses. And I just want to make sure there's no questions from Page 1 of 19 of the document. Does anybody have any questions there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Danette, I mentioned, too, that the second-to-the-last whereas clause, "The Board enacted Ordinance No. 87-79 as amended," then "whereas, the Board desires a supplement and amend these ordinances and enhance their enforcement." You're only supplementing 89-20. You're repealing 87-79, right? MS. KINASZCZUK: Right. And so, are you, I think -- I believe we added "consolidate" after that to address -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There was a newer version sent out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not again. Really? MS. KINASZCZUK: It was your agenda packet that you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but we get one every meeting. Another -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Between the two meetings they changed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you know how long it takes to read these? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. I had to go back and take all my notes and try to go from one version to the other, but we had a -- instead of 1 of 19, there's 1 of 20 pages now, and the word "consolidate" was put in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That came out in the last packet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And this is Packet Page 34, the latest. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Packet Page 34. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going to make it so easy to follow all of this today. I'm so glad we're doing it this way. It hasn't been difficult enough. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We were out in Immokalee when we got the email for the new packet, and I looked at it and said, here we go again. All my notes from one week to the other. So okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's why we get paid the big buck for this job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now I've got both of them up so I can review them side by 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 60 of 100 side. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I want a raise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I want a raise. MR. KLATZKOW: We'll double it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I see what you did. Thank you. I saw what you did, Danette. Starting with the general section on that -- and I have no idea what page the rest of you are on. Let's just call it Section 1, Section 2, the general section which is on -- MR. KLATZKOW: Michael, is there any way to put it on the viewer so that if anybody's watching this at home they know what we're doing? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's Packet Page 35, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's my 26 and 27 in mine. You're on 35. So, the old one was Page 26, the new version that was sent out for this week was on Page 27, and you have it on Page 35, and Karen's got it in a hard copy. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, so it's Page 1 of 20. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've got it on Page 35 of the packet, but it's Page 1 of the ordinance. We'll stay with -- how about if we stay with pages -- just call it Page 1 of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, mine says Page 2 of the ordinance, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's use section numbers of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The new one is Page 1 of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. New one's Page 2 of the ordinance; so is this one. Both of them are Page 2 of the ordinance. It starts out with "general." That's it right there. MR. KLATZKOW: Or we can just work off the viewer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page. (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ever since Accela started, we have not been able to be on the same page on this board, so... MR. BOSI: This is the Accela distribution that was provided a week before the meeting. Unfortunately, Mark, I think -- you don't use the Accela. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't get into it. MR. BOSI: A different portion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go to the whereas -- go to the -- can you track down a bit? Because that's where you added the word -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There it is, Page 2. See? That's what I was trying to say. It's Page 2. Okay. Let's start with Page 1. Does anybody have any questions on Page 1? COMMISSIONER FRYER: This is the whereas clauses on Page 1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Yeah, Page 2. Does anybody have any questions on Page 2, Section 1 and 2? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We've talked about this, the concept of impairment. But I want to be sure I understand what the deliverable is going to be before we talk about this again. The note that I wrote to myself is, what does impairment mean scientifically, and what are the practical consequences to the public? I believe your answer was impairment means that it goes over the line on one or more certain tests or criteria; that there are different ways that it can get 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 61 of 100 impaired, correct? MS. KINASZCZUK: Correct. It means it's not meeting it's designated use. So the Florida Administrative Code has classifications for water bodies. A Class 2 is to be used for shellfish harvesting. A Class 3 is for recreational, swimming, boating, things like that. So depending on how the water body is classified, it has -- DEP has developed criteria for each pollutant. So it either -- the water body becomes impaired when it is not meeting that criteria. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But the 33 percent is across the board without regard to which criterion isn't being met. MS. KINASZCZUK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that map with the red coloring, when we come back the next time to talk about this, could you label each one of those sections of that red map with the proper -- whether it's impaired -- Level 2, whatever class water body it is? MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And how it's impaired. MS. KINASZCZUK: For which criteria? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's under Paragraph C. That was the same question, again, for the additional information for the 33 percent that you cited. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on that page? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one on B. "The Board recognizes that Collier County and its residents rely on groundwater and surface water for drinking water supplies." I never took a gulp out of the surface water. Where is that happening in Collier County? MS. KINASZCZUK: Marco Island. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is going to apply to Marco Island as well? MS. KINASZCZUK: Our hope is that the City of Naples and City of Marco, after we get adopted by our board, that they will hopefully adopt it for their areas as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, I knew they -- they have one well and the potential for another one, both in that general area they're in down south, so... Okay. The next item, next page, Page 3, continuing in those sections. Anybody have any questions on Page 3? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do on Section J. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's a reference, it says, Section 403.182, Florida Statutes, allows local governments to adopt ordinances relating to local pollution control programs that are stricter or more extensive than those imposed by this act. Is that the case with everything in this new ordinance, that in your view it's stricter or more extensive, or in some cases does it simply replicate it so there can be local enforcement? MS. KINASZCZUK: In most cases it simply replicates it so there can be more enforcement. I think the only thing that we do is -- that we are asking for is that somebody -- we're asking in a lot of cases for something more proactive, but it really is in terms of source tracking. We are asking that the discharger be responsible for source tracking at a certain point. So, for example, we have the development that keeps doing copper and won't fix anything. At one point the people that live here are going to be tired of funding their water-quality testing for a place that continues to fail. So we would be way down the road asking -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I wonder if other commissioners feel as I do that it would be -- and I apologize if this would make more work for staff, but to know in each specific case 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 62 of 100 where we're going for something that's stricter than the state is, than the state has. Would that be onerous? MS. KINASZCZUK: Well, to be honest, yes, but we can do it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Anybody else? Does that matter to anyone else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We can go stricter than the state. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I just would like to know where. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter to me, but if you'd like to see it, then -- and if Danette is -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I think I'd like to see it, because just the basic concept of, you know, when in doubt, don't regulate or don't overregulate is kind of my -- where I come from, and I'd like to know where we're simply repeating the state law for the purposes of enforcement or actually making it stricter. Thank you. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it on that page? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That is it on that page, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next we'll move to Page 4. Anybody have any questions on Page 4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we go to the bottom of Page 4, construction activity, "Shall be defined as activities resulting in land development or redevelopment including, but not limited to, clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, and demolition in any zoning district." Does that include ag? MS. KINASZCZUK: It does unless the agriculture is exempted, and there is an ag exemption in Florida Statute 163.3 excluding bonefide farm operations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you add that to the end of the sentence just so it's clear? MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because there's -- Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, there's ag exemptions as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just say, any zoning district except where there's ag exemptions. That would cover it. That would make it -- anybody reading it then would understand it quickly. Next page, Page 5. Anybody have anything on Page 5? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the top of Page 5 under domestic wastewater, it says that -- "as it may be amended from time to time, which means wastewater derived principally from dwellings." Is this dwellings -- all dwellings, or is there a certain dwellings that wouldn't fall under domestic wastewater, such as units with septic tanks? MS. KINASZCZUK: Domestic wastewater typically refers to those collected in a public transmission system, and this is the Florida Administrative Code for that as opposed to the one -- the 64E-6, I believe, is for septic tanks. So that would be the intent. To not have septic systems would be the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Mark, is it your intent to just exempt septic tanks from this ordinance? Is that what you're getting at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's what I'm getting at, yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Then make that recommendation, get a Planning Commission vote, because we could just put that express exemption right in here that this ordinance is not intended to regulate septic tanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, and every time you bring up something as -- maybe innocently to protect existing systems, it ends up coming back to bite you. So I'd rather just make 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 63 of 100 sure this doesn't apply for it step by step, and then -- Jeff, that's a -- I'm looking at what -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- some of our representatives are doing in Tallahassee right now. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but I can't help that. I can only help what -- I can only help what we do down here, not what they do in Tallahassee. What I'm saying is five or 10 years from now when somebody's trying to enforce this, they may look at this and say, okay, it includes septic tanks. If you want to expressly exempt septic tanks from this ordinance, let's just do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's advisable. We couldn't afford to replace the septic tanks in Golden Gate Estates, and they don't need to be. But I don't want to get that to be the bone of contention for all this discussion that goes forward from here, because then we'll get into -- it will be a political quagmire. MR. KLATZKOW: But if you're going to be exempting from every definition, you may as well just do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm asking if it's in. That's what I'm -- you know, because if I understand it's not, then that's fine. The record would be clear, and I always will know how to fall back on the record. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wouldn't it be hard to exempt all septic tanks? Because that is what led Marco to force the conversion from septic tanks. It was because of the concentration of septic tanks in a certain square-mile area, which is different than the Estates. You have certainly a large leach area, you have a certainly a much different issue. Marco was in significant violation 15 years ago to whatever it was, 12, 15 years ago when they forced everybody to go on water/sewer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Golden Gate City had the same issue when they were quarter-acre zoning -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're all cluster developments. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- and everybody was on septic tanks. So I have no problem with what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't either. I just -- but to just broadbrush it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned about everything that seems to go sideways when it gets into politics. So I was just trying to get clarification for my own knowledge. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If they fail, you're going to have to do something about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So, yeah, I have no problem saying that this doesn't pertain to septic tanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think I'm getting answers that help me enough to put it where it needs to be. MS. KINASZCZUK: We need the enforcement authority if a septic tank is failing. So I wouldn't be comfortable from exempting it from the entire ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, then you just opened up another -- how do you know when one's failing? MS. KINASZCZUK: When there's septage all over the street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Golden Gate Estates, if you have septage on a street from a septic tank, it's impossible. You've got two-and-a-half to five acres to roll across before it even gets out 300 feet to the street. And then it's mostly sand. It's never going to happen. So now let's hear of another example. MS. KINASZCZUK: Well, right, but it does happen in other areas, maybe not necessarily 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 64 of 100 in Golden Gate Estates, but we have to have something to be able to make people repair their septic tanks or get their septic tanks pumped down. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are there any areas in the county where there are septic tanks on quarter-acre zoning? MS. KINASZCZUK: If not Golden Gate City, then I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because I think the city still has some, but I don't think the county has any. MS. KINASZCZUK: I couldn't tell you. I'm not familiar where the quarter-acre zoning is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amy knows. MS. KINASZCZUK: She knowns everything. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson, for the record. So I don't know about quarter-acre zoning, but in denser developments we actually are working on a project. It's a unique situation between U.S. 41 and Goodlette. We refer to it as the West Goodlette-Frank area, but it's an area that is the city's water/sewer district, but it is -- they're actually county residents and it is -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Isn't that the Rosemary, Ridge? MS. PATTERSON: It is Rosemary, Ridge, Michigan, Ohio. So we have a joint project going between stormwater and city utilities to convert from septic to sewer, but there's a really specific reason why. Besides it's a fairly low-lying area, flood prone. For years and years we have documented cases of septic system failures where people will spend months out of the year not being able to flush their toilets because the water table has come up and inundated their drainfields. There have been a number of events out in that area. So that's a case of high density, small lots, older system, older stormwater system, and it's the perfect storm of why you would want to remove those septic tanks and convert them to sanitary sewer. There are pockets of other areas throughout the county. But that one, there are over 200 that we're working on now, and 960 to follow just in that little area. And also it discharges to the upper Gordon River which ultimately discharges to the Gordon River and into Naples Bay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But all those are small lots. MS. PATTERSON: They are all small lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of what -- I keep going back to -- people just don't understand what it means to have a larger lot and -- MS. PATTERSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how any of this -- not just this, but there's a bunch of other issues we've had that pertains differently. Like your fees for stormwater, I mean, our large lots could never have a runoff from the stormwater onto the streets. I mean, it didn't make any sense. MS. PATTERSON: Right. And our focus is primarily for -- stormwater for these types of programs is primarily pretty much -- I say exclusively in these areas that are the older subdivisions that have the more density, smaller lots, to be able to convert them onto sewer from septic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of what I was trying to understand. And Commissioner Henning was here. He just left. I was going to say hi. Okay. Well, when he gets back in maybe. Down at the bottom of Page 5, "elicit connection." The second sentence says, "Regardless of whether the elicit connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or approved by an authorized enforcement agency or any drained" -- how do we permit someone then a few years later tell them it's illegal -- I mean, there's no grandfathering? There's no nonconforming use until it has to -- till something changes? They just become elicit? MS. KINASZCZUK: Well, we address this a little bit later in the reasonable time to cure. But as we've talked about in a previous discussion, we have the funeral parlor that's, you know, 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 65 of 100 discharging their formaldehyde into a floor drain that goes out into the stormwater system. Obviously, that's just not something we can allow, or if when you look at an auto shop -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's go back to your first one. So does that mean that on that example, if it's a real example, has someone checked the Site Development Plan that they provided? And did the Site Development Plan show they're going to put formaldehyde down those floor drains and we allowed it? MS. KINASZCZUK: I'm guessing the Site Development Plan did not point out that they're going to put formaldehyde down. So your point taken. Let's go to the auto shop example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: You know, a typical design, you have -- you know, you clean out the shop at the end of the day, but what wasn't permitted was the behavior of, you know, just maybe an -- there's a few drops here and a few drops there or a bucket of oil that's spilled or some other form of automotive fluid, and what wasn't permitted is the behavior of washing it down at the end of the day and all of that going out into the stormwater system. So our options are, you know, our staff standing there at the end of every day watching them, or capping it, or asking them to put in an oil/water separator, or tying into the sanitary sewer system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Because they weren't allowed to wash down their oil into the drain, but they did it. MS. KINASZCZUK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, again, that wouldn't be -- that wouldn't -- but that wasn't something that was allowed, permitted, or approved, so it really wouldn't fit. So I'm worried about the sentence that says, "Regardless of whether the elicit connection" -- you're already calling it an elicit connection -- "had been previously allowed, permitted, or approved." The examples you've given me have not -- it doesn't sound like they were elicit because they weren't allowed to begin with. So how can they be -- MS. KINASZCZUK: I think the connection might have been permitted, but the behavior wasn't. So I'm not quite sure how to get around it. Just where I'm looking at is we have to protect the stormwater system. We have to protect the water quality. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to have -- between now and the time it comes back for further discussion, I'll see if I can figure out some better understanding of that for myself. Next page is Page 6. Does anybody have any questions on Page 6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody? Then you added "persons responsible for site rehabilitation." That was really one that was miss -- put in the wrong section. You just moved it back up, right? MS. KINASZCZUK: It was. The industry term is responsible party, and so we ended up changing it from "responsible party" to the real name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under pollutant, which is the last one, you talk about -- and I mean -- did I -- some of the stuff I may have had mentioned to you, and I don't know -- I don't see it cleaned up. So I'm assuming that means we've got to discuss it. The fourth line under pollutants includes some of the pollutants are yard waste, refuge, rubbish, litter, other discarded. I understand that, but grass cuttings? How does grass cuttings -- could someone be involved because of grass cuttings? MS. KINASZCZUK: We did take care of that in an exemption in one of the later sections. But, yes, when you look in terms of all the grass clippings hitting the stormwater system and decomposing, it becomes nutrient pollution. So we addressed it in an exemption when it comes to terms -- in terms of swales and things like that. Even our existing fertilizer ordinance requires those grass and plant clippings to be blown back up onto the yard. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 66 of 100 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next page for everyone is Page 7. Anybody have any questions on Page 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the residential definition, it looks like you've cleaned that up by taking off the end of it, so that's fine. The other one, I understand the change of the definition. If we go down to site-specific alternative -- oh, SSA. You just added the acronym for that. And then let's go down to Page 8 then. Anybody have any questions on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you start -- oh, you added the acronym list. Good move. You use a lot of acronyms. We have a lot of them in the LDC, and it wasn't until that list was added it really helps, so... Okay. Anybody have any questions on Page 9? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Section 1, prohibitions. It says, "It shall be unlawful for any person or governmental entity." Are we talking about subordinate governmental entity subordinate to the county, or -- we're not talking about prohibiting the state or federal government from doing something, are we? MS. KINASZCZUK: We were thinking more in terms of county departments. I hadn't really thought about trying to prohibit the state or federal government. That wasn't my intent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe it should be cleaned up a little bit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't think we have any authority to go after the state. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Or the feds. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or the feds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we can, though -- if we can make the authority, why don't we? MR. KLATZKOW: You're not taking the federal government to Code Enforcement; you're just not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would just be fun, wouldn't it? MR. KLATZKOW: It would be fun, but you're just not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A sovereign-immunity issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So I guess you'd fix it if you put "or county governmental." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, though, you could have a community development district. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Community -- CDD as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. MS. KINASZCZUK: Local government. COMMISSIONER FRYER: County or subordinate governmental entity; would that do it? MR. KLATZKOW: "Local government entity" might do it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then in Section 2, exemptions talks about a licensed applicator creating a job for someone. A homeowner could or could not qualify for this without hiring a third-party licensed applicator? MS. KINASZCZUK: What do you mean by qualify? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, could the owner himself or herself accomplish this without need of a licensed applicator in 2A? MS. KINASZCZUK: Are you asking if a homeowner's allowed to apply herbicides to their home? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it says "and by a licensed applicator for treatment of algae or aquatic plants." What about a homeowner treating for those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way -- I think he's saying, the way it reads, it might only be a licensed applicator who's exempt. Would a homeowner be exempt if they were to apply their own? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 67 of 100 MS. KINASZCZUK: Gotcha. Yeah, we can clean that one up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I had. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had a question. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to exempt a homeowner? I don't know that you do. MS. KINASZCZUK: If they're -- yes. If they're -- they're allowed to spray if they are following best-management practices, the label, things like that. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, yeah, I mean -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: How would they know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically, how would you -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think you should not let the homeowner do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean? You can't play -- you're telling me I can't spray Roundup around my garden? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I'm telling you that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not going to stop, so... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Roundup? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roundup is a herbicide. That's what you use to keep a lot of weeds out, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the second -- after the comma, is that a qualification of the first part? Or the first part is anybody can apply a herbicide if they follow best-management practices and label instructions, but in the case of algae or aquatic plants like lakes and ponds, et cetera, only a licensed person can apply those? Is that what you're trying to -- MS. KINASZCZUK: No. We're trying to exempt the use of a herbicide. If they're doing it with best-management practices, the way that you're supposed to do it. We're not trying to tell people in the entire county you can't use any kind of pesticide. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The way it reads, though, you're telling people, I think, that they have to hire a licensed applicator in order to qualify for applying treatment of algae in aquatic plants. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. We'll clean it up. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that's not the case? You can treat your own lake with an algaecide? MS. KINASZCZUK: I need to go back and look and see if you have to be a licensed applicator to treat a water body of certain size. I can't remember right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have. MS. KINASZCZUK: I think it would be -- it would be hard not to if you have a lake on your property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: A lake on your property -- you mean private property in Golden Gate or something? Because not anywhere else. You can't go out and treat the lake in front of my house. You have somebody do it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In CDD -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It has to be licensed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the same way. You have to hire -- we hire lake management. MS. KINASZCZUK: There's different rules for pesticide applications and herbicide applications versus fertilizer applications. And with the fertilizer workshop on Monday, I have my rules confused. So I want to come back to you with the -- I don't want to give you the wrong answer. So let me come back to you with that one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You really are talking rather fast. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 68 of 100 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark, I have a -- Page 10. Are we there yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might as well be there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. And I said Section 107, the Clean Water Act. I stand corrected because I just realized I was wrong. It's Section 402 of the Clean Water Act that they certify. But going to pollutants and discharge, this is Paragraph C. And it says, this is an exemption. The incidence commander can do a washdown of a motor vehicle accident. I don't have a problem with that, but is there some requirement for a HAZ-MAT team to go out? I'm talking -- I'll give you an experience from -- as a contractor working under a contract for the federal government. If I had a vehicle break down and spill, let's say a transfer case or a transportation, that was a major spill incident, and I had to have HAZ-MAT teams go out and clean that up. MS. KINASZCZUK: The purpose of this exemption is to not penalize HAZ-MAT teams and other response agencies for taking care of -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand, but is it -- is the first option trying to have a HAZ-MAT go out and clean up before we wash it down? MS. KINASZCZUK: Of course, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's my question. I mean, it's -- basically, the incident commander would -- based on the criteria that you show here for expediency or whatever else, but typically if I've got a major spill -- I have a truck turn over and a major spill, don't they respond with a HAZ-MAT team first to try and clean up? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I go one above that to Section B at the very top of the page. And here we are applying limitations to water that is otherwise regulated; in other words, we're going beyond just impaired or upstream of impaired. MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you give me an example of otherwise regulated where we would need to regulate the application of fertilizer that doesn't involve impairment. MS. KINASZCZUK: I think we were looking at, you know, and -- so we have -- in the Gordon River extension, we have a water body that has a TMDL and is impaired. We're going to be assigned or we have been assigned a nutrient loading that we're allowed to meet. So all of the water bodies that flow into that water body, they may not be impaired, but then they will need to meet a certain criteria. So when all the water comes together, each area will kind of get an allowable amount, so when they all come together -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I understand that. My concern is that "otherwise regulated." I mean, water bodies, generally speaking, are subject to all sorts of regulations that don't have to do with impairment or feeder waterways into impairment. So doesn't this seem to overregulate, "otherwise regulated"? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, this is where I'm getting a little confused, Danette, because my understanding is you're essentially taking state and federal regulations and Collier-izing them so we can enforce them. MS. KINASZCZUK: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: I think it would be helpful to tell the Planning Commission anything that's already not a regulation. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: So is B. Is that a state or federal regulation? MS. KINASZCZUK: The impairment is a state regulation. MR. KLATZKOW: So it's an existing regulation that we're just putting into our ordinance? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 69 of 100 COMMISSIONER FRYER: But are we limiting it to regulations that have to do with impairment, or is it beyond that? MS. KINASZCZUK: I'd say we're limiting it to regulations that have to do with water quality. COMMISSIONER FRYER: With water quality, okay. Well, then I would say, "or water bodies that are otherwise regulated with respect to water quality." MR. KLATZKOW: Except that we're trying to parrot what the state's language and the federal language is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is this verbatim from state? MR. KLATZKOW: It should be. My understanding, Danette, when you were constructing this is you were essentially cutting and pasting state and federal regulations into an ordinance that we would then enforce. MS. KINASZCZUK: A lot of it is modeled after the EPA state model ordinance, but the exemption, this particular exemption, I don't recall if we exactly cut and pasted it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, this is why it's going to be helpful for me to see where we are simply repeating senior laws or where we're trying to get more restrictive. And I would be less amenable to things that are more restrictive unless there is a clear justification for them. But in this case, though, unless this is absolutely quoting a senior law, I would say "or water bodies otherwise regulated with respect to water quality." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you might want to drop everything after BMPs where it reads "in an areas that are not in and upstream of impaired water bodies," because I think what I'm hearing you say is that you want to exempt fertilizer application that's done properly, but when you qualify it being not in impaired water bodies or upstream of impaired water bodies, you're probably covering, like, 50 percent of the county based on the map you showed. Would that work? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one in C as well. Let's see. This is -- this is -- excuse me. The case of a washdown by the Fire Department, would then, presumably, cause polluted water to flow onto an owner's property, or could, an abutting owner's property. Is it then the abutting owner's property to deal with that since it's been washed down onto his property by the Fire Department? MS. KINASZCZUK: The responsibility lies with the person responsible for the accident or the incident. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure it says that, though. It says, "Person responsible for site rehabilitation." It doesn't say "person responsible for the incident." MS. KINASZCZUK: Right. But the person responsible for site rehabilitation is typically the person who caused the incident. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if someone spills a pollutant onto my property and then drives off, I guess I become responsible? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. That is the -- that is the definition. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It seems a bit overreaching to me when it comes to incident homeowners but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, that's actually how Code Enforcement works. Not to their -- not derogatorily towards them, but that's how they have to enforce. One of the projects I was on, there was a dead-end street, and people would keep coming down at night dumping trash at the end of the dead-end street, and instead of trying to catch that person, which they couldn't do in the middle of the night, they had to cite the property owner, which got me involved. So it does -- it has to go with the land, unfortunately. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 70 of 100 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That clarifies. In D, the next one, you say, "or arranges for salvage within one hour of knowledge of the incident." I'm questioning whether that's a realistic deadline, how you came up with the one hour. Is that a repeat of federal or state? MS. KINASZCZUK: This one was actually taken from the City of Naples, their pollution ordinance. And, I think, again, the point behind it is you don't want to penalize somebody for pollution who just had something like that happen. If they are making an attempt to get it cleaned up, then we don't want to, you know, take them to -- have Code Enforcement sitting there writing them a notice of violation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know. But "arranges for salvage within one hour," what if they're unable to complete an engagement with a salvage organization, with -- I think, don't we mean reasonable efforts? MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure, we can change that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. In E, let's see. "Consisting of rainwater, treated stormwater, or reclaimed water." Don't we want to say "properly treated" before all of those words? Because, you know, once rainwater falls, it could run through areas where it would then need to be treated, would it not? And same with reclaimed water. Well, I guess reclaimed water has been treated. But it just struck me that we're talking about treated stormwater, but we're saying "untreated rainwater." Is that really what we want to say? MS. KINASZCZUK: I think what -- if you capture rainwater before it has hit a roof or then ground, then it's untreated and, therefore, not a pollutant. If you -- once it becomes stormwater, basically it hits the ground, it hits the roof, it hits something else, at that point it would -- we would want it to be treated. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, it doesn't seem to bother anybody else, so I won't push it. Then, still on the same page, in Section 3, regarding the first sentence above. What about accidental discharges caused by third parties such as adjacent property? And maybe this gets back to your explanation, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you it's the property owner that's always in position, it seems. So I would imagine it would apply the same way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So an accidental discharge of pollutants or other wastes brought about by the negligence or other improper actions on the part of an adjacent homeowner, still the liability is going to rest not on the person who caused the problem, but the property owner. MS. KINASZCZUK: The way I've seen the law enforcement work on this is it's -- you first go after the person who caused the incident, and then when and if that fails, then it falls back on the property owner, like Mark said. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have on 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next page, 11. Anybody have anything on Page 11? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. 2A, elicit connections are prohibited. Then 2A2, "This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, elicit connections made in the past regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law." We've talked a little bit about this already. It still -- it's a point of concern with me that there wouldn't be any grandfathering and that there could be, you know, an occurrence of significant costs or not insignificant costs. And would you say that the revised ordinance or the new ordinance would give such a person a reasonable length of time within which to get that fixed? MS. KINASZCZUK: Absolutely. Hang on one second. I want to ask Nick if he found that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Is there -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 71 of 100 MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. It's under Article VI, Section 2, but we can add it to here as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if it's there and it applies there, you don't need to repeat it, just as long as -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, if a code enforcement goes out and looks at a violation somewhere and finds something unpermitted that has been on a property that's been since sold and it's been there for 10 or 20 years, they still cite the present homeowner and have him fix what's there, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is that the precedent that you're going for, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. There's no grandfathering in stuff like that, just because the violation is there for a long time -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- and it's three or four owners later. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I do concede that point. I'm just trying to see if there's a way that we can mitigate the costs by spreading them out a little bit. That's all I'm going for. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then on Subsection 3, "a person shall be in violation of this ordinance if the person or business connects a line." Don't we want to say "connects" or "has connected"? MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then in -- okay. In 4, "A person shall be in violation if the elicit connection is re-established without the prior approval of Collier County." It seems to be an awfully broad -- what kind of rational determination will you be making when you say "we're going to approve this, but we're not going to approve this other elicit connection"? Shouldn't all elicit connections be disapproved or approved? MS. KINASZCZUK: I think -- we'll go back to the car -- the auto shop. It was an elicit connection until they put in an oil/water separator, and then it's no longer an elicit connection. So we could say something along the lines of "the previous elicit connection." COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But I'm looking for standards by which the county can apply its discretion to approve or disapprove or some descriptive language that would make it clear so it's just not based upon the whim of the agency or the inspector, whoever. "I like you, I don't like you" kind of thing. So just some kind of language in there that would guide the person exercising that discretion how they should do it. Then on the same page down in Section 3, exemptions, in 4, I think the noun's numbers do not agree. It says, "The following discharges, provided it." Discharge is an it, I guess. "Following discharges provided they"? MS. KINASZCZUK: Got it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 12, anybody got anything on Page 12? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just one thing I wanted to follow up on from 4 on the previous page. Ned talked about one portion of it. Where you added the new language on the top of Page 12 to No. 4 of the previous pages. "After the county reasonably determines there is a violation, it is the responsibility of the discharger to prove the discharge does not contain pollutants." So are we assuming that the violation here is only and always going to be for a pollutant 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 72 of 100 discharge? Should we say "after the county reasonably determines there is a pollutant discharge violation"? MS. KINASZCZUK: For the section, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason for you to -- for the county to say there's a pollutant discharge, they've probably got to have some kind of proof, and that would, then, require the person charged with that to show why their proof is wrong, and that's what I was getting at. Okay. Thank you. MS. KINASZCZUK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have -- in the same paragraph, there's a reference to firefighting activities. And I believe in some cases the byproducts of firefighting activities could be more hazardous in polluting from a flush job that we were talking about in the case of an MVA where the pollutants are usually gas or oil. In the case of fire, you're going to have all kinds of nasty byproducts, I think. And if -- the firefighting activities, certainly we're not going to go back to the Fire Department to clean that up. But based upon the principle that we impose this burden on somebody, shouldn't somebody have to clean up these pollutants? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. And, again, the intent was not to penalize the Fire Department for putting out a fire. I mean, it's part of the cleanup if somebody comes out to clean up the petroleum from an accident, and after everything gets -- you know, do the soil sampling and things like that, then they would also be in charge of cleaning that up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So who would have to -- who would have to clean up the mess that's created after an automobile fire has been put out? MS. KINASZCZUK: Typically an environmental response vendor. COMMISSIONER FRYER: A vendor of the county? MS. KINASZCZUK: Depends on the cause of an accident. If it's, you know, a dump truck rollover, then their insurance company calls the appropriate response agency out for cleanup. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, what if -- MS. KINASZCZUK: The fire -- it depends who gets there first. In a lot of cases, most of the time it's the Fire Department or the HAZ-MAT team, and then -- but the person who caused the accident is the first person responsible, and then it goes back to the property owner. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I'm just saying that, you know, the sentences above, we're regulating -- we're requiring nontoxic, non-hazardous, biodegradable, phosphate-free cleaners. I get all of that. But the junk that comes at the other end of a fire hose at putting out an automobile fire is much worse than this stuff. MS. KINASZCZUK: I agree. It's not great for the environment, but the other option is to have something on fire, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I then go down to Article IV on the same page, unless somebody has something ahead of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Doesn't look like it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Article IV, Section 1C, biosolids, it says, "It shall be unlawful to dispose of biosolids," however, in A and B we don't talk about just biosolids. We talk about sewage, septic, grease, or biosolids. Do we mean to just refer to biosolids in C? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. In 2012 or 2013, the DEP came up with a -- with a really great nutrient management plan and everything else that addresses biosolids, and this is one area that DEP does an outstanding job of regulating. So we are saying that we don't want to regulate a biosolids disposal facility, and we're just saying that everything -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So -- well, it says -- so there's a reason why there are a larger -- there's a larger universe of things being made unlawful in A and B than in C? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 73 of 100 MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There is, okay. All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question on the same area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The -- regards to A, and I guess I'm talking about grease and sewage and some of the other transporting of those type of items, how does the county monitor disposal from the cleaning of grease traps in restaurants, large cafeteria operations? Is that something -- is that Code Enforcement, or is that Pollution Control? And I'm talking, again, about the subcontractor. How -- do you monitor that? And then also the disposal. We're talking sanitation suck trucks. We're talking trucks that service port-o-johns and all the other type of things. Every one of those that transport those type of items, they have to have a transportation license as defined below. MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then do you monitor that? MS. KINASZCZUK: This is one of the areas where we're actually reducing redundancy. Right now the Health Department regulates ones -- only ones that haul septage, things from septic tank, and then we regulate all of them, including the ones that haul sewage. And so we're being -- we're redundant right now. So we are -- and part of that is they are -- they must send us their logs that, you know, on this day we hauled 400 gallons, on this day we hauled a thousand gallons. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you actually going to large restaurants and other places to make sure grease traps -- somebody's not just cleaning a grease trap and throwing it in the trash or whatever; that it's been disposed of properly? MS. KINASZCZUK: That's the purpose of the truck logs. And there's also a pretreatment program that the Wastewater Department has where they go out and they inspect, I believe, once every year, once every two years. Do you know? Okay. They inspect on some sort of basis. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who issues the transportation license; contractor Licensing or do you? MS. KINASZCZUK: We do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You do, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned, you want -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You certify and validate they have all the training and the criteria? Do you inspect the vehicles and -- MS. KINASZCZUK: We inspect the vehicles. We -- like I said, we're getting away from double inspections on those. We give them a license -- I'm drawing a blank here. What else do we do for them, Nick? We make sure that they have a business license, and then we also -- we get -- thank you. We get a notarized letter from where they dispose of. So I think that kind of gets after where you're going, to make sure they're taking it to a place -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You validate that it was disposed of properly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to Page 13. Does anybody have anything on 13? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Section 3B, transportation license. In Subsection 1, it says the following things are required: A signed application, a notarized statement -- and that's what I'm going to ask you about -- occupational license, et cetera, that have all been received and approved by Collier County. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 74 of 100 Now, my question is this: What is the justification for requiring a notarized statement? Ordinarily these are required for two reasons: One, for someone to have looked at the signer's driver's license and verified that that person is who he or she says he is, and the other one is that they're signing under penalties of perjury. Really my question is, is this -- is this consistent with the usual documentation that the county requires? Do they require notarized statements in this kind of a context, or is this something that someone thought might be a great idea? MS. KINASZCZUK: This is consistent with how we are operating now and how the ordinance was written in '87. So I think there was a problem when the ordinance was originally written with people picking up a load of septage or sewage and taking it out somewhere and dumping it. So I think that's where it came from. We wanted acknowledgment from the receiving facility that that's where their loads were going. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But this is the applicant we're talking about; that the applicant has to submit a notarized statement. MS. KINASZCZUK: Right, a notarized statement from the company where they take their -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it doesn't say that. MS. KINASZCZUK: We can fix that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think the exact incident that prompted that was something -- there was an extension of a sewer in the industrial park north of Radio Road off Airport, and we went out one day and looked, and the sewer was full of sewage, and it wasn't connected. And what it was was one of the local haulers was popping manholes and dumping the sewage down the sewer, and he thought it was going to the plant, but it wasn't. It was just filling up the sewer. So there was a quick change made to an ordinance back then. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd ask the County Attorney, the use of the notarized statement here, is this pretty usual and customary the way the county would write things, require things? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Most of our applications I don't believe require notified statements -- or notarized statements, but it came from the fire ordinance. The fire ordinance had a notarized statement from the owner of the property -- can you hear me? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, you're not on. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I don't believe typically our applications are notarized; however, this does come from the prior ordinance. The prior ordinance stated a notarized statement from the owner of the property stating approval for proposed activities for the duration of the permit shall be submitted with the application. So we can provide more clarification. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In your view, is it reasonable in this particular case to ask that it be notarized? What I'm concerned about -- you know, it was easy for me when I was in a big law firm. I could get something notarized in a matter of seconds, but now you've got to go over to UPS or FedEx or something and pay money. I mean, if there's a reasonable need for this -- MR. KLATZKOW: You know, at the end of the day -- once upon a time, people actually enforced civil perjury, and they don't now, okay. In fact -- well, they just don't now, so I don't see the -- there's no point to it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'd recommend we take it out then. Just say "statement." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we do require affidavits from the owner when the applicant is someone other than the owner, which it kind of sounds like this is the situation here? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, all I'm saying is if there's a reasonable basis for it to be 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 75 of 100 notarized, leave it. If not, let's not put another burden on a private citizen. So I don't know. MS. KINASZCZUK: It's once a year. I don't know if that makes any difference in t he way that you feel. It's not something that occurs all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We ought to take a 10-minute break for the court reporter and come back at 2:55. We'll resume at that point. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Okay. Let's resume our quick review of the Pollution Control Ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I only have two more questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We left off on Page 13. Did you have any more left on 13, Ned? I think we left off with you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to 14, everyone, and see where we are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just have one quick question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It says, "On the annual license fee there will be no fee associated with the TL." Shouldn't we, like, try to cover our processing costs? MS. KINASZCZUK: The way the fees are right now, they're so low it actually costs us more in staff time to accept a check for $10 or $25. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. You thought about it then. That's all I was asking. I go to Section 6. Let's see. It says "and/or biosolid that are not required to obtain a permit or have been exempted by a state regulatory authority." Do we want to add "federal" there? MS. KINASZCZUK: We can. I mean, they're regulated by DEP, but we definitely can add federal. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It seems as though we should, I would think. Then I've got one more on that page. Article V, Section 2. The first sentence, "Septic systems are not considered private," blah, blah, blah. Then you have below that, A, B, and C, but A, B, and C don't really have to do with the first sentence, do they? They're not examples or limiting language with respect to the first sentence. So shouldn't the first sentence be A and then A, B, and C relettered B, C, and D? MS. KINASZCZUK: That sentence is -- "The septic systems are not considered private sewage and collections transmission systems" is there at the request of DSAC. We could definitely add it to the definition, but just so you're aware, it was put there at the request -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it doesn't matter who put it forth. It just seems to me that that should be A, and then A should be B, B C, and C D. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. We can make that change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's just a matter of drafting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark, can I go to Page 13? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Are you finished with that page? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 13, A, Paragraph 5, Subparagraph 5, "Any licensee who discharges anywhere within the boundaries of Collier County shall immediately report the discharge to Collier County." I'm puzzled by that, because the upper -- the first four elements of that paragraph talk about maintaining logs and all the other things, but all of sudden now I have to report immediately. Am I reporting immediately an illegal discharge, or am I reporting any discharge in the county? And what am I reporting, that I discharged into a legal receptacle? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 76 of 100 MS. KINASZCZUK: No, you're reporting a pollutant discharge, that your truck failed or something spilled. So we can clean that up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I think you need to clean that up, because you need to define that -- clarify that sentence. MS. KINASZCZUK: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned, are you done with -- I think we were on 14. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm done with 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move to 15. Anybody have any questions on Page 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's see. Let's move to 16. Anybody have any questions on Page 16? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On Section 1 of Article 8, Sub (a)(1), so 8(1)(a)(1), it says, "It shall constitute a violation of this section to hamper or interfere with an inspector's official duties." Are we talking about to intentionally do that as opposed to just negligently or inadvertently or accidently interfere? MS. KINASZCZUK: Intentionally. We've some -- we have one -- a few people who aren't happy to have any kind of government official on -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'd put "intentionally" in there. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then in 3, under inspection reports, the last line, it says, "by an inspector may be sent," I would think shall be sent. "Upon request, it shall be sent." MS. KINASZCZUK: Got it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all on 16, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move to 17. Anybody have any questions on Page 17? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make sure I don't have any. It looks good. I'm fine. Let's go to 18. Anybody have any questions on 18? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In E, which is -- yeah, just E, it says, "The responsible party shall commence mitigation within one hour of notification. Do we want to say "commence mitigation or make arrangements for mitigation"? MS. KINASZCZUK: That's fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then in remediation, 2A, "Any discharge of pollutants must be reported to Collier County." By whom? MS. KINASZCZUK: By the responsible -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: You mean the responsible party, don't you? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You probably ought to say that. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And then in C you say, "The PRSR shall take action to ensure no reoccurrence." Aren't we really -- I mean, are we asking for -- when you use a word like "ensure," it sounds like, you know, we're -- that they're going to ensure that this is going to be -- aren't we really -- all we're asking is for best reasonable efforts, or are we really asking for a guarantee? MS. KINASZCZUK: I don't think there's any -- there's no 100 percents, no guarantee in life. But we did want strong language. So we don't want the person to go, no, we'll try really hard not to let that happen again. We want them to put in some sort of best-management practice. So if that means buying some sort of secondary containment or, you know, bio -- if you have a word that will meet that definition, I'm definitely open to it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You know, as I look at the language again, it's maybe too lax, 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 77 of 100 not too stringent, because it -- you know, I can take action to ensure something, but in so doing, it won't necessarily ensure it. I just took action. But I'll skip that. That's all right. That's all I have on 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to 19. Anybody have anything on 19? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Under penalties -- and we talk about a misdemeanor, so I'm assuming that this goes to some kind of a judge to make this determination as to the fine; is that correct? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe their plan is to enforce this through Code Enforcement, but this would also give the ability that it could go through the court system. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the Code Enforcement, it says -- okay. It says $500 or by imprisonment not to exceed 60 days in the county jail. Code Enforcement can't do that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that would go to a judge. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That provision relates -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I think $500 is absurd. It should be like 5,000. Five hundred dollars is the cost of doing business. I don't say that every single person should be, but if a business is violating the law, $500 is -- MS. KINASZCZUK: I am 100 percent fine with that. I think you need to check with them -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's miniscule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I mean, not everybody that could have a violation is a business that's got a lot of money. It could be someone in their house not knowing they've done anything wrong, and someone bangs on their door. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But wouldn't that -- it says not to exceed $500. MR. KLATZKOW: There's limits to what you can charge for a code enforcement violation. We'll put in the maximum, whatever that is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think that -- I mean, if it was the incident like Stan mentioned where somebody was taking a sanitation truck and dumping into the sewer system or what they thought, that's a pretty significant violation that -- yeah, so I think you ought to look at that. MS. KINASZCZUK: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to Page 20. Anybody have any questions on Page 20? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had one on 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nineteen. I'm sorry, Ned. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The second-to-last paragraph above where Section 2 begins, this is the paragraph that begins "nothing herein contained shall prevent," it says, "Construed to prohibit the county from prosecuting any violation." Is that -- and I'm looking to the County Attorney now. Is that the way that that should be expressed, or should it be expressed as an intentional violation, or does it matter? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I don't think it matters. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't hear the answer. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it matters. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then I'll pass on that. That's all I have on 19. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 78 of 100 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to the end of the document, Page 20, and then table on page -- the following page after that. Anybody have any remaining questions on this document? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Danette, I think you need to come back with a redlined version, and especially if you could help us understand that table with all the impairment -- impaired bodies on it, that graph, that chart, I mean, the map you had. That's important to us. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. We have 20 years worth of -- 20-plus years worth of data. We have thousands upon thousands of data points. So what -- can you tell me a little bit more about exactly what you're looking for in terms of data? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need -- well, I think the location of your data points in those red areas is important, because as you -- you're looking at neighborhoods in a lot of cases where there's not even a canal or a water body for a long distance. So, you know, why are we so broad with the swash of red that you have there? That would be the first thing. You have different levels of water usage that basically says if you collect clams, you've got a different impairment than others. I'd like to know where those usage -- what their boundaries are, if you could. Then I think some sampling of when you take these samples, the wells, or whatever you're using, what does your results look like to make these determinations on? MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that doesn't -- if you've got thousands -- we don't want thousands of them. Just a cross-section a little bit to show -- the first two are mapping. MS. KINASZCZUK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The third one, if it's thousands of pages, we're not going to read thousands -- give us just a sampling of some ideas so we've got a good feel that your impairment boundaries are reasonable. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you believe they are, and we've not seen any of that stuff, so... MS. KINASZCZUK: Got it. It's mandated by the DEP, but we will bring it back. And what I'll probably give you in your next packet is a link to our sampling map. It shows our current sites and our historic sites, sediment, surface water, groundwater. So we'll give that to you, and you guys can take a look. And you can pull any data you want, but we'll also provide some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. KINASZCZUK: -- a sampling like you asked for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful. And we just can get past that, and we can check your redline, and we'll be good to go in the next meeting hopefully. MS. KINASZCZUK: All right. Great. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now we get into what we had started earlier, but we'll get -- let me see what -- there it is. LDC amendments. So that rounds up the 9A2, so we'll go to 9A3. ***9A3 is our LDC amendments. These are a series of amendments the Board has recommended or Board has asked to have initiated. All different type sections of the code. I won't read them all. We'll just move right into them. And it's -- I hate to ask how many pages are in this one, but let's see what we've got. I have a 53-page document, first page of which is the outside lighting requirements on the front page. And if there's no -- no other place to start, I think that's as good as any. Jeremy, does that work for you? MR. FRANTZ: That works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why don't we start with 4.02.08, and I know we have 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 79 of 100 another public speaker here for that one individual. We've heard one individual to begin with, but let's talk about what we want to do with this so the public speaker can have that information when she comes up to speak. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So Jeremy Frantz, for the record. You all heard a little bit about this amendment already. We're trying to just establish some flexible standards to address when there are some extreme cases of lighting spillover on single-family lots, and currently we have no standard. DSAC reviewed this amendment yesterday and recommended not to approve this particular language but did suggest that they would be amenable to some changes such as increasing the wattage so that it doesn't capture too low of lighting, addressing the ability -- or addressing the directional language a little bit better so that it's clearer what needs to be done to satisfy the requirements, and then also providing for the use of timers or motion sensors to satisfy the standard as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That document takes up the first three, four, five -- five pages, then it gets into some emails back and forth. So the meat of the issue is the first three pages. So I'll turn to the panel. First of all, I had mentioned to you some things that would probably have helped us so the rest will know what we talked about. Instead of under Figure 1, just to list LED outdoor lighting, recommended LED lumens. Unfortunately, I'm old school, and I don't know what a lumen is, but I know what a watt is. So could we add wattages so we can understand better how to interpret what it is the intensities are? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I have a little chart that kind of breaks that down a little bit more, and I can put that up now if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sure. Then we can talk from that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You get different lumens from different types of fixtures, depending whether they're LED or incandescent for different -- for the same wattage. So I don't think you want to go with wattage. You want to go with candle power or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I go buy a lightbulb, I go by wattage. So how do I know what to buy? COMMISSIONER FRY: Lumens is a more accurate representation of how much light it puts out. So you look for lumens on the package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you don't have any VCRs in your house either. COMMISSIONER FRY: I still have one, yes. Hasn't been used in years, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, there might be a lot of people that -- I don't -- I had never heard -- I've heard the term, but I haven't -- never came across it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's playing with the lumens. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? Mark? A 20-watt LED might put out as much light as a 100-watt incandescent. So if you say watt -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Okay. Well, is there a way to convert the numbers we have on Page 2 that talk about recommended LED lumens to say a 700 to 1,300 is an X watts in -- and he's put it on the screen. Mike always does that kind of stuff when I'm saying something. So the 700 to 1,300 would be approximately 60 to maybe 80 watts. That's what I needed to see. Okay. Now I understand it better. It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Lumens. Okay. Anyway, I'll start with the rest of you first. Does anybody have any questions on the first three pages of this provision? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just have a general comment that I'd like to make, I guess, before we go through page by page. The gentleman who spoke and who showed us pictures of his house and the one next door, that really made a strong impression on me. I hope that one of the outcomes of this effort will be to address in full his concerns so that there is a law on the books that will prevent what has happened to him from happening. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 80 of 100 MR. FRANTZ: Understood. And I think -- you know, additionally, we'd like to make sure it's not too onerous on people in -- homeowners in general; make sure we address those problems but not address every single lightbulb or something like that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can we make it retroactive so that his problem is solved? MR. FRANTZ: The way that the language is written now, it just applies across the board. It's not only for new lights. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Do you know where he lives? MR. FRANTZ: I don't know his exact address, no. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you look up 4621 First Avenue Northwest, Golden Gate, you'll see the house next to him. Apparently, it was built in about 2015. And if you look at the way the thing is set up, the owner, the neighbor is -- he built his house, and then he built the -- it's a wider lot, so he built a guesthouse between his house and this person's house, and then he put the lights on the outside so that he wouldn't have to look at them but the neighbor does. I mean, that's the way it looks from the aerial photo. You may want to just look at that, and maybe send somebody from Code Enforcement out there to see. It's a really inconsiderate situation. MR. FRANTZ: Well, I think that's part of the genesis of this amendment, that Code Enforcement did receive a call regarding that particular lot, but there wasn't anything in the LDC that could force those lights to be moved or reoriented or shielded or anything. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You may want to tell them to take a look at all the asphalt and concrete and all the impervious area out there, because it just -- from year to year, just keeps growing, and I know there's certain rules about that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm hopeful that at the end of this process there will be something in the LDC that the Code Enforcement person can hang their hat on and stop this, because it really is -- as he presented it, it was really egregious in my view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any specific questions about the first three pages? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, no. I'm on the LDC wording itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the first three -- that's Page 3. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 3, Paragraph C, are we going to rewrite that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think after this, they're going to -- first of all, it's way too broad. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And 60 watts is -- and I'm, I guess, going to landscape lighting. 60 watts is what, four bulbs? I mean, I can have low-voltage lighting system to light up some landscape lighting and, I mean, 60 watts is not much. COMMISSIONER FRY: 60 watts is very minimal landscape lighting in my -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: I do landscape lighting, and fixtures range from one and a half to nine watts, and they average 50 to 70 watts -- 70 to 50 lumens per watt. So a 9-watt bulb -- I'm sorry. I'm a little low on that. It's 70 to about 110 lumens per watt. So a 9-watt bulb can put out 1,000 lumens, and you're talking about 800 lumens triggering this clause. One of my lights on a tall Royal Palm that would have no impact on anybody and just lights the palm up nicely, the trunk and the canopy, would trigger this clause. Now, it doesn't trigger in terms of the watts. It's only nine watts, but lumens -- LED is much more efficient in lumens than incandescent. So my question is, really, if this is the full clause to be added that guides this whole Code Enforcement challenge, then in my opinion we would need to do a much more -- a little bit of research. Have somebody do research. And I think what we're really trying to fight is, like the gentleman's photos earlier, was his house is lit up like a movie screen with the lighting bouncing 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 81 of 100 off the house next door. That would never happen with the kind of lighting that I do; however, I think you need more of an empirical -- we need more of an empirical way for Code Enforcement to say, hey, this is a violation, this is not a violation. I thought of -- we measure lights on movie screens in terms of foot candles. Somebody mentioned, I think, candle power standing in the street. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: But if you measured the foot candles of light on that gentleman's, it's probably a significant threshold. I don't know what the right threshold would be, but I think you need something that could actually be physically measured so that it would be reasonable; otherwise, Code Enforcement will be called in every neighborhood 10 times a day. MR. FRANTZ: I don't have a problem with reorienting how we would actually enforce it and also looking at the specific numbers. The reason for presenting it this way was thinking more of the homeowners who are going out and buying those bulbs, and if I say that there can be a certain number of foot candles on their neighbor's property, I personally wouldn't know what bulbs I could buy. But I was hoping they'd be able to give them a lot more guidance. But maybe we can find a balance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Back in my days at the county -- I'm trying to think when. But there was considerable amount of work being done on the whole Dark Skies issue and designing of the parking lots and the shielded lights and all those kinds of things. I mean, that stuff is still around, isn't it? I mean, can't you apply some of that -- the requirements that we do for parking lots and other type of lighting, directional lighting, all the criteria that we -- that's in the -- typically in a PUD, we clearly define how lighting should be. I think we could develop some kind of standard that we could apply for landscape lighting. I mean, it's supposed to be low voltage lighting directed into landscaping and maybe the side of a house or whatever, but nothing like what we saw with this picture. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I mean, we certainly can take on something like that. I didn't really understand that our direction was to address it so comprehensively. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, you've got to have something that Code Enforcement used to issue a violation, and this -- I agree, and Karl's right, with this criteria, everybody that has landscaping lighting in their house would be in violation. MR. FRANTZ: Okay, yeah. I mean, that's great feedback. And I think, you know, perhaps we can come back to you again with some revised numbers that will be more appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Come out to my house. I think I have eight or nine landscape lights. I'm in violation now. COMMISSIONER FRY: In the case of the gentleman this morning, the lights that were used next door probably were not listed for residential use in the first place. They were commercial lights. And I've seen this on other homes in Olde Naples where it's a big square rectangular work light. It's for a construction site, and they're using it to uplight things. And so I'm wondering if -- and I don't know the specifics, but I'm wondering if there's some classification for the fixtures themselves that might be built into this to restrict the type of lights that are bought for residential use, because I can tell you, though, I see sometimes LED lights in landscape, and they're like big LEDs, and they've got all these different LEDs inside, and it's like a Las Vegas brightness. It's totally inappropriate for a home, and it would violate the statute if it was pointing anywhere near another home. But I don't know specifically what the classification of those fixtures would be. But I think the closest thing I can think of would be noise statutes, right, where I say the neighbor -- the church next to me, their music is too loud, and Code Enforcement comes out and 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 82 of 100 measures the decibels coming from that property at the property line or wherever, and they say, no, that's within range. So wouldn't this need to be similar to that in some way? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I mean, I'm hearing that from you all. I think we can come back and look at foot candles instead. We use foot candles in other sections of the code for commercial development and things like that. So we can go that route here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. On the bottom of Page 3, this new Section C about regulating single-family, two-family, and duplexes, how come we're not doing what the City of Bonita does, which is also to regulate multifamily? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I believe multifamily does have to have a lighting plan, just as other commercial developments would. They submit a site plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that would be somewhere else? MR. FRANTZ: That would be -- yeah, that would not be in this section of the code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because this is just residential single-family? MR. FRANTZ: The language that we're introducing is just for single-family, two-family, and duplexes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So 4.02.08 is not intended to regulate multifamily. That's going to be done somewhere else? MR. FRANTZ: I mean, there's golf courses, there's some commercial standards in this section, but that's the entirety of this section. I haven't cut anything out. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, it was just immediately below that you have a chart that has Sanibel and the City of Naples, and the City of Naples regulates the first habitable floor of multifamily structures. So I was just wondering if there's somewhere else in the LDC that gets at that, because I think that they're worthy of being regulated the same as single and duplex. MR. FRANTZ: We could bring that back to you next time so that you can be aware of what the differences are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, I think if you were to take a look at this under several other terms, first of all, establish a limit in which you can have unshielded lumens, and the reason that's important is that people have a side entry door into their house. They want to put a little sconce there so they can see the pad. I would suggest that we look at lumens -- and I'm saying lumens trying to be modern -- that will provide it not needing to be shielded. Then all the rest become shielded, and we should put shielding as a requirement for the residential, and then we add a foot candles at the property line, whatever minimum foot candles it is. And I think in one case such as some -- in the urban area, I think we've used .2 a couple times in some instances, and I'm thinking of the Top Hat car dealership next door to that Oakes, or whatever the project is next door to them. We had a foot candle worked out there. And I met with those people last week, and they're delighted with the way that project next door worked out. So we might want to check that out. And also, because foot candles are a measurement of light, you're going to have a different potential in the urban area that's light saturated versus the rural area. So maybe we would want to consider how that would change anything, if you could take a look at that. I think if you were to consider those points and come back to us with some language, we'd be covered in most of the things we've asked about, it sounds like, and I'm making notes of what everybody's said. Because what's here now is not really measurable, and the parts that are measurable are too restrictive, too broad in other areas. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 83 of 100 So I think it just needs to be reworked, a little more time. So -- and we do have a public speaker, so if she'd like to come up, identify herself -- although we all know her -- we'll be glad to hear what you have to say. MS. CURATOLO: Thank you, Chairman Strain. Kathy Curatolo representing the Collier Building Industry Association. All of my concerns have been eloquently addressed by the Commission. We appreciate your input. And I want to let you know that we will certainly work with DSAC to give our input once again. So thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks for waiting around, Kathy. We appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Kathy, it's good to know we're eloquent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That rolls on to the next item on the LDC issues which occurs on, oh, it's my Page 11. You guys can call it any page you want. It's buffer requirements and general landscape requirements, 4.06.02 and 4.06.05. And this is the one about the shopping centers. You remember the replacements of the oak trees and the percentages and all that fun stuff. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Packet Page 89. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There you go. So, Jeremy, we'll -- MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So it was a number of months ago now the last time that we reviewed this amendment, and we've restructured it based on that last meeting to look at the percentage of trees that can be removed in a shopping center within a given period of time. We've kept the ability for additional spacing within buffers, and we have also kept the prohibition on pine trees and bald cypress. DSAC also reviewed this amendment yesterday and also recommended denial of this amendment; however, they said if this is something that the Board does want to approve, that it could be improved by -- the amendment could be improved by removing that 50 percent limit on how many trees can be removed and the prohibition on pine trees and bald cypress and then to reduce the time frame to 10 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- let's start with our first page, and we'll go from there. Anybody have any questions on the first page, which is your background and items like that? And that's where some of the data comes up, which comes back up in the language. So we can move right to the language. The language starts on Page 13 of my packet, which is No. 3 of this section. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On the first page, the summary of what DSAC had said seems as -- their point is, and I quote, "Creating a new standard that only applies to shopping centers is unnecessary." That may or may not be true, but it might be desirable to do that. Whether it's unnecessary or necessary, to me it seems desirable. And I guess I part company with DSAC on that point. I like the concept of the regulations you're proposing. I have some issues that I want to raise, but I don't agree with DSAC that this is unnecessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? This is a short enough section. Why don't we just work through the whole section. Anybody wants to start talking, that's fine. Who would like to start? Anybody have questions on this section? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I go to the next page, which is Page No. 2. And in Section 4 at the top it says, "The tree roots damaging the parking lot." When we talk about the trees that we don't want going in here, like slash pines and bald cypress, it seems to me -- I mean, I really think that live oaks are a problem, and I don't know how others feel about it, but I would rather not see live oaks be put in there as canopy trees as well. I don't know how others feel about that, but that's my point of view on it. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 84 of 100 And that's, I guess, all I'll say on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just finish with your questions. And since no one else has any -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Before he goes any further, he's right about the live oaks. I've seen them cause more damage than pines or cypress. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just eliminate all native species and require artificial trees? I mean, we're taking out some of the two best native species we have, bald cypress and slash pines, for who knows why, and now you're saying live oaks, which have great canopies. I'm just wondering -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm not saying -- I would prefer they left in cypress and pine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So would I. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just saying he's right about like oaks. They cause more damage to the asphalt than the cypress and the pine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the thing that's the problem is we keep pushing for people tu use native species, and either we've got to -- but now I understand maybe that might not be the right thing to do. But the live oak is the reason they have to replace their parking lots, because of the tree roots. So knowing that, if they didn't use those, they used slash pines and cypress, we probably wouldn't have so many parking lots being cleared of the trees. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you wouldn't have a canopy either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, we wouldn't, but that's still native species. But -- I don't know. It's just my thoughts on it. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree with Mark. I don't think we should remove live oak. I understand the problem, but the other issue is then every 15 years, pull the tree out and put a new oak in. I mean, I know they do a lot of damage because I've got one in front of my house that's going to come out. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Why can't they trim them down? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it busted two of the pipes, the roots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's look at the page here. Does anybody have any suggestions on this page? And let's start with that. And, Mike, or Jeremy, I'm sorry, zero -- 01, you talk about mature canopy trees, and I mentioned this to you. How do we measure whether they're mature or not? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We talked about that, and we were, you know, maybe being a little more descriptive than we needed to be there, and we can remove "mature" at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think when you get into the percent, I think the 50 percent's okay, but I think based on the growth rate that you have in another part of this, live oaks, being one of the slower growth trees, grow at one to two foot a year. So under this particular situation, 15 years, you'd still have a -- you potentially have a 30-foot more growth on top of the growth that was already there left over from what you couldn't cut because it wasn't part of the first 50 percent, which I would assume they wouldn't cut until it got big. So now we're talking massive. I think 10 years, as DSAC suggested, would probably be a good idea, plus that gives you 10 years of growth on the new stuff you put in, which is already probably 13 or 12 or 14 feet, or whatever, to start with. So that seems more balanced. So that was my thoughts on that. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: In 02, and then the subsections beneath that, since an exemption is provided for diseased trees and dead trees, I'm just curious, what are the other reasons why people would need to remove trees in any time frame, 10 years, 15 years? MR. FRANTZ: You're referring to, like, the complete removal and replacement of all our 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 85 of 100 maturing trees? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. We're establishing a cycle of some duration and a certain percentage. If a tree's not dead and it's not diseased, I'm just asking, why are the shopping center people wanting to remove them? MR. KLATZKOW: Because you can't see the stores. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay. MR. FRANTZ: A couple of the other things that have come up have been -- MR. KLATZKOW: So you want the foliage for the shade, but then nobody can see the stores from the street. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or the signs. MR. KLATZKOW: Or the signs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So they take them out and replant. MR. KLATZKOW: So maybe the solution is to allow more signs and keep the trees, I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or the roots do damage, but then you've got choices of cutting roots -- root, what do you call it? COMMISSIONER FRY: Root recruiting? Root recruiting? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Barriers. MR. FRANTZ: I know that in at least one of the locations, that has been a concern for the community. There was also some conflicts with lighting -- it was an older shopping center, and some of the lights were right up next to the trees. Then there's also the issue that they've mentioned of damage to the parking lots. So there might be a couple of different reasons that they want to do these replacements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same page we're on, that last sentence, the only thing that sentence is going to do is invite -- more or less it's an invitation to ask for a deviation, which means everybody will, which means why are we changing anything? I mean, we're telling them they can ask for a deviation, and, you know, how are we going to justify saying no? We don't have any criteria to say no. And I'm just wondering why we even put it on there. Let it stand as it would without that suggestion. MR. FRANTZ: We can do that. It was only meant as a clarification to make sure that people understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR. BOSI: I was just going to say because it's quantifiable, it would qualify for a deviation, but we don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what's going to happen. MR. BOSI: We don't need redundancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- we give an inch anymore, 10 miles is taken. And I just prefer just to keep as tight as we can until we have to change it. MR. BOSI: A foot or two a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, A foot or two a year. Crop the tops off. That's just one page on that. Does anybody have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's roll on. You're going to come back with some changes on that. We'll finish it up next time then? MR. FRANTZ: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one is on page -- I think I've got twenty -- it's a memorandum -- oh, back on that one we just talked about. The idea of eliminating the use of slash pine and cypress. Where'd that come from, just out of curiosity? MR. FRANTZ: That was just listening to the complaints that we heard about the shopping 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 86 of 100 centers that did these and that they don't provide enough shade. So, I mean, if there's disagreement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think some use of those types of trees, especially if they're clustered and especially if they're not 100 percent that type of combination, we ought to allow some flexibility for those native species to be used not just -- I'm not saying 100 percent, but I don't think 100 percent elimination is the right approach either. MR. FRANTZ: Well -- and combined with a new standard that requires -- or limits them from removing everything, maybe it's not as much of an impact as it is when there's no standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something to think about when you rewrite it. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This picture in the packet, they're complaining about not being able to see the shopping center, but if you have the slash pines, then you can see the shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you can. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And if you have the cypress, you can see the shopping center in the tourist season because they lose their leaves. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- we constantly plead to put native species in, and then we're telling them they can't use them. It just doesn't make any sense. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. KLATZKOW: Because people want the shade. Because it's all about the shade. You want to park your car under the tree in the shade in the summer. That's driving a lot of this. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And that's when the cypress have their leaves is in the summer. Look at the ones along Livingston. I mean, they're beautiful. And why we would prohibit that, I don't know. MR. KLATZKOW: Then put it back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're just suggesting, but maybe not 100 percent, a limitation, like we do palm trees, you know. So let's go take a look at this next fun one called facility with fuel pumps. It's on Page 22 of the packet I'm using. It's Section 5.05.05, 5.06.00, and 5.06.06. So, Jeremy, why don't we start. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. Pardon me. So this amendment is just providing more flexibility for pricing signage at facilities with fuel pumps/gas stations. We're trying to be consistent with state statutes and allow for LED lighting. We've worked with the industry, a couple of representatives, to come up with language that works for some proposed plans for them. And DSAC, again, reviewed this amendment; in this case recommended approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- most of the important part of this starts on Page 23, and it's Page 2 of this particular section, and that's the one on the screen. Does anybody have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I see no -- I am bothered by the 15 feet. I mean, that's just -- to me, it's a 187.5 percent increase in the eight feet we allow, and I don't see the justification for it in this document. I read the statute carefully. The statute doesn't say anything about limiting height or size. It just says they have -- it's got to be viewed. But it's interesting because it says, imposes -- we can't impose any requirement on the design, construction, or location of signage advertising the retail price of gasoline in accordance with the requirements of, and those two sections of the statute, I'd like copies of those, please -- which prevents the signage from being clearly visible and legible to drivers of approaching motor vehicles from a vantage point on any lane of traffic in either direction on a roadway, and here's the key word, abutting the gas station 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 87 of 100 premise that meets the height, yada, yada. We know what abutting means. Abutting means that gas station on -- just take the Wawa on Livingston Road and Radio. It's got a 350-wide lot. They have a 350-foot lane abutting it then on each side, and they have six lanes across, but all the abutting lanes are lining up, stacked up in front of their property, is how I would look at that. They don't need a 15-foot sign, especially if it's LED, because of the clarity with an LED sign, to see it from the roadway right in front of their project. The statute says "abutting." It doesn't say two miles down the road they've got to be able to see this giant neon -- or LED sign. So I don't see the necessity of raising the height. I do like the idea of LEDs. I think that's handy, and I like the idea they can change those rather routinely, which is a modernization. I'm going to have to turn to Karl to see if the lumens need to be quantified on what they use in there, because I didn't see a lumen measurement, or maybe there is and I missed it. But that's the concerns I have about this particular issue. Stan, what do you -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree with Mark. I'm glad you brought that up about the height. Knowing what this county went through to control signs and at least to enforce the sign law and heights of the signs, I think I totally disagree with the increase in height. I don't see any need for it. I think we ought to look at that and figure out that 8-foot -- what's the code now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eight feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depending on distances and setbacks. There's been some that have had variances and deviations for higher. I don't think we've gone to 15. We do in shopping centers, but shopping centers have eight or more businesses, and they're on -- they're at least a 20,000-square-foot building. So it's a different need for a sign of that magnitude because they've got to list everybody in the shopping center. If you had some sight viewpoints from the roadway to the sign showing that the sign -- with the definition that's in the statute isn't visible at eight feet, I'd like to see it. That might help the argument. I don't see that in the packet. So did anybody do a line-of-sight from a six-lane road abutting as it's shown in the statute, the property, to show that it wasn't visible at eight feet? It may not be visual way, way, way down the road, which could be a half a mile, but... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are there other parts of the country that allow for LED lighting for gas stations? I would have to assume it's -- the same reason why probably lobbyists pushed for it here in the State of Florida. But 15 feet is absurd. You can meet that requirement with an 8-foot sign. I probably can go online and look at numerous examples. MR. FRANTZ: My understanding is the industry was actually looking for even higher -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let's go 30 feet then. MR. FRANTZ: -- and in the negotiation process, you know, we were looking at the Racetrac that's out in front of the government center on North Horseshoe, and I think I'm remembering correctly, I think it's a 12-foot sign. (Multiple speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- because there's a buffer, there's a sidewalk? Is that -- would that be deemed abutting? MR. FRANTZ: I can't speak to the definition of abutting in the state statutes. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went to try to find if they defined the word "abutting." I couldn't. So I'm thinking, okay. So I went to the law dictionary and I read it, and it was similar to 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 88 of 100 what we think abutting is. And so I'm trying to figure out -- it's kind of like medical marijuana. The voters passed medical marijuana, but now there's a big fight over what the language means. Well, I think we've got the same situation here, but because it's a business operation, nobody seems to want to question the language. I think the language isn't clear, and if that's the case why are we giving it away? There may be cases where 15 is warranted. I certainly like the LED. That's one of the benefits of the one on Airport Road. That LED lighting is fabulous. It's crystal clear, and you can pick it up at night. And when you get older, you can see that; I love it. But the 15-foot is -- I just don't know why it's warranted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Think of the gas station out on 951 going towards Marco in front of the Walmart. I can't think of the name of that. Murphy. The site plan required, I think it must be a 4-foot berm, landscaped, to sort of obscure the gas station and screen it, but now we're going to allow them to put a 15-foot sign. Where? Does the berm -- see, I don't consider that abutting 951. I don't consider that site abutting. There's a -- there's a berm and there's a strip of land, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the land's property line may be common to the right-of-way line. That would make it abutting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Maybe. I don't know. Okay. Then that would be abutting. So I -- wow. Let's go 30 feet, what the heck? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The measurement says from grade to the uppermost portion of the sign structure. Wouldn't we want to go from the -- let's say the average grade or something of the parking lot adjacent nearest to the sign that they use in the facility? Because they could falsify the grade by lifting it up on top of a berm, and then we've got an a 18-foot-high sign. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. That's why I'm wondering, at Murphy, where would they put the sign; on the berm? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. It's near your place, not mine. I don't drive by it every day. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You don't go down there anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't go down there anymore. But I think some of the -- if you guys could bring back some sight distance analysis that shows this 15 feet is needed, that's a different story, but it's not in the packet. It's just 15 feet because someone thought that the statute said so. It really doesn't. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you have any examples? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we bring it together with some more proof, and we can see, okay? MR. FRANTZ: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Jeremy, if 15 feet works on abutting lanes but the lanes are set back a long distance from the property, well, then we've got another situation. But if you're right on the lanes, I'm not sure every one -- all of them need to be 15 feet. And if we pass something like this, I would imagine every gas station in town is going to switch around, and it will be 15-foot signs with LEDs all over the place, so... MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I hear it -- hear the comments. I also wanted to go back a little bit to another comment that you made and just mention that there is a standard for the foot candles of the brightness of the LEDs in the language. It's at .3 foot candles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw that. Okay. That's where you -- okay. Yes, I did see that. It's on triple I(c). MR. FRANTZ: I want to make sure that we are addressing all of your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, that works. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 89 of 100 If you could take a look at some more massaging that. Anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just -- there's a station, the 7-Eleven, it's on Immokalee Road just east of Sam's Club. Their sign is so low you can't see it in the vegetation, and you can't read the prices. So as a consumer who shops for prices, I find it important -- it would be an important goal that you can see the prices, and I think this is allowing an extra sign like on a -- if it's on a corner, you could have one on each side, so you have two lots (sic). Does -- the Raceway (sic) on Airport, is that sign only eight feet high; is that what we're saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's 15 feet high, I think we're saying, right? COMMISSIONER FRY: But it's not -- eight feet's approved currently. MR. FRANTZ: Well, that's not -- it's not a county property, but we were just looking at a comparable sign. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, that's city. Oh, so this -- okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. We had someone check that out, and it was reported back, the person that looked at the site plan, that it was 12 feet high. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the city allows 12 feet, okay, and the county is looking for 15. Was there any -- MR. FRANTZ: I don't know what the city allows normally. That might have been a part of the specific zoning approval for that property. I can't speak to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's a sign in the city on city streets, it's much lower and more architecturally pleasing. If it's on a county street but it's in a city right-of-way, then it can be higher. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just kidding. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was just going to nod and say yes. I get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's almost what it's like, though. I don't see too many of those big signs in the city area, but there sure is one on the edge of the county. I thought that was -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If there's a sign on city property that faces county property, it can be 30 feet tall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there you go. MR. KLATZKOW: And florescent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. It is LED. That was our first LED, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: The driving impetus to go from eight to 15 came from who or where? MR. FRANTZ: We were looking at the common signs that are used at some of these gas stations that we were working with. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: And, like I said, they were actually looking for a taller sign. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we could -- one option we have is to find a lower yet -- somewhere between eight and 15 feet that would allow visibility but not be so high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're looking for support for the visibility. (Multiple speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Got it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's 50 examples online of showing signs that have LED lighting that are lower. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. The 15 feet was requested by the Wawa representatives. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sure, it would be. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They have a prototype sign that they're hoping to get passed in Collier County. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 90 of 100 COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, when you come back with this, the part of the statute, No. 2, where it references the other statute sections and whatever a series C, D, and E sign is, can you include that stuff so we see -- understand the statute better to make sure that we're staying consistent with it? MR. FRANTZ: I can do that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Those are related to the size of the lettering that goes on the price sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd still like to see them. Since it's referenced, I think that's part of the backup; it would be good to have it. Anybody else have anything on the gas station signs? If not, we'll move to the emergency generators, which is 4.02.01 and 5.03.07. This starts on Page 31 of our packet. So, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: This is another amendment that was talked about by the Board. We're looking for a way to allow permanent generators to be installed at single-family homes, a little more flexibility in those current standard. We currently only allow for generators to encroach into a setback up to three feet. We're trying to provide a little bit of flexibility but also address any concerns that we might have of having a gas-powered engine that close to homes. So there's a few different standards. Aside from just allowing more distance in the setbacks, we're also introducing standards like separation requirements from other generators, from windows, and things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there a different requirement for gasoline powered versus natural gas powered? MR. FRANTZ: No. It's just the same standard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because the natural gas would be far less as far as -- as far as fumes and such. But it still has to meet the same requirement. Can't -- the exhaust near a window and all those other kinds of things. MR. FRANTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only other question on this -- I mean, this is really needed, quite honestly, the criteria for placing and who validates in the county. Are you making sure that it's not being placed in a stormwater easement? So I've got a -- in between houses every so many lots there's a stormwater easement. And are you making sure -- does somebody go in and validate that these are not being put over a stormwater easement? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, that's a part of the review process. Even without this amendment, that's what's done now. If there's an easement, it would require a separate process for the vacation or to allow for the use of that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on this one? We're on the first page of the overhead. Ned, do you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question with regard to the DSAC recommendation. They say revise the word or term "permanent emergency generators" to "optional standby generators." I don't understand what is going on here. MR. FRANTZ: So at that DSAC subcommittee meeting where that recommendation was made, the -- we had a number of representatives from the industry. They were thinking also about some other regulations, state and federal regulations that would refer to the generators with a specific name. The only reason that we selected the term "permanent emergency generators" was to clarify that it doesn't apply to a generator that you might buy at Home Depot and plug in. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 91 of 100 It's specifically for an emergency generator that's installed there and stays there permanently. Whether that's the same or a different term than is used in another regulation is not going to affect the applicability of a particular generator or the standards that we are going to apply. So we didn't feel that it was necessary to change it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So you're going after the large permanent ones rather than the ones that you buy at Home Depot? MR. FRANTZ: Right. I mean, they vary in size depending on the home and needs, but yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. Are we going page by page or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was, and Joe had -- on the current page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a general question. Again, for single-family homes, a lot of the communities have deed restrictions that require walls and other type of things to be constructed around the homes. Do you check that as well as part of the permitting process? MR. FRANTZ: I'm sorry. I lost you for a second. Can you repeat the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we don't do deed restrictions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, for instance, in my documents it requires a wall around -- if you put an air conditioner or a generator, the community documents require a wall, but you don't check that. That would be up to the community to enforce that? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. And that is something that happens. There's some cases where -- we heard from a lot of people in the past few months who have been trying to install a generator, and in some cases they may be even able to get a permit from us but then not be able to get approval from their homeowners' association. We're not a part of that process at all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because I noted on one of the drawings you show it out in the front yard, and it may be the only place you can put it, but -- okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Why isn't board approval -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sorry. Why isn't board approval required to get the permit? MR. FRANTZ: Board approval? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, homeowners' association. MR. FRANTZ: Well, the county never enforces homeowners' documents. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm not saying enforce, but to have approval, a letter that says they're approved by their board before they can get the permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would we regulate that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't know, but it's been done before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only time it's been done is by a mistake in Pelican Bay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. I mean -- we've had people in Lakewood come and have to get approval from the board to get their pool cage put up that wasn't permitted at the first -- before it fell down in the hurricane and had to have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the board -- yeah, each -- your private deed restrictions are enforced by the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But the county wanted it before they would give the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why the county would want a deed restriction or a -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- variance. They needed a variance. MR. BOSI: No. I mean, normally those are matters between a homeowner and the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They needed a variance. MR. BOSI: Those are normally matters between homeowners and the association. We do 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 92 of 100 not get into those regulations. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If they were -- if it was a pool enclosure that -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that was not built within the required setback -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right, it needed to be replaced. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and now it's going to be replaced, it was -- it was a nonconforming structure. Now you're going to rebuild a nonconforming structure, yeah, it probably would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you still would need the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They had to have a letter of approval from the association before they would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not to apply -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- give them the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not to apply to the county. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, they did, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand, but that's -- MR. BOSI: There could have been a case where there could have been an easement dedicated to the association in which that pool cage was encroaching upon. That could have been an explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the reason they needed it is because they had control of that easement, but -- just like any other individual property owner. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the page that's on here. Has anybody got any questions on D13, the first paragraph? COMMISSIONER FRYER: D13? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the top paragraph. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly -- trying to understand the placement of these generators in side yards. And I'm a little concerned that we tried to maintain 10 feet between principal structures. A lot of that's so people can access the back under emergency conditions. The way this is written, if I'm not mistaken, you can have two five-foot/five-foot setbacks, you can put an emergency generator on each one as long as they're offset and end up leaving one foot off the property line. So how does that, in emergency situations, allow emergency vehicles or anything entering and trying to put out a fire, say, or get to the back where there's somebody hurt in the backyard? How do they get through common -- these 10-foot areas now that they've got jammed up with all this other equipment that goes in them usually? MR. FRANTZ: Well, Rich might be able to answer that a little more specifically, but I can say that we worked with, you know, some of the different reviewers, fire review and things like that to make -- you know, to look for objections from anyone, and we didn't hear that from them on these distances. MR. HENDERLONG: That's a -- Commissioner, Rich Henderlong, Principal Planner. I just want to let you know we worked with the fire division regarding that matter, and that's how the 10-foot separation came up in Part 2 along with culler (sic) having an 8-foot. So they've got to be 10 foot apart. It's not going to be -- it's a great distance, so that's why we went to the distance between the property line for your -- we're moving the encroachment. So 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 93 of 100 we want a distance to the particular property line. And let's say it's one foot where you get into these 10-foot, zero point five zero lot lines, and you're going to have the one foot. But when that first generator gets placed, the next one's going to have to be 10 feet away measured from the outside. Fire Department said that's acceptable as far as they were concerned for them to go in if a fire started on one of these units, and they can work around between the two different generators. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you -- a single-family home comes in. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And they've got their generator in. Now the neighbor comes in and wants a generator -- and I know they've increased significantly since Irma; a lot of people are getting generators. Do you go back and look at the two neighboring properties to make sure that there was nothing approved within the setback that would conflict with this now -- this neighbor now requesting -- MR. HENDERLONG: With this new regulation, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You will pull the other two property records. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: And also with this provision -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree with your problem, though. It does create a problem. MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner, and just to be aware of, there will be a spot survey with these generators that come along. So when it comes up for final inspection, they're going to have to survey in that generator. It's a permanent structure. And that's how they're going to be able to check out the distances. So the inspector would go out there. If he sees a generator next door before he gives that final certificate, he's going to double check and make sure it's 10 feet. If it isn't, he can't release that CO. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I've got to have a survey to put this in as well? MR. HENDERLONG: It's a spot survey. It's required now already, believe it or not. But you're still getting them. They do it now with the permits. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. I'm not getting one but, I mean, I'm just -- I agree with what Commissioner Strain said that this could become problematic, everybody putting it in the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- you know, the other problem we have in this county is a lot of people head out of town for long periods of time. Their generator doesn't, and a generator keeps on this timer that starts it up and cranks it up, and the people that remain have to listen to it right up against their bedroom window. In fact, they'll be six feet away from their windows. I'm not sure that we should even allow, under certain setbacks, side -- these to even go in the side yard because of the amount of noise they produce. When I was in the private sector, we were getting complaints because air conditioners could do that. These are 10 times worse than an air conditioner for noise. Why don't we -- if they want them, why don't they put them in their front or rear yards unless they've got a setback substantially larger than what we're talking about here today? MR. HENDERLONG: Staff does review them that way. From the over 700 permits we've looked at and studied, and there's a lot of people that have been involved with this through the different departments since August last year and the vendors. There's seven or nine vendors. We had a separate meeting with them to go through all of this. They're out there working with the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 94 of 100 customers, installing them, and vice versa. The conclusion was that in so doing that on the side yards, that's where most people are putting them because, particularly, in the PUDs where they have the rear yard, they've built the lanai or the pool up to the back end of the lot, there's no space there. When you get into the smaller zero lot lines with that zero to 5, it's problematic. The code does not allow them in the front yard, so now the front and the rear are taken off. The only place to put them are in the side; otherwise, they would have to rebuild the structure and put it within the principal envelope. So permits have been issued for that, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, maybe they just won't be applicable -- maybe their best choice is not a permanent generator. Why can't they just get a roll generator and keep it in their garage and use it that one time every six years they may need it? I mean, to get a postage stamp lot in a clustered community and say, let's cram and jam everything within this setback and then complain because they don't have enough room and their neighbors have to hear everything we have to do, I don't see how that's fair to people. I really don't. And that's -- these are noisy. They have -- they're using chemicals, whether it's gas, diesel, propane, whatever. They've got flammable liquids there or flammable material there. They're going to be making noise every time they crank up. They're going to be putting off exhaust. I just don't know why we don't look at it and say, you know, if you really need one of these, you need to have a place that's got the room to put it or keep it within the confines of the principal structure, like the City of Naples does. MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner, you mention noise as a primary issue. Back in 2007 they did a noise study on all the generators. The commission back then agreed that when you have an emergency declaration, there's no way to enforce it. That's why the decibel levels are in the code set at the highest level at your manufacturer industrial levels at 75; however, since then the vendors vetted, during our meetings with them, that most -- the majority of the generators are much more lower, around 60 to 55 decibel levels. They're saying for any -- they're a lot better. It's a problem when it comes to a diesel generator, and that's the reason why 15 foot is setback on a requirement in this -- that's being proposed for 15 foot from a property line for diesel, because they do make significant greater noise, and they have a fuel storage issue that cannot be accommodated within these smaller lots. But we haven't received any testimony from anybody or objecting yet, Code Enforcement including, about noise with any of these generators. And, again, the word "permanent" means that it will be a permanent structure located there. They still have to do the maintenance. They'll have to meet that manufacturer requirement but, on the other hand, if there's an objection that comes about the noise, the county will go out there and implement the noise ordinance at that 75 DBH to decide whether it's objectionable or not. MR. FRANTZ: When the Board asked us to look at this amendment, they, you know, wanted us to make it easier for folks. A lot of the permits that are having trouble are on those lots with small setbacks. That's why we included everything in here. If your recommendation is to eliminate those setbacks that are five feet, you know, that's something we can take to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I've got two questions. One, Table 1, generator setback and separation standards, are you saying that Section D, that table with those setback distances, does not apply to diesel generators? They have to be 15 feet minimum? MR. HENDERLONG: That you'll see under 5, under Item 5. I'm sorry it's D. COMMISSIONER FRY: D. I see in D that that's saying that diesel generators cannot be -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 95 of 100 MR. HENDERLONG: Fifteen feet. COMMISSIONER FRY: They have to be a minimum of 15. The language "notwithstanding the foregoing," I wasn't quite clear on what that was saying. MR. HENDERLONG: Everything else is still applicable as it relates to all the other provisions for other types. We just singled out diesel and gasoline. If they're going to come in with a gasoline engine -- this is not an LP or gas -- they're going to have to use the 15. COMMISSIONER FRY: Minimum 15. As long as that's clear to the other commissioners, I'm fine. I just was -- it wasn't quite clear to me. Second question is air conditioners are often placed on the side of the house also. Are there any provisions in here for the proximity of generators, the air conditioners, and do they factor into this 10-foot rule? What if there's an air conditioner -- what if you have a generator, and then the neighbor wants to put one 10 feet away but there's an air-conditioning pad with air handlers next to one of those generators? MR. HENDERLONG: If the compressor has a system that takes in air, they're going to be required -- the National -- the Florida Building Code requires a separation distance from all those openings just like a five-foot opening; that's the mechanical air intake component of this provision. So most all those A/Cs are closed systems where they come in -- that are contained and so, therefore, there is no separation requirement, because they're a closed, contained system, and there's no way for exhaust to penetrate that unit. COMMISSIONER FRY: One of the concerns expressed by Chairman Strain was the access. If you had a 10-foot, you're kind of weaving between the generators to try to get into the backyard. But if there's an air -- you're saying the possibilities still exists that there could be an air conditioner pad in the middle that restricts that 10 feet even more? MR. HENDERLONG: Well, they've -- first of all, a generator's got to be at least three feet, the majority of them, three feet from anything. So the A/C or whatever, so you've got that as a given. So you're just looking at the pad. It's possible that they can get within that three, but they've got to have a 3-foot clearance around the generator in its entirety. COMMISSIONER FRY: So Fire Department personnel, they might have a lot less than 10 feet to navigate with if there's air conditioners? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on the first page. Ned, you had some more? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. 5.03.07A states the purpose and intent. Shouldn't we also add what -- besides public health and safety, to reduce unnecessary noise or excessive noise and possibly even aesthetics? MR. FRANTZ: I don't see any problem with that. MR. HENDERLONG: That's fine. We can add that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean, it's pretty clear from the last 30 minutes or so we've been talking about that noise considerations are an important purpose and intent of what we're doing. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then I go to Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the next, Page 4. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And 1A at the top, it says, "When located underneath the dwelling unit." Is this for, like, a house on stilts? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Wow. MR. HENDERLONG: And they've had one come in. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 96 of 100 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: And that's a recommendation from the Building Department. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can that be installed below BFE? MR. HENDERLONG: No, it has to be above the BFE. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: BFE. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the case of the City of Naples, I noticed on the table that you-all provided, the city has a requirement that they -- and maybe you could help me read your table. "All residential districts in the City of Naples same as principal structure, SPS." MR. HENDERLONG: Correct, for that district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What district? MR. HENDERLONG: It's recommend -- let me get to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to understand. The zoning district just says, "All residential districts." So all residential districts in the City of Naples have the same -- MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The generator is the same as -- why aren't we just doing that unless they've got substantial side setback? I mean -- MR. HENDERLONG: That's an option that the Commission can entertain. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Our direction from the Board was to make it easier rather than harder. (Commissioner Chrzanoswki left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not making it any harder. It's just telling you if you want it, you better be able to fit it on your lot, or don't put one on that lot. I mean, I don't think it's -- whether you put it -- wherever you put it on a lot isn't making it -- we're not trying to make it harder. I'm just saying your setback needs to be adequate to protect your neighbor and to allow emergency access. That's all I'm worried about. These -- I mean, everybody puts stuff up against their neighbors with no concern whatsoever, it seems. I mean, it's -- I don't know why they have to have a generator in the side yard lot line, especially on these tiny lots that exist nowadays. It just isn't -- I don't see the need for it. And if they filled up their backyard, well, too bad. Maybe they need to have one they can keep in their garage and roll out when they need it. I don't understand it so -- that's just a comment. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the end of this one, I guess. I don't know what to tell you to come back with on this one. I'm not going to probably carry the day on my position. I just don't think it's appropriate for one neighbor to have -- be doing this to another with that kind of activity, but that's just my feeling, so... What's this board want to do? Are we ready to finalize this one? Is everybody -- did we -- did you have some input you need to bring back to us on this one, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: I don't have any notes other than maybe some suggested language for the purpose and intent. If you-all have some suggestions regarding the smaller setbacks, like five feet or less, we could make a change like that as well. But we do also have the other amendments that need changes, so we could approve them all as one or you could do them separately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'd like some time to think about it. I'm trying to figure out how to make it work. And, Richard, if you could get me some decibel noise studies that they've gone, that would 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 97 of 100 help me understand a little better. MR. HENDERLONG: I'll be happy to send you the 2007 report. And also, just want to -- for the record, DSAC weighed in on this yesterday, and they unanimously approved it as-is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: They're recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they approved this as-is, but they're worried with the lighting one. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rich, most of these are -- or, in fact, most all of them -- I would say almost all of them that are for single-family homes are these low, quiet-running generators, pretty much. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably a leaf blower sometimes is louder than some of these generators. MR. HENDERLONG: And there are. You can -- your lawnmower will be loud, too. If you put that on -- and that was -- we'll get you the information. We can get that for backup, but that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that takes us to the end of the LDC section that we're talking about. Is there anything else that staff has on that one? Because we still have 10A to go forward with to discuss. MR. FRANTZ: That's it for these. I guess we would continue to update certain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just update them and, I think, get some more information on generators, especially about sound problems, and who in the Fire Department could you -- would be willing to come here and talk to us about their access for these. MR. HENDERLONG: We'll get somebody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful. I mean, Karl or somebody brought up the idea of you've got pool equipment, you've got landscaping, you've got swales, you've got air conditioners, and now generators all piled into these five-foot setbacks. That's pushing the envelope a bit, and I'd sure like to know from Emergency Services there's no issue there. MR. HENDERLONG: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the end of our advertised public hearings for 9A through whatever. ***Now we're on to 10A, new business. Staff proposal to codify regularly approved deviations. We can quickly run through this. Do you have -- how do you -- I think you sent us a list of all these. There it is right there. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I mean, we're getting towards the end of the day, so I can go through that PowerPoint, or I can just kind of sum up exactly what we were working on. This was really a staff initiative that came out of a previous amendment where we were looking at some of this data, and we noticed that there were a number of LDC sections that we really commonly approved deviations to, and in some of those cases, the deviations are very similar across the different approvals. So those are the ones that we're recommending some potential changes to. There's a number in here that you see that either have already been addressed in previous amendment cycles, or we didn't see the regularity in the approvals in the types of conditions that were applied, so we think that they still need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unless someone has some problems with your items that you're saying no changes recommended, they'll just continue on as they are? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just focus on the ones that you're thinking there might be some changes needed. And why don't you point us out to -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 98 of 100 MR. FRANTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we move down -- scroll down till we get to the first one. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So that would be Section 5.03.02. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Various wall and berm changes? MR. FRANTZ: Right. And so what we're looking at there is we commonly approve deviations to allow 8-foot fences or walls with a berm that might end up in the combination of the two being 12 feet. That usually applies to the perimeter fences only and only when it's abutting a public roadway -- or right-of-way, sorry. So we, you know, think we could maybe evaluate codifying those standards. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question. Based upon what little has been offered in support of this, it sounds reasonable, but my point is, is there really isn't any detailed background or staff work -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the next step. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the next step. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They want to know if we'd be even interested in the idea. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay. Well, could you tell me then quickly -- and I should know this, but just remind me -- what is the current rule, and what do the typical deviations ask for? MR. FRANTZ: The typical deviations are asking for an 8- to 12-foot wall/berm combination. The current standard is 6 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those -- some of the those have been coming regularly through my other office, and that's another thing you need to know. They haven't been just on right-of-ways. The 8 to 12 combination has, but there are things like FP&L easements and big areas like that where others have come in and asked for higher walls. They had to come in for a deviation because we only allowed six feet. Some of the PUDs, if they ask for it, they get eight feet. So I think it's a good thing to consider, but we'll see how it writes up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it -- at the 6-foot level now, is that a combination, or is that just a wall or just a berm? MR. FRANTZ: I think that's just the wall. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it depends on where your measurement's from. If you measure from the nearest roadway or surface that's not elevated by a berm. It really would be both the berm and the wall, wouldn't it, Mike, or not? MR. BOSI: I believe you're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, six feet -- if you're allowed to have a 6-foot wall berm -- I mean wall, it's the point of measurement, and I can't remember where they're measured from. But I thought -- I thought you had to measure it from a roadway or something like that, or is that the sign ordinance? One of them requires a -- I just don't remember. MR. FRANTZ: We'd have to come back to you with that kind of information when we actually evaluate the amendment. And we're going to be looking at all of those things. We don't have draft language yet. We just, you know, didn't want to embark on this project if these deviations are the kinds of things you still want to see. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think it's worth considering. That's my view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about 5.04.06, temporary banners? MR. FRANTZ: 5.04.06, these banners are related to when they're trying to sell the homes in the development. The types of criteria that are typically provided in these deviations are up to 32 square feet in size, eight feet in height, and there's usually a limitation, not always, but usually a limitation on the number of days per calendar year. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 99 of 100 Sometimes that's also clarified to only between November 1st and April 30th, and then in some cases it might be only for a certain number of years that that deviation is in effect. And so, again, that's something that's happened on quite a few occasions, and especially over the last two or three years it has become really consistent that those particular standards are what get approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just explore it and come back with something to show the idea. The next one that you're recommending a change is 5.06.02. MR. FRANTZ: 5.06.02, so these are the directional signs that might be put up within a residential development. So this is typically asking for signs to be five feet from the right-of-way within the residential development, like I said. It doesn't apply to along a public right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because our right-of-way is defined as a municipality, federal state, or local. So you're talking about private highways. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if we were to go five feet along a public right-of-way and we ever needed to expand that roadway, we're going to have problems with eminent domain and things like that. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We would just be looking at codifying this for private roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's worth looking into. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which goes -- then takes us down to -- what's 6.06.01? MR. FRANTZ: 6.06.01, the commonality there is -- well, there's a number of deviations that happen there, but the one that we were looking at is to allow cul-de-sacs longer than 1,000 feet. It gets approved quite often. We -- I think we probably are a little less certain about this amendment than the others. They typically require some sort of turnaround for emergency vehicles for fire trucks, and we just need a little more research to be sure that we're -- we know exactly what the distance we would allow beyond, because it's a bit of variation. Sometimes it's 2,500 feet or, you know, 1,500 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1,000 feet's been generally accepted. We've not -- I can't think of a time we've ever questioned it too much or turned it down. The longer ones you might want to see loop systems or something like that, but you might want to just consider the thousand feet just to be safe, and that would be something we could change quickly. MR. FRANTZ: One thousand feet is the current standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, is it? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. And the deviation is to allow longer. We may look at some of those plans. We may look at some of those deviations and find that actually we do kind of need to see the individual requests. But it happens enough. You can see there's 51 deviations in this section. We thought that it may be worth exploring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with looking at exploring that. So that takes us to the end of it, right? MR. FRANTZ: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I do thank you for all your time today and waiting around, and County Attorney's Office as well. There's no other new business. There's no old business listed. Nobody left in the public to comment unless Erik wants to flip sides for a few minutes. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by Joe. All in favor, signify by saying 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) February 7, 2019 Page 100 of 100 aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:19 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected _____. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 2-7-2019 CCPC Minutes (8133 : February 7, 2019 CCPC Minutes) 03/07/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: ***This item has been continued from the February 7, 2019 CCPC meeting.*** An ordinance providing for establishment of a Water Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance, providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 87-79, as amended, and Resolution No. 88-311; providing for inclusion in code of laws and ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Danette Kinaszczuk, Pollution Control Manager] Meeting Date: 03/07/2019 Prepared by: Title: Manager - Pollution Control – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Name: Danette Kinaszczuk 02/26/2019 9:16 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - IF, CPP & PM – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Name: Amy Patterson 02/26/2019 9:16 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Michael Bosi Review item Completed 02/26/2019 9:23 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/26/2019 1:47 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/26/2019 2:46 PM Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Amy Patterson Additional Reviewer Completed 02/27/2019 8:34 AM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 02/27/2019 12:57 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 03/07/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 105 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.1 This item was continued from the February 7, 2019 CCPC meeting. You have received the materials at the February 7, 2019 meeting, attached are additional materials. An ordinance providing for establishment of a Water Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance, providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 87-79, as amended, and Resolution No. 88-311; providing for inclusion in code of laws and ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Danette Kinaszczuk, Pollution Control Manager] 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 9.A.1-Water Pollution Control & Prevention Ordinance-3-7-2019 meeting-Cover Page-Cont'd item (8166 : Proposed Pollution Proposed Pollution Control & Prevention Ordinance 02/26/2019 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: POLLUTION CONTROL GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: March 7, 2019 SUBJECT: PROPOSED POLLUTION CONTROL & PREVENTION ORDINANCE ______________________________________________________________________________ UPDATE FROM FEBRUARY 7, 2019 MEETING All requested changes were made to the ordinance. Additionally, “Section One Collier County adopts an ordinance that reads as follows:” was added. Here is a link to an interactive map that illustrates the watersheds (WBIDs); classifications; water quality monitoring sites; and if applicable, impairments or total maximum daily loads. Attachments: Attachment 2 – updated ordinance Attachment 3 – snapshot of one sampling site water quality monitoring data Attachment 4 – more restrictive rule summary and reasoning Attachment 5 –CCPC read ahead TMDL and BMAP plan process Attachment 6 – staff presentation REQUESTED ACTION: Pollution Control staff requests that the Planning Commission sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council provide a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the proposed Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance, consolidating, repealing and replacing Ordinance No. 87-79, regarding the Transportation and Disposal of Sludge and repealing Resolution No. 88-311 regarding fees for sludge transportation and disposal permits. This proposed ordinance will be in addition to Ordinance No. 89-20, the existing Collier County Water Pollution Control Ordinance. Collier County has a Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. Element Three of Collier County’s NPDES MS4 permit requires a “regulatory mechanism for the detection a nd elimination of non- stormwater discharges.” The January 2015 audit report of Collier County’s NPDES MS4 program by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) indicated that the existing ordinances used to regulate discharges are insufficient and requires Collier County to “review 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment 1 Pollution Control Ordinance staff report final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Proposed Pollution Control & Prevention Ordinance 02/26/2019 existing ordinance and/or develop a new ordinance which defines and prohibits illicit discharge to the MS4.” Ordinance No. 87-79, Transportation and Disposal of Sludge was adopted to regulate the transportation and disposal of sludge to ensure that such activities do not endanger public health or the quality of the waters of the County. In the 31 years since Ordinance No. 87-79 was adopted; definitions, standards, and federal and state regulations have changed making the current ordinance outdated and redundant in some aspects. The proposed new ordinance will update, clarify, and add environmental protections which reflect current regulations, practices, and the goals of the Pollution Control Program; and protect Collier County’s natural resources. Ordinance No. 89-20, the Collier County Water Pollution Control Ordinance was adopted to establish and fund a County water pollution control program which focused on sewage as the primary pollutant. This Ordinance was adopted with a county-wide referendum and allows the County to levy county-wide up to one-tenth of a mil for a water pollution control program. Because of the funding authority, this Ordinance is not proposed for repeal and will be in addition to the proposed ordinance. In the 29 years since Ordinance 89-20 was adopted; definitions, standards, and federal and state regulations have changed making the existing ordinance outdated and ineffective. The proposed new ordinance will reflect current regulations and practices, the goals of the Pollution Control Program, and protect Collier County’s natural resources. The proposed ordinance includes: Additional and updated definitions; Updated laws and regulations; Specific language prohibiting illicit discharges; Requirements for reporting and remediating discharges of pollutants; Emphasis on pollution prevention through public outreach/education and best management practices; and Provisions for enforcement. Resolution 88-311 addressing fees associated with sludge transportation licenses and disposal permits will be repealed. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: This proposed ordinance is consistent with the goals and objectives of Collier County’s Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element. Additionally, the County’s Watershed Management Plan and the Floodplain Management Plan support the proposed ordinance. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Although a NIM is not required for adoption of this ordinance, considerable effort was put into soliciting input from the various stakeholders. Those stakeholders include the regulated community such as business owners that handle hazardous materials in wellfield protection zones, 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment 1 Pollution Control Ordinance staff report final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Proposed Pollution Control & Prevention Ordinance 02/26/2019 biosolids haulers, wastewater treatment plant operators and the members of the Property Owner Association Presidents, area utilities, Development Services Advisory Committee, as well as the Florida Department of Health, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and Big Cypress Basin. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDAITON: The proposed ordinance was unanimously approved by the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) on May 2, 2018 with a recommendation that the following language be added to Article VI, Section 2: “Pre-existing residential permitted properties shall not be required to implement structural BMPs to existing drainage structures.” Keeping in mind that this section only applies if permit requirements are not being met or reasonable best management practices (BMPs) are not being implemented, it is staff’s recommendation to leave the language as written. If DSAC’s proposed language was included in the ordinance, all existing residential developments would be exempt from any potential requirements to implement any structural pollution prevention BMPs. This will prevent Collier County from being able to address point source pollution flowing into our stormwater system while still being required to meet state mandated water quality standards associated with a Basin Management Action Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: This Ordinance is presented to the EAC in accordance with Sections 2-1193(a), (c) and (j), which read as follows: The powers and duties of the EAC are as follows: (a) Identify, study, evaluate, and provide technical recommendations to the BCC on programs necessary for the conservation, management, and protection of air, land, and water resources and environmental quality in the County; (c) Advise the BCC in developing and revising, as appropriate, local rules, ordinances, regulations, programs, and other initiatives addressing the use, conservation, and preservation of the County's natural resources; (j) Assist in the implementation of any new programs, ordinances, and/or policies adopted by the BCC which deal with the conservation, management, and protection of air, land, water, and natural resources and environmental quality in the County; COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on August 15, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment 1 Pollution Control Ordinance staff report final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Proposed Pollution Control & Prevention Ordinance 02/26/2019 Recommendation that the Planning Commission sitting as the EAC provide a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioner of the proposed Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance, consolidating, repealing and replacing Ordinance No. 87-79, regarding the Transportation and Disposal of Sludge and repealing Resolution No. 88-311 regarding fees for sludge transportation and disposal permits. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment 1 Pollution Control Ordinance staff report final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 1 of 2020 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-____ AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 87-79, AS AMENDED, AND RESOLUTION NO. 88-311; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Article VIII of the Constitution of Florida authorizes Florida counties to exercise broad home rule powers; and WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1), F.S., provides that the legislative and governing body of a county shall have the power to carry on county government and that said power includes, but is not restricted to, a number of powers set forth in Section 125.01, so long as any powers exercised are not inconsistent with general or special laws; and WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1)(t), F.S., provides that a county may adopt ordinances and resolutions necessary for the exercise of its powers and prescribe fines and penalties for the violation of ordinances in accordance with law; and WHEREAS, Sections 125.01(3)(a) and (b), F.S., recognize that the enumeration of powers in Section 125.01(1), F.S., incorporates all implied powers necessary or incident to carry out those powers and that Section 125.01, F.S., shall be liberally construed in order to effectively carry out the purpose of the section and to secure for counties the broad exercise of home rule powers authorized by the State Constitution; and WHEREAS in 1984 in order to establish a pollution control program, Collier County approved the levy of one-tenth of a mill, and in 1988 in order to protect Collier County’s water resources for all pollutants, Collier County approved a county-wide referendum that maintained the county-wide millage of one-tenth of a mill as described in Ordinance No. 89-20; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. and its authority in Section 125.01, F.S., the Board enacted Ordinance No. 87-79, as amended, Transportation and Disposal of Sludge, and 89- 20, Collier County Water Pollution Control Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to consolidate, supplement, and amend these Ordinances and enhance their enforcement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Collier County adopts the following ordinance: 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 2 of 2020 SECTION ONE: Collier County adopts an ordinance that reads as follows: Article I. GENERAL Section 1: Title and Citation This Ordinance shall be known as and may be cited as "The Collier County Water Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance.” Section 2: Findings The Board of County Commissioners hereby makes the following findings: A. It is necessary to regulate activities that have the potential to create hazards or public nuisances, pollute or otherwise adversely affect the quality of groundwater, surface waters, or other natural resources of Collier County; and those activities are defined herein; B. The Board recognizes that Collier County and its residents rely on groundwater and surface water for drinking water supplies and that certain land uses can contaminate ground and surface water; C. Thirty-three percent of Collier County’s surface waterbodies currently are verified as impaired by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); D. Total Maximum Daily Loads have been assigned by FDEP. The Board recognizes it is in Collier County’s best interest to prevent further degradation of our waterbodies and water supplies; E. Collier County has a Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Stormwater (MS4) Permit. Collier County’s MS4 permit and Chapter 62-624 F.A.C. require a regulatory mechanism for the detection and elimination of non-stormwater discharges; F. Because Private Stormwater Management Systems generally outfall to Collier County’s or a municipality’s MS4 and therefore affect the MS4’s water quality, it is in the best interest of Collier County to regulate the water quality discharging from those private systems. G. Collier County is an area that depends on tourist’s dollars and the quality of Collier County’s water and other natural resources directly impacts Collier County’s economic sustainability and growth; H. In 1984, in order to establish a pollution control program, Collier County approved the levy of one-tenth of a mill after a County-wide referendum, and in 1988 in order to protect Collier County’s water resources from all pollutants, the residents of Collier County 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 3 of 2020 approved the maintenance of the millage of one-tenth of a mill by County-wide referendum as described in Ordinance No. 89-20; I. Section 163.3177(6)(d)2.b. F.S. requires local governments through their Growth Management Plans “to protect the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources and waters that flow into estuarine waters or oceanic waters and protect from activities and land uses known to affect adversely the quality and quantity of identified water resources.” J. Section 403.182 F.S. allows local governments to adopt Ordinances relating to local pollution control programs that are “stricter or more extensive than those imposed by this Act [the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act in Section 403.011, et seq. F.S.].” K. This ordinance supports goals and objectives of the Drainage Sub-Element and the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element, of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the Watershed Management Plan, and the Floodplain Management Plan. Section 3: Intent It is the intent of Collier County to allow for growth while protecting, preserving, and restoring our groundwater, surface waters, and other natural resources through monitoring, pollution prevention, education, and restoration programs. Section 4: Applicability The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to, and be enforced in, the unincorporated areas of Collier County. This Ordinance shall apply to, and be enforced in, any municipalities within Collier County that agree by resolution of the governing body of the municipality to have this Ordinance apply and be enforced in the municipality. Section 5: Definitions For purposes of this Ordinance, the definitions contained in this section shall apply unless otherwise specifically stated. Words used in the p resent tense include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular, and words in the singular include the plural. The words “shall,” “will,” or “must” are always mandatory and not merely discretionary. Basin Management Action Plan or BMAP shall be defined per Section 62-40.210 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means the document that sets forth the activities, schedule, and funding sources by which point and nonpoint dischargers will reduce pollutants discharged to impaired waters and meet the Total Maximum Daily Load established for those waters. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 4 of 2020 Best Management Practices or BMPs shall be defined as structural and non-structural schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, general good housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other practices to prevent or reduce pollution. Biosolids shall be defined per Chapter 62-640 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means the solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of Domestic Wastewater in a domestic Wastewater Treatment Facility, formerly known as “domestic wastewater residuals” or “residuals.” Not included is the treated effluent or reclaimed water from a domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant. Also not included are solids removed from pump stations and lift stations, screenings and grit removed from the preliminary treatment components of domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities, other solids as defined in subsection 62-640.200(31), F.A.C., and ash generated during the incineration of biosolids. Biosolids include products and treated material from biosolids treatment facilities and Septage Management Facilities regulated by the Department. [FDEP]. Biosolids Management Facility shall be defined per Chapter 62-640 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means a Biosolids Treatment Facility, a Septage Management Facility regulated by the Department [FDEP], or an application site. Biosolids Treatment Facility shall be defined per Chapter 62-640 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means a facility that treats Biosolids from other facilities for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this chapter, before use or land application. Biosolids treatment facilities can also treat domestic Septage and combinations of Biosolids, domestic Septage, food establishment Sludges, wastes removed from portable toilets, and wastes removed from holding tanks associated with boats, marinas, and onsite Sewage treatment and disposal systems, before use or land application. Closely Regulated Facilities shall be defined as those facilities or property regulated by the provisions of this Ordinance or any FDEP rule cited herein. Collection/Transmission Systems shall be defined per Section 62-604.200 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means sewers, pipelines, conduits, pumping stations, force mains, and all other facilities used for collection and transmission of wastewater from individual service connections to facilities intended for the purpose of providing treatment prior to release to the environment. Collier County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or CCMS4 shall be defined as the MS4 owned, operated, and maintained by Collier County. Commercial shall be defined as property devoted in whole or part to commerce, that is, the exchange and buying and selling of commodities or services. Commercial Sewage Waste shall be defined per Section 64E-6.002 F.A.C, as it may be amended from time to time, which means non-toxic, non-hazardous Wastewater from Commercial facilities. Examples of establishments included in this definition are Commercial and institutional food operations, Commercial laundry facilities with no more than 4 machines, and animal holding facilities. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 5 of 2020 Construction Activity shall be defined as activities resulting in land development or redevelopment including but not limited to clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, and demolition in any zoning district, except lands zoned rural agricultural with an agricultural classification from the Property Appraiser pursuant to Section 193.461, F.S.. Discharge shall be defined as any spilling, leaking, seeping, pouring, pumping, emitting, emptying, or dumping of a Pollutant. Domestic Wastewater shall be defined per Section 62-604.200 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means Wastewater derived principally from dwellings, business buildings, institutions, and the like, commonly referred to as sanitary Wastewater or Sewage. When Industrial Wastewater is combined with domestic Wastewater for treatment, determination of whether the treatment plant is designated as domestic shall be in accordance with the definition of domestic Wastewater provided in Rule 62-600.200, F.A.C. EPA shall be defined as the United States Environmental Protection Agency or its successor. FDEP shall be defined as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or its successor. Flow Through Stormwater Management Systems shall be defined as the portion of an otherwise publicly owned Stormwater Management System that passes through and serves a privately owned area and which the care and maintenance of that portion is the responsibility of a private entity. Groundwater shall be defined per Section 62-40.210 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means the water beneath the surface of the ground, whether or not flowing through known and definite channels. Hazardous Substance shall be defined per Section 403.703, F.S., as it may be amended from time to time, which means any substance that is defined as a hazardous substance in the United States Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 2767. Hazardous Waste shall be defined per Section 403.703, F.S., as it may be amended from time to time, which means solid waste, or a combination of solid wastes, which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness or may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly transported, disposed of, stored, treated, or otherwise managed. The term does not include human remains that are disposed of by persons licensed under chapter 497, F.S. Illicit Discharge shall be defined as substances not composed entirely of Stormwater that may directly or indirectly enter a Stormwater Management System or Waters of the State, except as exempted in Article II, Section 2 and Article III, Section 3. Illicit Connection shall be defined as any physical connection, actual or potential flow discharge, or other condition that could allow non-Stormwater to enter a Stormwater Management System whether on the surface or subsurface. Regardless of whether the illicit connection had been 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 6 of 2020 previously allowed, permitted, or approved by an authorized enforcement agency or, any drain or conveyance connected from a Commercial or Industrial land use to the stormwater system which has not been documented in plans, maps, or equivalent records and approved by an authorized enforcement agency. Impaired Water shall be defined per Section 62-40.210 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means a water body or water body segment that does not meet one or more of its designated uses due in whole or in part to Discharges of Pollutants, and has been listed as impaired by order of the Secretary in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 62-303, F.A.C. Industrial shall be defined as a business engaged in industrial production or service, that is, a business characterized by manufacturing or productive enterprise or a related service business. Inspector means an individual designated by the Collier County Manager or his/her designee to administer and enforce this Ordinance. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS4 shall be defined as a publicly owned stormwater management system that consists of conveyances including roads with drainage systems, detention ponds, retention ponds, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains designed or used for collecting, storing, treating, and/or conveying Stormwater. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm water Permit shall be defined as a permit issued by EPA (or by a State under authority delegated pursuant to 33 USC § 1342(b)) that regulates Stormwater. Nonpoint Source Pollution shall be defined as pollution from any source other than from any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyances, and shall include, but not be limited to, Pollutants from agricultural, silvicultural, mining, construction, subsurface disposal and urban runoff sources such as fertilizer. Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Transportation Permit or OSTDSTP shall be defined as a permit issued by the State of Florida, Department of Health that gives approval to a person to transport liquid waste associated with food operations, domestic Wastewater, or domestic Septage within the boundaries of the State of Florida. Person shall be defined as any individual, association, organization, partnership, firm, joint venture, corporation or other entity recognized by law and acting as either the owner or as the owner's agent. Person Responsible for Site Rehabilitation or PRSR shall be defined as the real property owner, the facility owner, the facility operator, the discharger, or other perso n or entity responsible for site rehabilitation. Pollutant shall be defined as a substance that alters the chemical, physical, biological, thermal and/or radiological integrity of soil, stormwater, groundwater or Surface Water. Anything which 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 7 of 2020 causes or contributes to pollution. Pollutants may include, but are not limited to: paints, varnishes, and solvents; oil and other automotive fluids; non-hazardous liquid and solid wastes and yard wastes; refuse, rubbish, garbage, litter, or other discarded or abandoned objects, ordinances, and accumulations, so that same may cause or contribute to pollution; floatables; pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and fertilizers; Hazardous Substances and Wastes; Wastewater, Sewage, Septage, grease, portable toilet, and holding tank wastes, Biosolids, and pathogens; sediment; dissolved and particulate metals; animal wastes; wastes and residues that result from constructing a building or structure; and noxious or offensive matter of any kind. Treated reclaimed water is not considered a pollutant. Private Stormwater Management System or Private SMS shall be defined as a Stormwater Management S ystem owned by a non-public entity or individual. Residential shall be defined as real property that is zoned for residential use including single family, multi-family and mobile home units. Septage shall be defined per Chapter 62-640 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means a mixture of Sludge, fatty materials, human feces, and Wastewater removed during pumping of an onsite Sewage treatment and disposal system. Excluded from this definition are the contents of portable toilets, holding tanks, and grease interceptors. Septage Management Facility shall be defined per Chapter 62-640 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means a stationary facility that treats only domestic Septage or combinations of domestic Septage, food establishment Sludges, wastes removed from portable toilets, and wastes removed from holding tanks associated with boats, marinas, and onsite Sewage treatment and disposal systems, before use or land application. Sewage shall be defined as Domestic Wastewater and/or Commercial Sewage Waste. Site Specific Alternative Criteria or SSAC shall be defined as a water quality criterion developed for a particular waterbody or segment of a waterbody, designed to more accurately reflect site specific conditions, and adopted by FDEP. Sludge shall be defined per Chapter 403.703, F.S., as it may be amended from time to time, which means includes the accumulated solids, residues, and precipitates generated as a result of waste treatment or processing, including Wastewater treatment, water supply treatment, or operation of an air pollution control facility, and mixed liquids and solids pumped from septic tanks, grease traps, privies, or similar waste disposal appurtenances. Stormwater shall be defined per Section 62-40.210 F.A.C., as it may be amended from time to time, which means the water that results from a rainfall event. Stormwater Management shall be defined as the use of structural or non-structural practices that are designed to reduce Stormwater runoff pollutant loads, discharge volumes, and/or peak flow discharge rates. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 8 of 2020 Stormwater Management System or SMS shall be defined as either or both of the public or privately owned systems of conveyances including roads with drainage systems, detention ponds, retention ponds, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains designed or used for collecting, storing, treating, and/or conveying Stormwater. Surface Water shall be defined per Section 373.019, F.S., as it may be amended from time to time, which means water upon the surface of the earth, whether contained in bounds created naturally or artificially or diffused. Water from natural springs shall be classified as surface water when it exits from the spring onto the earth’s surface. Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL shall be defined per Section 403.031, F.S., as it may be amended from time to time, which means the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources and the load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Prior to determining individual wasteload allocations and load allocations, the maximum amount of a Pollutant that a water body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards must first be calculated. Transporter shall be defined as a person or business that transports Sewage, Septage, grease, or Biosolids within Collier County. Transporters include those licensed by Collier County and those permitted by the Florida Department of Health. Transportation License or TL shall be defined as a license issued by Collier County that gives approval to transport Sewage, Septage, grease, or Biosolids within the boundaries of Collier County. Wastewater Treatment Facility shall be defined as a Type I, Type II or Type III Wastewater Treatment Facility as described in Section 62-600.200 F.A.C. Wastewater shall be defined per Section 62-604.200 F.A.C., which means the combination of liquid and water-carried Pollutants from residences, Commercial buildings, Industrial plants, and institutions together with any groundwater, surface runoff or leachate that may be present. Section 5: Acronyms BMAP- Basin Management Action Plan BMPs- Best Management Practices CCMS4- Collier County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System CCWSD- Collier County Water-Sewer District EPA- United States Environmental Protection Agency F.A.C. - Florida Administrative Code FDEP- Florida Department of Environmental Protection 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 9 of 2020 F.S. - Florida Statute LDC- Land Development Code MS4- Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OSTDSTP- Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Transportation Permit PRSR- Person Responsible for Site Rehabilitation SMS- Stormwater Management System SSAC- Site Specific Alternative Criteria TL- Transportation License TMDL- Total Maximum Daily Load Article II. GENERAL POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION Section 1: Prohibitions Discharge of Pollutants is prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any Person or local governmental entity to Discharge or cause to be Discharged, Pollutants into any Surface Water, canal, bay, lagoon, estuary, or other waterway, lake, pond, drainage ditch, groundwater, wetland, onto the ground, or into a Stormwater Management System (SMS). Section 2: Exemptions A. Herbicide application in a manner compliant with state law, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and label instructions., and by a licensed applicator for treatment of algae or aquatic plants in lakes, ponds, or drainage ditches. B. Fertilizer application in a manner compliant with local ordinances, BMPs, label instructions, and per FDEP’s Green Industries BMPs, in areas that are not in or upstream of Impaired Waterbodies or otherwise regulated waterbodies. C. A Pollutant Discharge resulting from theThe wash down of a motor vehicle accident scene or other type of emergency response, if ordered by the incident commander to ensure public safety, shall not be considered a Pollutant Discharge. However, the wastes from the wash down need to be disposed of properly by the Person Responsible for Site Rehabilitation (PRSR). 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 10 of 2020 D. A sheen resulting from minimal discharge of fuel or lubricating oil from the accidental sinking or foundering of a small vessel, provided the PRSR undertakes or arranges for salvage within 1 hour of knowledge of the incidenta reasonable amount of time. E. Stormwater harvesting for reuse or aquifer recharge consisting of rainwater, treated Stormwater or reclaimed water. F. Treated wastewater or reclaimed water applications permitted by FDEP. G. Grass or plant clippings mulched back into vegetated areas such as a lawn or grass clippings from swale mowing that are left in a swale. Section 3: Requirements to Prevent, Control, and Reduce Pollutants by the Use of Best Management Practices. The owner or operator of a Commercial or Industrial facility/activity or owner of Residential property shall provide, at their own expense, reasonable protection from accidental Discharge of Pollutants or other wastes into the environment through the use of structural and non-structural BMPs. Further, any owner or operator responsible for a property or premises, which is the source of an Illicit Discharge, may be required by Collier County to implement additional structural and non-structural BMPs, in a reasonable timeframe, to prevent the further Discharge of Pollutants. Article III. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Section 1: All Activities A. Any Discharge into the Collier County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System shall meet all applicable local and state water quality standards, TMDLs, BMAPs, and SSAC. The County may require more restrictive quality standards in certain areas dependent on the water quality of downstream water bodies. B. Every Person owning property with a Private SMS or with a Flow Through SMS shall maintain the SMS, including structures, as permitted; and free of debris, excessive vegetation, sediment, obstacles or anything that would pollute, contaminate, or significantly retard the flow of water through the Private SMS. Section 2: Prohibitions A. Illicit Connections are prohibited. 1. The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of Illicit Connections to a SMS shall be prohibited. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 11 of 2020 2. This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, Illicit Connections made in the past, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. 3.2.A Person shall be in violation of this ordinance if the person or business connects or has connected a line conveying any substance, other than rainwater, to a SMS, or allows such a connection to continue. 4. A Person shall be in violation if the Illicit Connection is re-established without the prior approval of Collier County. B. Suspension due to Illicit Discharges 1. Emergency Situations. Collier County may, without prior notice, order the immediate termination or suspension of any activity if it presents an imminent and substantial danger to health and safety, the environment or a SMS. If the violator fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the local governmental entity or enforcement agency with jurisdiction as determined by the local governmental entity or enforcement agency may take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the environment or to minimize danger to Persons. Section 3: Exemptions The following are exempt from this Article: 1. Discharges specified in writing by a governmental agency with jurisdiction as being necessary to protect public health and safety such as utility injection wells. 2. Dye testing after written notification to the authorized enforcement agency. 3. Any non-Stormwater Discharge permitted under a NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the EPA, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and provided that written approval has been granted by the EPA for any Discharge to the SMS. 4. The following discharges, provided it they does not cause a violation of water quality standards: neutralized potable or reclaimed water line flushing; diverted stream flows; rising ground water; ground water infiltration to storm drains; uncontaminated pumped ground water; foundation or footing drains (not including active Groundwater dewatering systems); crawl space pumps; air conditioning condensation; springs; non-commercial washing of vehicles or boats using non- toxic, non-hazardous, biodegradable, phosphate free cleaners; natural riparian habitat or wetland flows; neutralized swimming pools or pool overflow from properly functioning systems; uncontaminated roof runoff; firefighting activities; and any other water source not containing Pollutants. After the County reasonably determines there is a Pollutant Discharge violation, it is the responsibility of the discharger to prove the Discharge does not contain Pollutants. Section 4: Proof of Compliance with Permit 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 12 of 2020 A. Any Person subject to a NPDES Stormwater discharge permit shall provide proof of compliance with said permit upon request in a form acceptable to Collier County prior to the allowing of Discharges to the MS4 and at anytime thereafter. Article IV. SEWAGE, SEPTAGE, GREASE, BIOSOLIDS, AND TRANSPORTATION OF THOSE MATERIALS Section 1: Prohibitions A. It shall be unlawful for any Person to transport Sewage, Septage, grease, or Biosolids without first having obtained a Transportation License (TL) for vehicles and trailers unless exempt under Article IV, Section 2 of this Ordinance. Rental vehicles and trailers are required to be licensed. B. It shall be unlawful for any Person to accept or process Sewage, Septage, grease, or Biosolids regardless of amount without first having obtained permits, and/or applicable development orders, from the state regulatory agency and Collier County, or providing proof of exemption. C. Biosolids. 1. It shall be unlawful to dispose of Biosolids anywhere other than a facility approved by federal, state and local regulations. 2. It shall be unlawful for any Person to operate, modify, or expand any Biosolids Management Facility or Biosolids Treatment Facility in Collier County without first having obtained a valid permit from FDEP. Section 2: Exemptions A. If a Transporter currently possesses a valid Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Transportation Permit (OSTDSTP), then Collier County waives the TL requirement. The Transporter must furnish a copy of their OSTDSTP to Collier County within 10 days of request by Collier County. Transportation within Collier County must cease immediately upon revocation of an OSTDSTP. B. Transportation vehicles or trailers that are utilized in a declared state of emergency are exempted from the TL requirement. However, vehicles or trailers used during a declared state of emergency must be water tight. C. Persons that transport four cubic yards or less per one-way trip of a dewatered Sewage, Septage, grease, or Biosolids material are exempted from the TL requirement if the material is being hauled to a Class I landfill. D. Class AA Biosolids are exempt from Article IV. Section 3: Transportation License A. An applicant shall submit an application for a TL through Collier County. B. A TL may be issued by Collier County after the applicant has demonstrated that all of the following requirements are met: 1. Signed application, ; notarized signed statement from the owner of a disposal facility indicating willingness to accept Sewage, Septage, grease, or Biosolids from 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 13 of 2020 the applicant, ; occupational license and monthly reports from the previous 12 months, if applicable, have been received and approved by Collier County. 2. Passing a vehicle or trailer inspection conducted by Collier County staff, to verify compliance with Sections 4.A. 1 and 2 of this Article. This inspection shall be scheduled by the applicant, conducted prior to material being hauled, and may be required to be conducted within the boundaries of Collier County. 3. The vehicle or trailer displays the applicant’s name, telephone number in at least three inch high letters and assigned TL numbers on the driver’s side, passenger side, and rear of the vehicle. 4. After the application is deemed complete and approved by Collier County, Collier County shall issue the license and may deliver it to applicant by electronic transmission such as email. Section 4: Transportation License Conditions A. The licensee shall be subject to the following conditions for the duration of the TL: 1. All vehicles and trailers used to transport Sewage, Septage, grease, or Biosolids shall be maintained so that they remain product tight and do not spill or leak. The vehicles or trailers shall have a functional tarp or top. 2. The licensee’s name, TL number, and telephone number shall be displayed in at least three inch high letters on the driver’s side, passenger side, and rear of the vehicle. 3. All licensees will maintain accurate daily records of the amounts of Sewage, Septage, grease, and Biosolids transported on a daily basis and submit these reports to Collier County. Failure to submit monthly reports by the 15th of the following month may result in license revocation. 4. The TL shall be valid for 12 months, and requires annual renewal and inspection in accordance with Section 3. 5. Any licensee who Discharges Sewage, Septage, grease, or Biosolids anywhere, except to an approved facility, within the boundaries of Collier County, shall immediately report the Discharged Sewage, Septage, grease, or Biosolids to Collier County. 6. Penalties for operating in Collier County without a TL are described in Article VIII, Section 5. 7. The licensee shall give written notice to Collier County within 5 business days of any changes to the information submitted in the application package. 8. Failure to meet any of the above conditions shall result in TL revocation for up to 12 months. Section 5: Annual License Fee There will be no fee associated with the TL. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 14 of 2020 Section 6: Otherwise Unpermitted Sewage Facilities This section is for those facilities that receive or process Sewage, Septage, grease, portable toilet, and holding tank wastes, and/or Biosolids that are not required to obtain a permit or have been exempted by a state regulatory authority. A. Facilities not permitted by a state or federal agency must have a pre-treatment permit if within the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) and if the facility Discharges to the CCWSD Collections System. B. Collier County shall have the right to enter these facilities with reasonable notice for the purpose of determining compliance. Article V. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AND PRIVATELY OWNED SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS Section 1: Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Associated Collections/Transmission Systems Wastewater treatment plants are permitted and regulated by FDEP. With the exception of Collier County facilities, Pollution Control may inspect Wastewater treatment plants and report the findings to the FDEP. Section 2: Private Sewage Collection and Transmission Systems A. Septic systems are not considered private Sewage Collection and Transmission Systems. B.A. C.B. Private Sewage Collection and Transmission Systems, including but not limited to lateral lines, clean outs, and lift stations, must be maintained so that backups and sanitary sewer overflows do not occur. D.C. All private lift station wells must be locked or the entire private lift station must be fenced and locked. E.D. The owner of private Sewage Collection and Transmission Systems must have a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor that responds twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, three hundred and sixty five days per year. F.E. The maintenance contractor’s name and contact information must be posted on all private lift stations and reported to Collier County Pollution Control within five business days if the contractor or contact information changes. Article VI. WATER QUALITY EVALUATION AND MONITORING Section 1: Water Quality Monitoring 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 15 of 2020 A. Groundwater: Collier County will select, evaluate and refine a network of Groundwater monitoring sites. Collier County Pollution Control shall collect groundwater samples and evaluate Groundwater data. B. Surface Water: Collier County will select, evaluate and refine a monitoring network of Surface Water sites that best represent the ambient conditions within the unincorporated areas that do not fall under state jurisdiction. Collier County shall collect Surface Water samples and evaluate Surface Water data. C. Collier County may perform water quality monitoring within any municipality within Collier County that agrees by resolution under Article 1, Section 4, and that agrees to pay Collier County for the cost of monitoring within the municipality. At its discretion, Collier County may perform water quality monitoring on any property for any Person that agrees to pay Collier County for the cost of monitoring on said property. Section 2: Monitoring of Stormwater Discharges This section applies to all facilities that have Stormwater discharges associated with Industrial, Commercial, Residential, or Construction Activity and will become effective if permit requirements are not being met or reasonable BMPs are not being implemented. If a Private SMS discharges to the CCMS4 that is declared impaired by FDEP or is upstream of an Impaired Waterbody, or the downstream waterbody has an adopted TMDL, BMAP, or SSAC, the discharger may be required to monitor the water at the relevant outfall at the County’s discretion to determine if the discharger is meeting the established criteria and not causing any further impairment. Further, the discharger may be required to reduce the Pollutant load being Discharged to the greatest extent possible, from the Private SMS to the CCMS4. Article VII. WATER SUPPLY WELLS Section 1: General Well construction is regulated under Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 90 Natural Resources. Failure to comply with Chapter 90 Natural Resources shall be a violation of this ordinance. Section 2: Public Water Supply Wells Public water supplies are regulated by Collier County Land Development Code Section 3.06.00 Groundwater Protection, as amended. Failure to comply with LDC Section 3.06.00 shall be a violation of this ordinance. Section 3: Private Water Supply Wells 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 16 of 2020 To protect Residential private wells and those wells in proximity, Discharges of Pollutants onto the ground and into Groundwater or Surface Waters are prohibited. Article VIII. RIGHT TO ENTER, ENFORCEMENT AND FEES Section 1: Authority to Enter and Inspect A. Right of inspection. This Section provides an adequate substitute for notice by limiting the place, time and scope of inspections. Inspections of Closely Regulated Facilities may take place without prior notice during normal business hours as defined below for the purpose of determining compliance with pollution regulations. Inspections of Closely Regulated Facilities may take place outside normal business hours; however, access would be granted by the owner or by legal authorization. 1. It shall constitute a violation of this Section to intentionally hamper or interfere with an Inspector’s official duties. 2. Inspectors shall identify themselves as Collier County Inspectors to owners, operators, or designated representative(s) present during the inspection. 3. Inspection reports: Inspectors shall record relevant field observations. Upon request, copies of inspection reports and/or results of laboratory analyses for samples collected by an Inspector may shall be sent to the owner or operator. 4. Inspection of Closely Regulated Facilities: a. Inspectors are authorized to inspect Closely Regulated Facilities at any time between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, without prior notice for the purpose of determining compliance with this Section and other ordinances, regulations, and permit requirements that govern pollution. The Inspector may inspect the premises and all devices, contrivances, processes, or operations relevant to the Discharge of Pollutants to Surface Water, Groundwater, the ground surface or Stormwater. b. Inspection of Closely Regulated Facilities may be made at times other than those described in subsection A.4.a of this section, with the owners’ or operator’s permission or legal authorization. c. Inspections shall be made for the purpose of determining compliance with this Ordinance, and FDEP or Collier County permits and permit conditions, and consent orders and BMPs. The scope of all compliance inspections shall be limited to these purposes. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 17 of 2020 d. Failure to provide access: Failure of an owner or operator of a Closely Regulated Facility to provide the County Manager or his/her designee with immediate access to the facility shall be a violation of this Ordinance. 5. Inspection warrants. At times other than specified in this Section, and at facilities and other properties that do not require permits and are not otherwise closely regulated, inspection can be made by consent or by means otherwise available by law. If consent is denied, Inspectors may obtain an inspection warrant pursuant to Florida Statutes. 6. Search warrants. Inspectors may contact the appropriate law enforcement personnel to obtain a search warrant and may aid the officer, if required pursuant to Florida Statutes. B. Compliance testing 1. Inspectors shall be authorized to obtain sample(s) or conduct test(s) or order owners or operators to obtain sample(s) or conduct test(s) to determine compliance with this article. 2. All compliance testing shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., which defines quality assurance and quality control activities. C. Operating records required 1. A Person responsible for the operation of any facility that may be a source of Discharge of Pollutants, shall conduct such tests and maintain such records as prescribed by the County Manager or his/her designee to give evidence that any discharges are in compliance with this Ordinance. Such test data and records shall include the monitoring data available unless otherwise specified in writing by the County Manager or his/her designee. Such test data and operating records shall be available at all times for inspection by the County Manager or his/her designee, and reports that contain these records and data shall be filed with the County Manager or his/her designee upon request. 2. Copies of all records that are required to be maintained at the facility by FDEP regulation, EPA regulation, or County ordinance shall be available for inspection at all times. D. Corrective actions and documentation. Parties responsible for violations of this Ordinance shall take corrective actions to return the property to compliance within the timeframe specified by the County Manager or his/her designee and provide records documenting actions as directed by the County Manager or his/her designee. Failure to provide records or documentation directed pursuant to this this Ordinance is a violation of this article. E. Temporary disconnection of water service. The County Manager or his/her designee is authorized to order the water purveyor to cease water service to a connection where continued water service will allow an Illicit Discharge to continue unabated by the responsible party or party occupying a subject property. This action is only authorized to 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 18 of 2020 abate a situation that poses a risk to public health, safety, and welfare as determined by the County Manager or his/her designee, such as Sewage, Septage, or septic tank system discharge in areas of public access, or where the water service is to a Commercial or Industrial business or facility, with the exception of a medical service facility. The property owner or responsible party shall commence or make arrangements for mitigation, as approved by the County Manager or his/her designee, of the Illicit Discharge within one hour of notification by the County Manager or his/her designee. When the Illicit Discharge remains unmitigated, the water purveyor shall, within one hour of notification by the County Manager or his/her designee, discontinue such water service. The water purveyor shall, within one hour of notificationupon notice by the County Manager or his/her designee, reinstate water service, provided the purveyor has no cause to withhold service. The water customer shall be responsible for any fees for the disconnection or resumption of water service charged by the water purveyor. Section 2: Remediation A. Any Discharge of Pollutants must be reported by the PRSR to Collier County Pollution Control and, if applicable, to the state regulatory agency. B. Any Discharge of Pollutants must be remediated by the PRSR within a reasonable timeframe. C. The PRSR shall take action to ensure no reoccurrence, including but not limited to, implementing additional or amending BMPs. D. Ongoing or intermittent pollution that causes one-time pollution at a level less than the soil or water cleanup target levels or Surface Water quality standards set forth in Chapter 62- 777 F.A.C. Contaminant Cleanup Target Levels; Chapter 62-780 F.A.C. Contaminated Site Cleanup Criteria; and Chapter 62-302 F.A.C. Surface Water Quality Standards or in TMDLs, BMAPs or SSAC, shall be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if it is causing a cumulative pollution problem. This determination shall be made by Collier County. If it is determined that a cumulative pollution problem exists, the PRSR shall be required to cease discharging and remediate affected areas. E. PRSR failure to clean up and/or prevent pollution is a violation of this ordinance. Collier County has the right but not the duty to contract for remediation and bill the PRSR , provided the County gives the PRSR 3 days prior written notice to commence clean up and the PRSR fails to do so. Section 3: Fees Any associated fees are in accordance with the Land Development Code, Growth Management Department Fee Schedule and the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s rate resolutions. Section 4: Compliance with State and Federal Permits The issuance of a license in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance is not intended to preclude the right or authority of any other State or Federal agency from requiring separate permits in accordance with rules and regulations of that agency. In a case where multiple permits are 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 19 of 2020 required, the most stringent stipulations and requirements of each permit shall govern the work permitted under this Ordinance. Section 5: Penalties If any person, firm or corporation, whether public or private, or other entity fails or refuses to obey or comply with or violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance, such person, firm, corporation or other entity, upon conviction of such offense, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment not to exceed Sixty (60) days in the County Jail, or both, in the discretion of the court. Each violation or no n- compliance shall be considered a separate and distinct offense. Further, each day of continued violation or non-compliance shall be considered as a separate offense. Nothing herein contained shall prevent or restrict the County from taking such other lawful action in any court of competent jurisdiction as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation or con- compliance. Such other lawful actions shall include, but shall not be limited to, an equitable action for injunctive relief or an action at law for damages. Further, nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the County from prosecuting any violation of this Ordinance by means of a Code Enforcement Board or Special Magistrate established pursuant to the authority of Chapter 162, F.S. and Ordinance No. 2010-4. All remedies and penalties provided for in this Section shall be cumulative and independently available to the County and the County shall be authorized to pursue any and all remedies set forth in this Section to the full extent allowed by law. SECTION TWO: REPEAL OF ORDINANCES NO. 87-79, AS AMENDED AND RESOLUTION NO. 88-311 Collier County Ordinance No. 87-79, Transportation and Disposal of Sludge, and all amendments thereto and Resolution No 88-311, establishing fees, are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION THREE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION FOUR: INCLUSION IN CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES This Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish that result, and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "Section", "Article", or any other appropriate word. SECTION FIVE: EFFECTIVE DATE. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control [16-POL-00068/1455770/1] 02/25/2019 Page 20 of 2020 This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on this the _____ day of ______________, 2019. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA __________________________ BY:_________________________________ , Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: __________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment 2 Pollution Control Ord Red Lined for CCPC March 7 2019 CAO approved final (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control wbid BODY rawData_periodO fRecordQuery.cla ss NAME1 BASIN sta LAT LONG Year Month Day Time depth param result rawData_periodO fRecordQuery.Un its 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 310 2 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 82903 1.15 meters 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 916 94.96 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 1027 0.06 µg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 32211 8 µg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 940 18 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 81 150 PCU 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 95 463 µmhos/cm 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 1034 1.44 µg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 1119 0.25 µg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 70300 245 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 299 5.38 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 31616 26 100ml 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 980 1033 µg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 900 247 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 921 2.52 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 610 0.04944 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 615 0.004 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 630 0.086 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 1114 0.06 µg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 400 7.43 SU 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 32224 3 µg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 671 0.007 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 480 0.22 ppt 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 78 1.15 m 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 945 1 mg/L 3278S STREAM 3F GGC@858 NORTH GOLDEN GATE21FLCOLLGGC@85826.2933 -81.562 2010 10 7 1157 0.3 10 24 deg C 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment 3 Snapshot of Data used for Cycle 3 IWR Run for North Golden Gate WBID (8166 rcode lab GROUP _NAME GROUP _NUM PLANU NIT descript ion epa week2 season ds Master paramet er Code subcate gory Master paramet er cycle begin_pp end_pp begin_vp end_vp U 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs BOD Other BOD 5Day4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs BOTTM Bottom Depth - meters41/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs CA Hardness Calcium 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 U 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs CD Metal Cadmium 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs CHLAC CHLA Nutrients (Chlorophyll Corrected)4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs CHLOR Other Chloride 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs COLOR TSI Color 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs COND Other Specific Conductance41/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 J 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs CR3 Metal Chromium III4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 I 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs CU Metal Copper 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs DISS Other Dissolved Solids4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs DO Other Dissolved Oxygen4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 B 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs FCOLI Bacteria Fecal Coliform4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs FE Metal Iron 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs HARD Hardness Hardness 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs MG Hardness Magnesium4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs NH4 TSI Total Ammonia4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 I 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs NO2 TSI Nitrite Nitrogen4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs NO3O2 Nutrients (Nitrate-Nitrite)4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 U 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs PB Metal Lead 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs PH Other pH 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 U 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs PHEOA Pheophytin-a4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 I 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs PORD Phosphorus Dissolved Orthphosphate41/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs SALIN Other Salinity 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs SD TSI Secchi Depth4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 U 1 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs SO4 Other Sulfate 4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 Everglades West CoastGroup 1 Southwest CoastPredominantly Fresh Watersy46354 fs TEMP Other TemperatureC4 1/1/2006 12/31/2015 1/1/2011 6/30/2018 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment 3 Snapshot of Data used for Cycle 3 IWR Run for North Golden Gate WBID (8166 mdl pql staNam e planPeri od verPerio d assess mentTy pe xCode dUnits2 agency labNam e masterC ode2 floridaS tandard s_forMa tching.c lass thisCrit eria floridaS tandard s_forMa tching.U nits standardWithUnitscriterionText 2 10 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream U m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLL 0.02 0.1 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 0.06 0.3 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream U m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control LaboratoryCD3Fug/L =e (0.7852[LnH]-3.49) ug/l 3 3 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 1 5 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control LaboratoryCHLOR3Fmg/L 5 5 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLL COND 3F 1275 uohm/cm 1275 or >50% Nat. BackgroundCriterion from the Florida Standards for this parameter is 1275 or >50% Nat. Background 0.07 0.35 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream J m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control LaboratoryCR33Fug/L =e(0.819[LnH]+0.6848) ug/l 0.15 0.75 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream I m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control LaboratoryCU3Fug/L =e(0.8545[LnH]-1.702) ug/l 2 10 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control LaboratoryDISS3Fmg/L 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLL 1 1 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream B m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control LaboratoryFCOLI3F400100ml =400 MPN Criterion from the Florida Standards for this parameter is =400 MPN 1.98 9.9 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control LaboratoryFE3F1000ug/L =1.0 mg/l Criterion from the Florida Standards for this parameter is =1.0 mg/l 1 5 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 0.006 0.03 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 0.00824 0.0412 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 0.002 0.01 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream I m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 0.002 0.01 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 0.06 0.3 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream U m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control LaboratoryPB3Fug/L =e(1.273[LnH]-4.705) ug/l 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLL PH 3F SU <6, >8.5 3 3 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream U m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 0.004 0.02 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream I m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLL 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLL 1 5 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream U m 21FLCOLLCollier County Pollution Control Laboratory 21FLCOLLGGC@858 / GGC@858ynStream m 21FLCOLL 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment 3 Snapshot of Data used for Cycle 3 IWR Run for North Golden Gate WBID (8166 Section of PC Ordinance Summary Reasoning Article 2, Section 3 Requires best management practices be implemented While the actual language in Article 2 Section 3 is more stringent because FAC 62-780 FAC does not specifically state best management practices (BMPs) must be implemented, FDEP typically requires BMPs as a permit requirement or in the event of a spill, FDEP does site specific recommendations that typically include implementation of BMPs. FDEP often waives fines for BMP implementation. Article 3, Section 1 (A)Second sentence of A more is restrictive than FAC 62-624.200 (11) If there are impairments or Total Maximum Daily Loads assigned, Collier County is responsible for reducing pollutant loads into the receiving waterbody. Collier County may need to limit the polluant load of a discharger beyond the allowed downstream amount so the cumulative effect does not exceed the allowable pollutant load criteria downstream. Article 4, Section 4 (A) (7) A timeline is now given for changes to TL application packet which is more restrictive than existing ordinance 87-79 which has no timeline. This puts a time requirement on haulers to notify us about changes to the information that was supplied in the hauler's application, such as the addition of a new truck. We have trouble with haulers only licensing some of their trucks, then we catch them switching to an unlicensed (uninspected) truck which causes problems, for example, you may recall in January a 1200 gallons spill on Immokalee Road that also went into the canal. The time requirement will eliminate any ambiguity. Article 4, Section 4 (A) (8)Gives the ability to revoke license up to a year which is more restrictive than current ordinance 87-79. Right now we have no enforcement authority so there is no incentive to comply with the licensing requirement. The aformentioned hauler was unresponsive to compliance requests for 4 months and insisted the truck that discharged on Immokalee Road wasn't used in Collier County. The potential to not be able to operate in Collier County for up to one year will provide incentive to comply. Article 5, Section 2 (C)Requires a lock for lift stations, as opposed to FAC 62-604.400 (2) (d) which just requires a fence. Wet wells in lift stations are deep pits filled with raw sewage located in most residential areas. Left unlocked, children can access them causing serious injury or death. We want the wet wells or the fence surrounding the entire station to be locked so childen are unable to access them. Article 5, Section 2 (D)FAC 62-604.500 (2) states that system must be operated/ maintained so as to provide uninterrupted service, so requiring a maintenance contractor to ensure it functions all of the time is more restrictive. Article 5 Section 2 requires private lift stations owners must have a lift station maintenance agreement with a contractor that will respond 24/7/365 which is typical of lift station maintenance companies. State law says the collection system including the private lift station has to work all the time but we beleive that isn't feasible so we want an on call maintenance company to respond, for example, when there is raw sewage coming out of a manhole during the 4th of July block party. Article 5, Section 2 (E)62-604 (2)(d) deals with signage same as written in Ordinance, but reporting change in contractor is more restrictive. Article 5 Section 2 (E) requires the lift station owner to notify Collier County with any changes to the lift station maintenance contractor so we can get ahold of someone to come out and pump down the lift station and make repairs, for examples, when we get the call at 3 am that there is raw sewage flowing into Haldeman Creek. Article 6, Section 2 Requires monitoring of private stormater managements system Source tracking, the discharger may have to show they are not discharging contaminants if permit requirements are not being met or reasonable BMPs are not being implemented. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment 4 More Restrictive Summary and Reasoning (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Section of PC Ordinance Summary Reasoning Article 8, Section 1 {C) (1)Requires testing and maintenance of source tracking records Maintnence of source tracking data/records, the discharger may have to show they are not discharging contaminants if permit requirements are not being met or reasonable BMPs are not being implemented. Article 8, Section 2 (A,B)FAC 62-780 requires reporting to state, this is more restrictive in that they need to report to Pollution Control as well. Allows for faster response time, also allows oversight for spills FDEP determines to be de minimus. Article 8, Section 2 (C)Requires installation of BMPs. Same as Article 2 Section 3. While the actual language in Article 2 Section 3 is more stringent because FAC 62-780 FAC does not specifically state best management practices (BMPs) must be implemented, FDEP typically requires BMPs as a permit requirement or in the event of a spill, FDEP does site specific recommendations that typically include implementation of BMPs. FDEP often waives fines for BMP implementation. Article 8, Section 2 (D)Requires remediation for cumulative pollution, but under one-time pollution amounts. Individual spills may not impact water quality beyond allowable criteria, therefore no remedation criteria exists, however, ongoing discharges do impact beyond allowable criteria and this will allow for remediating cumulative discharges if needed. Article 8, Section 2 (E)County may hire contractor to clean up and bill PRSR. This would be done when the responsible party or property owner can not be found in a timely manner and it is in the best interest of Collier County to stop a discharge or remediate a site, such as a spill in a wellfield protection zone. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment 4 More Restrictive Summary and Reasoning (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control PLANNING COMMISSION READ AHEAD-TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD & BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN PROCESS The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) developed a five-year cycle that divides Florida into five groups of surface water basins (Figure 1) in which different activities take place each year; the cycle is reiterated continuously to evaluate the success of clean-up efforts, refine water quality protection strategies, and account for the changes brought about by Florida’s rapid growth and development. Collier County is located in the Everglades West Coast Basin (EWC) in Group 1. Each group undergoes a cycle of five phases on a rotating schedule (Table 1). Collier County entered this rotating cycle in 2000 is currently in Phase 2 of Cycle 4. Phase 2 of Cycle 4 was delayed BY FDEP due to the development and implementation of new dissolved oxygen and numeric nutrient criteria in the Statewide. Table 1. Schedule for TMDL Development in the Everglades West Coast Basin Cycle One YEAR 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 Group 1 *PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 Cycle Two YEAR 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 Group 1 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 Cycle Three YEAR 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 Group 1 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 Cycle Four YEAR 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 Group 1 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 2 cont’d PHASE 2 cont’d PHASE 3 Cycle Five—etc. YEAR 2020 2021 2021 2022 2022 2023 2023 2024 2024 2025 Group 1 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Phase 1: Preliminary Evaluation Close coordination with local stakeholders to conduct a preliminary basin water quality assessment; inventory existing and proposed management activities; identify management objectives and issues of concern; develop a strategic monitoring plan; and produce a preliminary Status Report that includes a Planning List of potentially impaired waters. Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring and Assessment Figure 1. TMDL Basins 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment 5 CCPC Read Ahead TMDL and BMAP Plan Process.docx (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Cooperative efforts between FDEP and local stakeholders to collect additional data; get data into STORET or WIN; complete water quality assessment; produce a final Assessment Report that includes a Verified List of impaired waters for Secretarial adoption; and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to document reasonable assurance (for FDEP review) that existing management plans and projects are adequate to restore water quality without the establishment of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Phase 3: Development and Adoption of TMDLs Coordination with stakeholders to discuss TMDL model framework, including model requirements, parameters to be modeled, model endpoints, design run scenarios and preliminary allocations; communication of science used in the process; and public workshops for rule adoption of TMDLs. Phase 4: Development of Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) Broad stakeholder participation in developing a Basin Management Action Plan (including detailed allocations and implementation strategies), incorporating it into existing management plans where feasible; public meetings during the planning process. Phase 5: Implementation of Basin Management Action Plan Emphasis on implementing the BMAP, other voluntary stakeholder actions, and local watershed management structures; FDEP will continue to provide technical assistance, fulfill oversight responsibilities, and administer National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point and nonpoint source permits. Impaired Waters Rules Assessment Phases 1 and 2 involve the collection and assessment of surface water quality data. Collier County Pollution Control monitors 77 surface water sites for Collier County and uploads the data to FDEP’s database. Using this database, FDEP performs an assessment to determine if the waterbodies are meeting State water quality standards provided in Florida Administrative Code 62-302. If the waters are not meeting standards, FDEP verifies them as “impaired” and prioritizes them for TMDL development. On November 14, 2018, FDEP released their draft list of verified impaired waters for Phase 2 of Cycle 4 which includes all of Collier County. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Phase 3 begins the development of a TMDL. A TMDL is a scientific determination of the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a surface water can absorb and still meet the water quality standards that protect human health and aquatic life. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are identified as "impaired" for the particular pollutants of concern - nutrients, bacteria, mercury, etc. - and TMDLs must be developed, adopted and implemented to reduce those pollutants and clean up the water body. Once TMDLs are adopted under Secretarial Order, they are then considered the new water quality criteria for that waterbody and are incorporated into the Florida Administrative Code 62-304. Discharges into a waterbody with an adopted TMDL must meet the water quality criteria set forth in the TMDL. Collier County currently has 3 TMDLs. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment 5 CCPC Read Ahead TMDL and BMAP Plan Process.docx (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Basin Management Action Plans A BMAP is the "blueprint" for restoring impaired waters by reducing pollutant loadings to meet the allowable criteria established in a TMDL. It represents a comprehensive set of strategies--permit limits on wastewater facilities, urban and agricultural best management practices, conservation programs, financial assistance and revenue generating activities, etc.--designed to implement the pollutant reductions established by the TMDL. These broad-based plans are developed by FDEP with input from local stakeholders--they rely on local input and local commitment--and they are adopted by Secretarial Order to be enforceable. As part of the BMAP, language requiring load reductions is typically included in any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that discharge into the waterbody with the TMDL. Currently there are no BMAPs for the 3 waterbodies with adopted TMDLs in Collier County. Lee County has 3 adopted BMAPs that were developed to address almost identical TMDLs as those we have in Collier County. Language has been written into their NPDES permit and they are required to meet the TMDL limits in their county’s stormwater system. Lee County has spent approximately $27.1 million in 5 years to implement projects to improve water quality to meet their TMDLs and comply with their BMAPs. FDEP has no plans to implement a BMAP for existing TMDLs in Collier County for Assessment Cycle 4. Staff believes this is due to proactive pollution prevention activities and coordination with FDEP. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be BMAPs in the future for future TMDLs, especially if water quality improvements are not made. EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO ADDRESS TMDLS AND WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENTS TO PREVENT BMAPS IN COLLIER COUNTY. Lake Trafford is impaired for nutrients, unionized ammonia and dissolved oxygen. The TMDL is established for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). FDEP is making the assumption that by reducing TN and TP loading that ammonia and dissolved oxygen will respond favorably. Actions taken to address TMDL o Internal nutrient cycling was the biggest source of nutrients in the lake. Dredging of the lake to remove nutrient heavy sediments completed in 2010. o Lake Trafford Management Team was formed to bring stakeholders and managers together to develop a comprehensive plan to provide guidance on the long-term management of the lake to reach water quality goals. o FDEP installed and monitored wells within the Lake Trafford watershed to see if groundwater and what land uses are contributing to the nutrient load. Pollution Control assisted with monitoring of existing wells and locating locations for new wells. Samples were collected from 2014-2016 until FDEP staff were reprioritized to other projects. o As part of an inclusive Everglades West Coast BMAP to address dissolved oxygen impairments in the entire EWC, FDEP wanted to gather more data regionally on land uses and their influence on groundwater and impairment of surface waters. This included two watersheds (Lake Trafford & Gordon River Extension) in Collier County that are impaired due to nutrients. As part of this BMAP, FDEP installed and monitored wells in these watersheds for two years (2014-2016) in various land uses that included septic 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment 5 CCPC Read Ahead TMDL and BMAP Plan Process.docx (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) tanks, golf courses, residential, and areas using reuse irrigation. FDEP has not concluded this monitoring effort, but were reprioritized elsewhere in the State. o Stormwater Inlet Marking o Pollution Control continues to assist FDEP with sample collection of extra bottles for FDEP’s nutrient source tracking in this WBID. Gordon River Extension is impaired for dissolved oxygen. FDEP tied the dissolved oxygen impairment to elevated nutrients. Therefore, the TMDL requires total nitrogen reductions. Actions taken to address TMDL o Freedom Park, a wetland treatment system, was designed and built to treat stormwater within this watershed and remove nutrients from the surface water. o Partner project with City of Naples for conversion of septic tanks to sewer conversion and stormwater improvements within this WBID. o Collier County Pollution Control has assisted FDEP with further monitoring FDEP installed and monitored wells within the Gordon River Extension Basin and outside the basin to see if groundwater and what land uses are contributing to the nutrient load. Pollution Control assisted with monitoring of existing wells and locating sites for new wells that were representative of existing land uses. Samples were collected by FDEP from 2014-2016 until FDEP staff were reprioritized to other projects. Pollution Control was involved in downloading the data from the flow meter every 2-3 weeks and sending the data to FDEP. The flow meter was removed by FDEP in 2012 due to equipment failure. Pollution Control continues to assist FDEP with sample collection of extra bottles for FDEP’s nutrient and bacteria source tracking in this WBID. Cocohatchee River is impaired for fecal coliform. The TMDL requires reduction of bacteria in stormwater runoff to the estuary. Actions taken to address TMDL o 2008--Pollution Control did an intensive study to locate any point sources for fecal coliform. None were found. Collier County Utilities tightness tested all their systems and no leaks were found. FDOH inspected all the septic tanks in the area and found no issues. At that point, FDEP assumed sampling responsibilities and sampled for one year. They were unable to locate a source. o 2015—FDEP and Pollution Control did a more formal “walk the WBID” using biomarkers to target human sources of bacteria. Pollution Control assisted with sample locations, sampling and analysis. No specific sources were found. o Pollution Control added new water quality stations to their network to further delineate sources. o In Naples Park and Vanderbilt area, the County is currently replacing aging sewage pipes and retrofitting existing stormwater infrastructure to include water quality treatment systems. o Pollution Control did door to door outreach to 1,159 houses in the watershed in 2017 to encourage residents to reduce personal pollution in their own backyards. o Pollution Control proactively implemented analysis of more representative bacteria species before new regulations were implemented. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment 5 CCPC Read Ahead TMDL and BMAP Plan Process.docx (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Copper Impairments Pollution Control did further monitoring to determine the source of copper was from the use of copper - based herbicides being directly applied to the stormwater system. Pollution Control then targeted education and outreach to pond owners, including County owned/maintained ponds, on adaptive pond management; discontinued use of copper-based herbicides and nutrient runoff reductions. Iron Impairments Pollution Control did further monitoring to determine the source of iron and found source to be naturally occurring from groundwater flows into the canals. Pollution Control prepared a White Paper with the study results and sent it to FDEP. Pollution Control is working with FDEP to have the impairments classified as naturally occurring. Illicit Discharge training Road and bridge personnel, engineering inspectors, building Inspectors, and code enforcement inspectors have been trained to recognize and report pollution discharges to Pollution Control. Erosion Control LCD amendment now requires erosion control measures on all residential home sites in addition to commercial construction. Many pollutants enter the waterways attached to soil particles. Keeping soils out of the water also keeps pollutants out of the water. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment 5 CCPC Read Ahead TMDL and BMAP Plan Process.docx (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) POLLUTION CONTROL & PREVENTION ORDINANCE Danette Kinaszczuk & Rhonda Watkins Planning Commission-March 7, 2019 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) •Delegates authority to State •Permits and presumptive criteria Clean Water Act 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Impaired Waters Rule F.A.C. 62-303 •CWA mandates that states assess their water quality and report to EPA •Implemented in Florida via the Impaired Waters Rule •Data collected by Pollution Control is used for the assessment •The state determines impairments, TMDLs, and BMAPs, not Pollution Control 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) •33% of waterbodies are impaired •3 have Total Maximum Daily Loads assigned •0 Basin Management Action Plans Status 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) •Classifications •Sampling Sites WBIDs 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Based on fecal coliform criteria Bacteria Impairments 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) •FDEP has previously tied to nutrient impairments •Likely caused by groundwater inputs •No new impairments until numeric nutrient criteria are developed Dissolved Oxygen Impairments 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) •Based on chlorophyll levels •New numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries •No current numeric nutrient criteria for canals Nutrient Impairments 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Caused by use of copper-based herbicides in freshwater systems and anti-fouling paint in estuaries Copper Impairments 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Naturally occurring coming from groundwater Iron Impairments 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Herbicide Application Can homeowners apply herbicides to ponds? 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) RECOMMENDATION 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) Live Green.Save Blue. Thank You Report Pollution. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment 6 CCPC-EAC Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation (8166 : Proposed Pollution Control Ordinance) 03/07/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: LDC Amendments - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to add outdoor lighting limitations on single family dwellings, two family dwellings and duplex dwellings; to provide standards for tree replacement and tree removal in shopping centers; to allow additional pricing signage for facilities with fuel pumps and allow electronic message boards for price signage; to add standards and requirements for permanent emergency generators for single family and two family dwellings; by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements, Section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements and Section 4.06.05 General Landscape Requirements, Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards, adding Section 5.03.07 Permanent Emergency Generators, and including Section 5.05.05 Facilities with Fuel Pumps, Section 5.06.00 Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification, and Section 5.06.06 Prohibited Signs; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] Meeting Date: 03/07/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Jeremy Frantz 02/20/2019 3:16 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 02/20/2019 3:16 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/20/2019 4:41 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/21/2019 10:35 AM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 02/21/2019 4:09 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/26/2019 2:44 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review item Completed 02/27/2019 12:59 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/27/2019 3:41 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 02/27/2019 4:14 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 03/07/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 154 Memorandum To: Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) From: Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Date: February 27, 2019 Re: 2019 LDC Amendments On February 7, 2019, the CCPC did not vote but decided to reexamine four LDC amendments. A brief recap of the CCPC’s request for additional information and recommended changes is outlined below, as well as a description of any changes or new materials. Yellow highlighting in the individual amendments reflect where changes have been made to amendment text. 1. LDC Sections 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 - Permanent Emergency Generators o Add to the purpose and intent section the words “to reduce noise” and even “aesthetics”. This change has been made in the revised amendment. o Provide decibel noise studies and back up material of a 2007 generator noise study that was reviewed by the prior planning commission. The following documents have been provided: 1) “Exhibit F” lists the manufacturer’s specification for sound level readings during testing and normal operating loads, according to the generator’s type and size. 2) The noise study presented to the Planning Commission prior to the adoption of the existing generator standards which demonstrated actual sound measurements taken at distances of 10, 18, and 50 feet for a generator operating at normal loads, and during testing periods, with 15kw, 25kw, and 45 kw capacity. 3) A February 2019, Consumer Reports (CR) article, “The Science of Sound” by Logan Wood demonstrates sound levels of common household products. o Obtain a Fire Official’s comment regarding the concern for emergency services access and fire safety. Staff contacted the North Naples Fire District Chief requesting the attendance of a Fire Official and the Assistant Chief of North Naples Fire Control and Rescue 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Staff Memo to CCPC 2-27-2019 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) District will attend the meeting ad address emergency services and fire control access. o When a generator is allowed in the front yard of a double frontage corner lot. Staff has proposed additional text to clarify that the front yard is the longest street frontage and the setback standard to the lot line shall be in accordance with the side yard setback listed in Table 1. ***Public comments received after the first CCPC meeting have also been included in the packet*** 2. LDC Section 4.02.08 - Outdoor Residential Lighting o Address higher lighting levels, provide a foot candle standard for easier enforcement and consider shielding and differences in ambient lighting in urban and rural settings Staff has revised and simplified the amendment to only include a foot candle standard. Additional exhibits have been added to the amendment demonstrating other lighting standards. Additional information regarding foot candle standards will be presented at the meeting. 3. LDC Sections 4.06.02 & 4.06.05 - Revised Commercial Landscaping o Remove the word “mature” from the purpose and intent section. o Reduce the 15-year limitation to 10 years o Consider removing the prohibition on slash pine and bald cypress or create a limitation on their use. o Remove the reference to PUD deviations and variances. These changes have all been made in the revised amendment. 4. LDC Sections 5.05.05, 5.06.00 & 5.06.06 - Gas Station Signs o Provide additional information demonstrating the need for this amendment. An example prototype sign proposed by Wawa has been provided. Additional justification is anticipated to be provided by industry representatives. o Provide references mentioned in Florida Statute 553.79. The following references are provided: 1) An excerpt of FS 553.79, 2) FS 526.111, 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Staff Memo to CCPC 2-27-2019 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 3) FS 526.121, and 4) The 2004 Standard Alphabet for Highway Signs (Series C, D, and E signs are referenced in FS 553.79). Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeremy Frantz, AICP JeremyFrantz@colliergov.net (239) 252-2305 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Staff Memo to CCPC 2-27-2019 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180003486 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment introduces a new section to address the placement and location of residential permanent emergency generators for single-family and two-family dwelling units. The amendment establishes locational criteria to property lines, another generator, ancillary fuel tanks, window openings to a dwelling, and when necessary the installation of carbon monoxide detectors. LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts 5.03.07 Permanent Emergency Generators (New Section) ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners HEARING DATES BCC - TBD CCPC 2/7/19 DSAC 2/6/19 DSAC-LDR 12/18/18 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approved with recommendations DSAC TBD CCPC TBD 7 BACKGROUND After Hurricane Irma, all of the County’s 270,000 customers served by Florida Power and Light had power outages. There has been a significant increase of County residents installing various residential permanent emergency generators as a means of resiliency against power outage events. Many building permit applications have been rejected due to setback requirements, lacking a detailed location plan, or insufficient information. The majority of permits issued have been for 20 and 22 kilowatt generators which represent 77.2% of the total permits and 89.5% are 30 kilowatts or less. (See Exhibit A). On June 26, 2018, the Board directed staff to proceed with an amendment to increase flexibility for the placement of emergency generators on residential parcels or lots. Staff reviewed common manufacturers’ recommended minimum surrounding clearances from walls, fences and landscaping (See Exhibit B), standards in other communities (See Exhibit C), and other guidelines. Staff also worked with industry professionals to better understand common constraints and potential safety issues. The amendment provides additional flexibility for generator placement by establishing minimum setbacks from property lines that vary depending on the required yard sizes. These setbacks are based on the majority of generators being placed within three to four feet from the exterior house’s wall. Four out of five common manufacturer’s installation guidelines would be able to meet placement within four feet of the house wall (see Exhibit B- yellow highlight). The amendment also addresses potential health, safety and welfare associated with adding permanent generators in close proximity to homes by requiring minimum distances between generators and mechancial air intake equipment, compliance with manufacturer’s specifications, concurrent review of applicable building permits and providing design standards consistent with the Florida’s building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fuel and gas codes. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8-19.docx A scaled illustration of the proposed 10 feet separation standard between generators is shown in Exhibit D along with photos of installed generators taken from West Coast Generators’s website. Additionally, the exhibit identifies two generator permits that have been rejected, one in a side yard setback of 6.0’ and the other 7.5’. To meet manufacturer’s locational specifications and current LDC code requirement, these generators exceeded the current standard by 11 inches and 8 inches. The DSAC-LDR subcommittee accepted staff’s textual changes and made the following recommendations: Revise the words or term “permanent emergency generators” to “optional standby generators” to relate to the Florida Building and National Electrical Code’s use of the term. Report back at the full DSAC meeting, if the County Attorney’s Office or Building Manager has a reason not to change the term. Require screening when the generator’s placement is in the front yard, on a waterfront or preserve lot. Increase the setback to road right-of-ways from two feet to five feet. Require a five feet setback from waterfront or preserve lots. Modify the Table to alleviate possible confusion with a required setback for a side yard. The proposed text incorporates the DSAC-LDR subcommittee’s recommendations. After consulting with the County Attorney’s Office, the title “ permanent emergency generators” does not require a change to address the Florida Building or National Electrical Code definitions and use of the term “optional standby generators”. On February 6, 2019, the DSAC unanimously approved the proposed textual changes recommended by the DSAC-LDR subcommittee. On February 7, 2019, the CCPC did not vote on the amendment. Following a general discussion, they decided to re-examine the amendment at a later date and requested a Fire Official attend the next meeting to determine if there are access, fire safety or firefighting concerns when multiple mechanical equipment (A/C and generators) are located between two adjoining residential lots with a minimum five feet sideyard setback. They also recommended adding to the purpose intent section the words “to reduce noise” and requested a 2007 noise study, that had been reviewed by a prior planning commission, be provided. This study had assisted the planning commission in establishing the current acceptable sound level at 75 db(A). FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no fiscal or operational impacts with this amendment to the County. When applicable, the homeowner’s added costs are to screen a generator, install carbon monoxide detectors, extend an exhaust outlet and acquire a spot survey. GMP CONSISTENCY Based upon staff’s analysis, the amendment is consistent with the GMP. (See Exhibit E) EXHIBITS: A) Permanent Generator Permits Issued or Rejected; B) Manufacturer’s Surrounding Clearances; C) Other Florida Communities Research; D) Illustrations; E) GMP Consistency Review 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 4.02.01 - Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts 1 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 4 D. Exemptions and exclusions from design standards. 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 13. Permanent emergency generators may be placed within the rear yard with a 10-9 foot rear yard setback. Permanent emergency generators may encroach into side 10 yards up to 36 inches. Generators are not permitted to encroach into required front 11 yards. For single-family and two-family dwelling units, see LDC section 5.03.07 for 12 exceptions and requirements. Above-ground fuel tanks for the generators are 13 subject to the same setbacks; however, underground tanks are not subject to 14 setback requirements. In order to reduce noise during required routine exercising 15 of the generators, this exercising is restricted to operating the generator for no 16 more than 30 minutes, weekly once every seven days, during the hours of 9:00 17 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and shall not exceed sound level limits for Manufacturing and 18 Industrial uses as set forth in Ordinance 90-17, the Noise Ordinance, as amended. 19 All permanent emergency generators must be equipped with sound attenuating 20 housing to reduce noise. 21 22 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 23 24 5.03.07 - Permanent Emergency Generators 25 26 A. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this section to reduce noise, protect the public 27 health and safety of homeowners from the risks associated with combustion engines and 28 the entry of carbon monoxide gas to a dwelling unit and to improve the aesthetics of 29 mechanical equipment. It is the intent to improve the resiliency of homeowners who seek 30 shelter at home during periods of electrical power outages. 31 32 B. Applicability. Permanent emergency generators for single-family and two-family dwellings 33 shall be permitted as an accessory use and located in accordance with LDC section 34 5.03.07 Table 1. 35 36 C. Standards and Requirements. 37 38 1. Permanent emergency generators shall adhere to all generator manufacturer’s 39 locational specifications and applicable federal, state, and local code 40 requirements. The manufacturer’s locational specifications shall be concurrently 41 reviewed with the applicable electrical, structural, mechanical, gas piping, and 42 storage tank permits. 43 44 2. Submittals. At a minimum, the applicant’s site plan shall indicate the location and 45 dimension of the proposed generator, generator exhaust direction and permanent 46 fuel tank(s) in proximity to the dwelling unit and lot line. The site plan shall be 47 provided with the building permit application. 48 49 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx 3. Location and Distances. Permanent emergency generators may be located in the 1 required front, side and rear yard setback in accordance with the following Table 2 1. All distance setback and separation requirements shall be measured from the 3 most restrictive of the generator’s enclosure or exhaust outlet and adhere to the 4 following: 5 6 a. When located underneath the dwelling unit, the exhaust outlet shall be 7 vented outside of the dwelling unit above the roof line. 8 9 b. Generators may be allowed in the front yard, at a distance no greater than 10 six feet from the dwelling unit in zoning districts with 35 feet front yard 11 setback or greater and shall require a vegetative screen. For corner lots, 12 the generator may be allowed in the front yard which has the longest street 13 frontage utilizing the side yard generator setback standards in Table1. 14 15 c. Generators located in the rear yard with a waterfront or preserve lot shall 16 require a vegetative screen. 17 18 d. Generators elevated 30 inches or more above the general ground level of 19 the graded lot, including the supporting structure, shall be set back the 20 same as the principal structure for the zoning district. 21 22 TABLE 1 Generator Setback and Separation Standards (feet) 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Side Yard Setback Distance to Lot Line 5 or Less 1 Greater Than 5 and Up To 7.5 2 Greater Than 7.5 and Up To 20 4 20 or greater 10 Rear Yard 7.5 or Less 5 Greater Than 7.5 10 waterfront lot 5 non-waterfront or preserve lot Separation Distance to Public and Private Road Right-Of-Way 5 Between Mechanical Air Intake Equipment or Other Generator 10 Distance from Windows, Soffit Vent, Eaves, Other Mechanical Air Intake To the Dwelling, Shrubs and Trees 5 Distance from Gas and Electrical Meters 3 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx 4. Carbon Monoxide Detector. If any exterior wall openings are within 10 feet of the 1 generator’s exhaust outlet, at least one carbon monoxide detector shall be installed 2 inside the structure near the exterior wall openings and on each floor level. 3 4 5. Generator Noise and Testing. Generator noise and routine testing shall be in 5 compliance with LDC section 4.02.1 D.13. 6 7 D. Additional Requirements for Diesel and Gasoline Engines. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 8 diesel or gasoline powered generators shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from any 9 lot line. 10 11 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 12 13 14 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Permanent Generator Permits Issued or Rejected 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx Generator KW Size 2017 Yr. Ending 2018 thru July 5 Total Permits 2017 Total thru KW 30 2018 Total thru KW 30 Total Combined % of all permits 7.5 1 0 1 8 1 0 1 11 1 0 1 12 1 3 4 14 0 1 1 15 1 0 1 16 3 5 8 19.5 1 0 1 20 62 119 181 34.6 22 88 135 223 42.6 23 0 0 0 24 4 5 9 25 1 4 5 27 7 5 12 30 8 12 20 179 289 468 89.5 32 3 5 8 36 1 2 3 38 5 9 14 40 0 4 4 45 2 0 2 48 9 8 17 60 2 3 5 80 1 0 1 100 0 1 1 Totals 202 321 523 Missing size information, rejected or lacking other information 78 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit B – Manufacturers’ Surrounding Clearances 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx Generator Manufacturer 14 to 30 KW Briggs/Stratton 17 /20 -25 Air-Liquid Cooled Champion 14 Air Cooled Kohler Res14/20 Air Cooled Kohler RCL24 Liquid Cooled Generac 16/20/22 Air Cooled Generac 22/25/30 Liquid Cooled Generac 22/27 Spark Ignited Cummins RS22 Air Cooled Dimension Width 34”-30” 30.1” 26.2” 32.9 “ 25” 30.6” 29” 34” Clearances Exhaust Outlet 5’ 5’ 4’ 8’ 5’ Overhead 5’ 5’ 5’ Shrubs 5’ 4’ SWRI-Rated 18” 18” 18” 1 Hour- Fire Rated 17.7” 3’ Non-Rated 5’ Total Clearance and Width (Inches) Encroachment SWRI-Rated 52-48 44.2 50.9 43 48.6 47 52 Fire Rated 52-48 47.8 62.2 68.9 61 66.6 65 70 Non-Rated 94-90 90.1 86.2 92.9 85 90.6 89 94 Exhibit Based on Generac’s Site Selection Installation Guidelines 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit C – Other Florida Communities Research 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx Community Setbacks Zoning Districts Side Rear Distance to Property Line (PL) County Brevard1 All Residential 4’ into required side and rear yard. Not Addressed (N/A) Miami-Dade2 Residential Urban 3’ 5’ Residential Estates 5’ 5’ Orange3 All Residential 10’ 5’ or rear ½ of lot or parcel Palm Beach4 Single-Family 3’ 5’ Zero lot line 5’ Sarasota All districts except Siesta Key Overlay District (SKOD) Exempt from setback requirements when located at above ground level or elevated due to FEMA elevation requirements. No closer than 3’ SKOD Same as side yard setback. City Boca Raton All Residential Districts Anywhere within side or rear yard. N/A Boynton Beach5 3’ plus 1 foot for every 1 foot above height of 6 feet but not greater than the minimum principal structure setback. Key Biscayne6 Single-Family and Two-Family 5’ Lighthouse Point7 All Residential Districts 5’ Not allowed. 5’ Naples Same as principal structure (SPS). N/A North Miami8 5’ 5’ or 15’ from rear street PL. Ocean Ridge SPS 5’ Marco Island 4’ into required side or rear yard. N/A Miami Springs Anywhere within side or rear yard. Town of Palm Beach 5’ 5’ 5’ Palmetto Bay9 5’ 5’ N/A Plantation10 2.5’ from side or rear property line and 7.5’ from sidewalk, bikeway, or street right-of-way lines. Redington Beach Anywhere within side or rear yard. N/A Sanibel Anywhere within side or rear yard. 10’ South Miami 12.5’ 12.5’ 12.5’ Footnotes and Additional Criteria: 1- Encroachment is not subject to separation distances between structures. 2- 10’ setback from street property line. 3- 15’ setback from side street. 4- Encroachment is limited to 10% of setback requirement and generators less than 4’ in height. 5- Not allowed in front yard or corner side yard unless approved by administrative adjustment and no other on-site location is feasible or there is a finding the location and use or design of the abutting property would not have negative impact. 6- None in a yard facing any street. Propane gas tanks – 5 feet to side property line, limited to 500 gallons above ground and 1,000 gallons underground. 7- If not 5 feet from property line, then generator must be placed lengthwise and 1 foot from building. 8- 15’ from rear street property line. 9- 10’ from rear street. 10- Generators above 5.5’ height must comply with same setback as principal structure. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit D – Illustrations 9 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx Exhibit D-Illustrations 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit D – Illustrations 10 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit D – Illustrations 11 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit E- GMP Consistency Review 12 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Rich\Generators Setback\Drafts\Residential Permanent Emergency Generators DSAC-LDR Revisions 2-8- 19.docx 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 4.02.01 & 5.03.07 Residential Permanent Emergency Generators 2-8-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit F - Manufacturer’s Generator Sound Level Readings (2-15-19) Note: Collier County Generator Noise Related Code Enforcement Cases For the period between January 10, 2017 and February 21, 2019, the Growth Management Department-Code Enforcement Operations Division recorded 274 noise related complaints which only four cases were related to generator noise that had resulted from the use of a temporary or portable generator and none from permanent emergency generators. Typical Generator Size- 20 to 22KW (yellow highlighted) KW Size Manufacturer Width Inches Length Inches Height Inches Average Output Sound dB(A) measured at 23’ - Manual Testing Specification Sheet AC-Air Cooled LC-Liquid Cooled SI-Spark Ignited Weekly Full or Normal Load 17 Briggs-Stratton 34 48.1 29.6 69.1 AC 20 29.6 48.1 30.6 64 AC 25 32.3 71 37 69 70 LC 14 RESAL Kohler 26.2 47.8 28.9 63 67 AC 20 RESC 64 69 AC 24/30/38 RCL 32.9 74 46 54 61 LC 48/60 89.8 45.2 60 61 LC RS 20A/AC and RS14 AF Cummins 40.8 52.7 35 62 AC RS22 34 72 45.5 64 LC- 50/50 mixture. RS25 RS 36 34 94 45.5 63 14 Champion 30 49 28 63.5 SI 16/20 Generac 25.5 48.5 28.8 55 67 AC 22 57 67 22/27 30.6 62.2 38.6 59 72 LC 25/30 59 73 36/45 35 76.8 46.1 61 72 32/38 58 64 48 63 68 60 65 72 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Exhibit F Manufacturer's Sound Level Readings (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Noise disturbance Loud, harsh, non-harmonious sounds or vibrations that are unpleasant and irritating to the ear; which is or may be harmful or injurious to the health or welfare of a reasonable person with normal sensitivities or unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life, property or outdoor recreation. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) sound measurement (as provided for in the Collier County Noise Control Ordinance) Ord. No. 90-17 Sound level limits (in A-weighted decibels) Maximum sound pressure levels (in unweighted decibels) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Sound level limits +/-2 dBA Zoning/Use at the location of the Sound-affected Site or Unit Time of Day or Night Sound Level Limit (dBA) Residential 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.60 ” “After 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.55 Commercial or tourist 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. After 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 65 60 Manufacturing or industrial At all times 75 Agricultural At all times 75 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Octave Band Center Freq. (in Hertz.) Residential Site or Unit Tourist or Commercial Site or Unit Manufacturing, Industrial, or Agricultural Site or Unit 31.5 Day 69--Night 64 Day 74--Night 69 84 63 Day 69--Night 64 Day 74--Night 69 84 125 Day 66--Night 61 Day 71--Night 66 81 250 Day 62--Night 57 Day 67--Night 62 77 500 Day 58--Night 53 Day 63--Night 58 73 1000 Day 53--Night 48 Day 58--Night 53 68 2000 Day 49--Night 44 Day 54--Night 49 64 4000 Day 46--Night 41 Day 51--Night 46 61 8000 Day 42--Night 37 Day 47--Night 42 57 DBA 60 55 65 60 75 The DBA row is for comparison purposes only. Refer to "Correction for Character of Sound" in subsection (3)(C), below. Maximum sound pressure levels 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Distances measured ⚫Measured at 10 feet ⚫Measured at 18 feet ⚫Measured at 50 feet (as required by Noise Ordinance) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Units measured ⚫15 kw air-cooled unit ⚫25 kw liquid-cooled unit ⚫45 kw liquid-cooled unit 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Factors influencing sound level ⚫Engine size smaller engine=higher rpm larger engine=lower rpm ⚫Unit Insulation more insulation=less sound less insulation=more sound ⚫Condition of unit Good condition/new=less sound Poor condition/older=more sound 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Test measurements are not adjusted for ambient sound which measured 56-58 dBA at all sites. Sources of ambient sound include: lawnmowers, leaf blowers, construction and traffic. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 15kw @ 10'84.4 15kw @ 18'79.9 15kw @ 50'77.9 25kw @ 10'86.4 25kw @ 18'81.3 25kw @ 50'79.6 45kw @ 10'77.5 45kw @ 18'72.2 45kw @ 50'68.5 Sound level limit = 75 dBA 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 15kw @ 10'68.2 80.9 83.9 83.1 84.3 77.2 71.9 83.3 73.2 65 62.1 63.8 15kw @ 18'63.9 76 82.8 79.1 78.1 75.4 65.7 78.8 70.5 58.5 55.9 58.8 15kw @ 50'72.4 68.8 75.3 74.3 71.1 73.6 82.2 69.7 67.6 51 43.6 44.5 25kw @ 10'71.5 81.2 86.8 91.2 91.4 91.2 80.3 79.1 78.2 77.5 75.2 66 25kw @ 18'72.3 76.2 83.2 86.8 87 87.8 72 73.9 72.1 72.5 71.8 63 25kw @ 50'72.2 74.1 83.2 89.2 85.3 85.6 73.6 70.4 71.7 67.5 65.5 58.7 45kw @ 10'78 77.7 86.6 90.1 86.2 78.3 78.3 66.2 66.9 60.7 59.6 53.5 45kw @ 18'79.8 74.4 85.2 85.2 82 74.3 69.8 65 62.7 59.1 58.2 53.7 45kw @ 50'70.5 68.2 82.5 84.2 75.2 76.4 64.1 56.2 56.8 52.1 50.5 47.3 level limit 84 84 81 77 73 68 64 61 57 8 16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16K 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) The future ⚫More people are getting generators ⚫More people are coming from non- hurricane prone areas People are more tolerant of generator noise since Wilma. As we move further away from the incidence of a major storm people forget and get more bothered by generator noise. New residents, who have no experience with a major storm will have less tolerance to generator noise. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: 2007 LDC cycle 1 noise study PowerPoint (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Consumer Reports Sound Level Comparison (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 1 HenderlongRichard From:Joseph Dvorak <josephdvorak13@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 21, 2019 11:28 AM To:HenderlongRichard Subject:Fwd: Permanent Emergency Generator > > Dear Mr. Henderlong, > I have attended 2 other meetings on this subject, but unfortunately , I am out of town for the 3/7 meeting. > Please read this to the Planning Board at the meeting. > > We purchased our home in Lely 1 1/2 yrs ago with the intent to be come Florida residents. We are now Florida residence and very happy to be living in this wonderful state. When we purchased our home one of our main criteria was natural gas and the ability to install a permanent emergency generator. At the time we were told the generator would be no problem and that many people already have generators in our community. > > We submitted our application almost a year ago and were told that our generator pad penetrated the side yard easement by 3 inches !!! yes 3 inches!!!. I was shocked and very surprised . We were told we could pay $3,000 to request a variance, but there would be no guarantee we would get it. So the planning department suggested putting it in our front side yard and even approve this location. I repeat! FRONT SIDE YARD rather than between two homes. We have since found out that it is highly unlikely our HOA would approve the FRONT SIDE YARD! > > The street we live on in Lakoya VII Neighborhood might have 50 homes and at least 20 to 25 homes already have natural gas generators and all of the homes are only 10 to 12 feet apart. > > Additional comments should there be any questions: > > Sound- Generators only run 5 to 10 minutes once a week. We are near the golf course and we hear lawnmowers every single day which are much louder than the generators and for a much longer time! > > Fire- why would the fire department want to generators to be closer to the home rather than further from the home? This makes no sense. > > Easement- why is it that in our entire neighborhood the pool equipment and air conditioning units all penetrate the easement by at least 12 to 24 inches but this is considered OK? > > Summary > In summary, we are entitled to Equal Protection by the Collier County governmental body that it cannot deny us a generator when many of our neighbors already have generators. The governing body must treat us in the same manner as our neighbors. > By allowing generator to be installed it also helps prevent the over burdening of public shelters in the time of emergency. > > I strongly recommend the board approve the change to the side yard easement as has been recommended by the Zoning Division . > Thank you ! 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Public Comment - Email from Joseph Dvorak 2-21-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180002632 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment establishes standards for new outdoor lighting associated with single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units, and duplexes. These standards are intended to prevent high-intensity outdoor lighting from negatively impacting neighboring residential properties. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 03/07/2019 02/07/2019 DSAC 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 10/16/2018 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC Denial CCPC TBD BACKGROUND Currently, there are no limitations with respect to outdoor lighting on residential properties with single- family dwellings, two-family dwellings, or duplexes. However, the variety and intensity of lighting fixtures available to homeowners at retail outlets presents an opportunity for outdoor lighting to negatively impact surrounding residential properties. As a result, the GMD has been unable to resolve complaints received by the Code Enforcement Division regarding residential outdoor lighting shining toward neighboring homes, which are typically received up to several times a year. At the March 13, 2018, Board of County Commissioners (Board) meeting, a member of the public requested an ordinance to address significant nuisance lighting on single-family properties (See Item 7). At the June 21, 2018, Budget Workshop, one Commissioner noted an awareness of lighting problems on residential properties, suggesting a need for County Staff to address the issue. As a remedy, this amendment creates a performance standard for illumination at the property line. The amendment does not apply to lighting on multi-family residential development (three or more units). The brightness and energy usage measurements correspond with the types of floodlights or other outdoor lights which have the potential to impact neighbors (See Figures 1 and 2) and can be applied to both traditional incandescent lights and LEDs. Outdoor lighting standards for single-family residences vary throughout the state (See Exhibit A), and various foot candle standards exist throughout Collier County’s LDC (See Exhibit B). Additionally, other lighting requirements for single-family and multi-family development is provided for informational purposes in Exhibit C. A building permit is not required to install most lighting fixtures. Therefore, this standard will primarily be implemented through the code enforcement process when a complaint is issued. If a code violation is 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19.docx reported, homeowners could remedy a potential violation by repositioning the lights, using shielding, or installing new lighting fixtures that comply with the proposed standard. Figure 1. Lumen levels for typical outdoor lights Source: https://gamasonic.com/how-many-lumens-do-you-need-for-outdoor-lighting/ Figure 2. Department of Energy comparison of lumens and traditional incandescent watts. Source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/lumens_placard-black.pdf FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS This amendment could result in additional unexpected costs for homeowners to replace light bulbs with lower lumens or to replace fixtures. There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the County associated with this amendment. The amendment will allow code enforcement to resolve some complaints regarding outdoor lighting. GMP CONSISTENCY In the limited areas where the Growth Management Plan (GMP) does address outdoor lighting, there is no specificity provided. Only the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) policies pertaining to wildlife protection, e.g. Policies 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 regarding sea turtles, may have applicability to the dwelling unit types addressed in this LDC amendment but, again, there is no specificity provided. Further, such lighting would have to comply with both this new LDC provision and the CCME policies. EXHIBITS: A) Lighting Standards in Other Communities B) Foot Candle Limitations in Collier County C) Lighting Standards for Residential Development D) Advisory Board Recommendations 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 4.02.08 - Outside Lighting Requirements 1 2 A. Lights on golf courses shall be located and designed so that no light is aimed directly 3 toward property designated residential, which is located within 200 feet of the source of 4 the light. 5 6 B. Specific height requirements in zoning districts. 7 8 1. GC—Twenty-five (25) feet 9 10 2. C-1—Twenty-five (25) feet 11 12 3. CF—Twenty-five (25) feet 13 14 C. Lights on lots with single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, or duplexes. Illumination 15 shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles above ambient light levels at abutting residential property 16 lines. 17 18 # # # # # # # # # # # # #19 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19.docx Community Standard Citation Lee County (Upper Captiva Planning Area) “All outdoor lighting, including lighting on docks and bulkheads, must be designed, installed, located, and maintained to be hooded, shielded, and/or aimed downward.” Art. XI Division 4 Sec. 33-1736 City of Sanibel “All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed to prevent glare and light trespass. Light shall not be allowed to cause glare affecting motorists, bicyclists, or other users of roads, driveways and bicycle paths. Light shall not trespass over property lines.” (More detailed standards follow this section) Art. XIV Div. 4 Sec. 12-997 (c) City of Naples “(a) Permitted exterior lighting. Exterior lighting or light fixtures may be utilized at grade and at the 1st habitable floor of multifamily structures, provided that: (1) The lighting is confined to a front yard facing a public street, or to that portion of the facade facing a public street; and (2) The light source is directed only at the facade of the building. Lighting may also be utilized at grade to enhance landscape features. Exterior lighting shall be designed, arranged or shielded in such manner that all adjacent properties and the public roadways are protected from direct glare. (b) Prohibited lighting. The use of exterior lighting or light fixtures on any portion of the facade or roof of a multifamily structure above the 1st habitable floor shall not be permitted. (c) Exemptions. Warning lights, as required by state or federal agencies, and exterior lights used exclusively for and associated with outdoor walkways, stairs, hallways, pool areas, and living spaces such as balconies, terraces, screened porches, and similar spaces shall be exempt from the requirement as listed in subsection (b) of this section. Nonpermanent lighting, used exclusively during the holiday period from November 15 to January 15, is also excluded from this prohibition. (d) Nonconforming lighting. Nonconforming multifamily structures shall be brought into conformance with this section by April 30, 1998.” Chapter 56 Art. III Sec. 56-89 City of Bonita Springs “All light fixtures shall have bulbs that are fully recessed within the fixture and may not emit light above horizontal plan (sic)” Chapter 10 Art. III. Div. 3 Sec. 10-102 (d)(1)(a) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Lighting Standards in Other Communities 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19.docx Marco Island “(a) Regulation of the intensity and glare of outdoor lighting shall be as follows: (1) No lighting source shall cause more than 1.0 footcandle of illumination to fall on adjoining residential single-family (RSF) zoned property.” (Additional shielding standards follow this section) Chapter 6 Art. V Sec. 6-145 Volusia County No person may install, construct, erect, maintain, or control any outdoor lighting or outdoor lighting fixture on a residential structure, or on its surrounding premises, which directly illuminates beyond the adjacent residential structure's property line, between sunset and sunrise. For the purposes of this section, adjacent property shall include all property within 360 degrees of the subject property, notwithstanding an intervening right-of-way. For the purposes of this section, property line shall be an invisible plane extending vertically at a 90-degree angle from ground level to a point above the height of the highest structure on either the subject property or the adjacent property. Sec. 50-480 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit B –Foot Candle Limitations in Collier County 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19.docx Citation Standard LDC Section 6.06.03 B. – Streetlights “B. At the entry/exit of any residential or commercial development approved through a SDP, SDPA, or PPL located on a public collector or arterial street… “At the points where the edges of pavement of the entrance road meet the intersecting right-of-way line, the illumination level shall be at or between, a minimum of 2.0 foot candles and maximum of 5.0 foot candles…” LDC Section 5.05.05 D.4.a.v – Facilities with Fuel Pumps “v. Illumination shall not exceed: a) 0.5 foot-candles at all residential property lines; and b) 0.2 foot-candles at ten (10) feet beyond all residential property lines” Code of Laws Section 26-95 (2) – Security Requirements “All convenience stores shall: … (2) Maintain parking lots, illuminated at an intensity of two foot-candles per square foot…” Top Hat Auto PUD (Ordinance 13-24) “Illumination at all adjacent residential property lines shall not exceed .5 foot candles.” 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit C – Lighting Standards for Residential Development 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19.docx National Electrical Code- Article 210 Branch Circuits (Applicable to single- and multi-family development) 210.70 – Lighting Outlets Required (A) Dwelling Units (2) Additional Locations. Additional lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with (A)(2)(a), (A)(2)(b) and (A)(2)(c). (a) (not applicable) (b) For dwelling units, attached garages, and detached garages with electrical power, at least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed to provide illumination on the exterior side of outdoor entrances or exits with grade level access. A vehicle door in a garage shall not be considered as an outdoor entrance or exit. (c) Where one or more lighting outlet(s) are installed for interior stairways, there shall be a wall switch at each floor level, and landing level that includes an entryway, to control the lighting outlet(s) where the stairway between floor levels has six risers or more. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Collier County LDC 4.05.02 D. – Design Standards (Off-Street Parking and Loading) (Applicable to residential development with off-street parking) Parking lots shall be so lighted, if lighted, as to shield streets and all adjacent properties from direct glare, excessive light, and hazardous interference with automotive and pedestrian traffic. For projects subject to architectural design standards, see LDC section 5.05.08 F. for related provisions. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.06.03 – Streetlights (Applicable to streetlights only) A. Streetlights shall be designed and installed utilizing the IES standards for each street, intersection at required intervals along each street and at the end of each cul-de-sac. The IES standards for this street lighting are per IESNA RP 8.00, except as below: B. At the entry/exit of any residential or commercial development approved through a SDP, SDPA, or PPL located on a public collector or arterial street, the following additional standards shall apply. For projects subject to architectural design standards, see LDC section 5.05.08 F. for related provisions. 1. At the points where the edges of pavement of the entrance road meet the intersecting right-of-way line, the illumination level shall be at or between, a minimum of 2.0 foot candles and maximum of 5.0 foot candles. In cases when this Code may conflict with any other lighting codes, requirements, policies, or recommendations relating to the 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit C – Lighting Standards for Residential Development 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19.docx spillover of light outside of project boundaries, public safety needs shall be evaluated by staff and shall take precedence in the required placement of fixtures. 1. A full cutoff fixture is required on both sides of each entry or exit outside of the intersecting public right-of-way except when located at a single-lane one-way driveway. In such case, one (1) fixture will be allowed but it shall meet minimum required foot- candle values. If the applicant can show the existing illumination levels from existing roadway lighting meet the required foot candles through a photometric lighting plan (calculated or by field measurement) certified by an engineer, licensed in the State of Florida, the county manager or designee may waive or modify the requirement for additional lighting at the point where the entry road intersects the public right-of-way. C. All sidewalks not directly lighted by street lighting that interconnect developments must be lighted to pedestrian level standards per IESNA RP-8-00. D. Wherever, in the opinion of the County Manager or designee, based on an engineer's determination, a dangerous condition is created by sharp curves, irregularities in street alignment, or other similar circumstances, additional lights may be required. Streetlights and mounting poles shall be wired for underground service. All conduits and casing to be placed under the roadway required for the lights must be installed during each construction phase prior to roadway subbase completion. Streetlights shall be designed and installed in either of 2 ways: 1. Where streetlights are to be installed on private streets, the developer, through an electrical engineer registered in the State of Florida, shall design and install the street lighting system subject to the approval of the County Manager or designee. Upon completion of the streetlights, they shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the property owners' association, a condominium association, cooperative association, or other similar entity, or the public utility furnishing the electric service. 2. Where the streetlights are to be installed on public streets, the developer may elect to initiate a municipal services benefit or taxing unit in coordination with the County Manager or designee in order to provide street lighting. If the municipal services benefit or taxing unit is approved by the BCC, the County Manager or designee shall authorize the public utility to design, install, and maintain the street lighting system at no cost to the County's general fund. If no municipal services benefit or taxing unit is created for public streets, the provision of this section shall govern the design, construction, and maintenance of streetlights. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit D – Advisory Board Recommendations 9 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Residential Lighting (PL20180002632)\4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19.docx DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed the amendment on October 16, and December 18, 2018, and recommended approval with no changes to the amendment. DSAC Recommendation The DSAC reviewed the amendment on February 6, 2019, and recommended denial but indicated it was amenable to several changes to the amendment, including: • Increasing the wattage of lighting to which the provision is applicable, • Clarifying the ambiguity regarding the direction of lights, and • Allowing timers and motion sensors to be used to comply with the new standards. CCPC Recommendation The CCPC reviewed the amendment on February 7, 2019, and recommended modifying the standards to address higher lighting levels, provide foot-candle standards that will be easier to enforce. Additionally, the CCPC suggested requiring shielding and to consider the differences in ambient lighting in urban and rural settings when establishing maximum light levels. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 4.02.08 Outside Lighting Requirements 2-26-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180002769 SUMMARY This Board directed amendment places new restrictions on the replacement and removal of required landscaping trees at commercial shopping centers. The amendment seeks to maintain mature canopy trees at shopping centers and their value to the surrounding neighborhood. LDC SECTIONS TO BE AMENDED 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 03/07/2019 02/07/2019 DSAC 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 10/16/2018 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval with Changes DSAC Denial CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On January 23, 2018, the Board directed staff to draft LDC standards that maintain the ability to change existing landscaping plans while also ensuring those changes would retain mature canopy trees and maintain an aesthetically pleasing community appearance. This amendment makes four modifications to the landscaping requirements for shopping centers to minimize the impact of mature landscaping being replaced with minimum sized trees: 1. Allows additional spacing in Type D buffers for improved visibility into shopping centers. 2. Limits the planting of slash pine and bald cypress to 30 percent in new landscaping plans or existing landscaping plans that are removing trees from the Vehicle Use Area (VUA) or Type D buffer. 3. Limits the large-scale removal or replacement of required trees in the VUA and Type D Buffer to 50 percent of the required trees within a period of 10 years. 4. Provides an exemption for trees removed through a cultivated tree removal permit, or to replace diseased or dead trees. See Exhibit A for additional background, justification, and other considerations. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Recommendation: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed the amendment on October 16, 2018, and made the following comments: 1. The current requirements for shopping centers already require plantings to be larger than typical development. Creating a new standard that only applies to shopping centers is unnecessary. 2. The provisions related to visibility should be removed as it will not improve visibility for cars passing by at high speeds. Additionally, cell phones are commonly used for navigation so 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19.docx creating a different buffer standard only for Type D buffers won’t necessarily improve visibility. Consider focusing on signage instead of limits on plantings. Changing sign standards so they don’t interfere with landscaping would be more beneficial. 3. The slash pine and bald cypress prohibition should clearly state that they can’t be used for proposed landscaping but that it doesn’t affect existing trees. Protections for existing slash pine and bald cypress in parking lots would be preferable. 4. One of the shopping centers that gained attention for its landscaping changes was trying to address tree roots damaging the parking lot and lighting that was too close to trees. Not allowing the removal of landscaping forces property owners to be liable for trip and fall hazards when roots are damaging pavement or prevents them from updating developments that were built to out-dated standards. The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed the amendment a second time on December 18, 2018 and stated that the amendment is not necessary and furthermore that the limitation on removing a maximum of 50 percent of the landscaping within 15 years is too restrictive. However, the Subcommittee recommended that if the Board were to approve the amendment, the 50 percent limitation should be removed, and the timeframe reduced to ten years. DSAC Recommendation: The DSAC reviewed the amendment on February 6, 2019 and stated that the amendment is unnecessary and recommended denial of the amendment. However, the DSAC offered that if the amendment were approved by the Board, the 50 percent limitation on removal of required trees and the prohibition on slash pine and bald cypress should be removed. Additionally, the limitation of 15 years should be reduced to 10 years. CCPC Recommendation: The CCPC reviewed the amendment on February 7, 2019 and made the following recommendations: • Remove the word “mature” from the purpose and intent section. • Reduce the 15-year limitation to 10 years. • Consider removing the prohibition on slash pine and bald cypress or create a limitation on their use. • Remove the reference to PUD deviations and variances. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The amendment will increase costs for shopping center owners when proposing to replace or remove more than 50 percent of the required trees and may result in unexpected costs when proposals trigger the limitation. There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts to Collier County. GMP CONSISTENCY Based upon the attached analysis, the proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with the GMP (See Exhibit B). EXHIBITS: A) Additional Background and Justification B) GMP Consistency Review 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2- 27-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 C. Types of buffers. Within a required buffer strip, the following types of buffers shall be used 6 based on the matrix in table 2.4. (See Figure 4.06.02.C-1) 7 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 4. Type D Buffer: A landscape buffer shall be required adjacent to any road right-of-11 way external to the development project and adjacent to any primary access roads 12 internal to a commercial development. Said landscape buffer shall be consistent 13 with the provisions of the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan, which is 14 incorporated by reference herein. The minimum width of the perimeter landscape 15 buffer shall vary according to the ultimate width of the abutting right-of-way. Where 16 the ultimate width of the right-of-way is zero to 99 feet, the corresponding 17 landscape buffer shall measure at least ten feet in width. Where the ultimate width 18 of the right-of-way is 100 or more feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall 19 measure at least 15 feet in width. Developments of 15 acres or more and 20 developments within an activity center shall provide a perimeter landscape buffer 21 of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way. Activity center 22 right-of-way buffer width requirements shall not be applicable to roadways internal 23 to the development. 24 25 a. Trees shall be spaced no more than 30 feet on center in the landscape 26 buffer abutting a right-of-way or primary access road internal to a 27 commercial development. As an alternative for shopping centers, the 28 following tree spacing may be allowed through a landscaping plan change 29 to provide additional visibility into shopping centers: 30 31 i. Trees may be spaced no more than 60 feet on center, and 32 33 ii. There shall be at least three consecutive trees on both sides of the 34 60-foot spacing. Said trees shall be spaced no more than 30 feet 35 on center with at least a 30-foot crown spread per tree at the time 36 of the alternative spacing approval. 37 38 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 39 40 4.06.05 – General Landscaping Requirements 41 42 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 43 44 D. Plant Material Standards 45 46 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 47 48 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2- 27-19.docx 2. Trees and palms. All required new individual trees, shall be species having an 1 average mature spread or crown of greater than 20 feet in the Collier County area 2 and having trunk(s) which can be maintained in a clean condition over five feet of 3 clear wood. Trees adjacent to walkways, bike paths and rights-of-way shall be 4 maintained in a clean condition over eight feet of clear wood. Trees having an 5 average mature spread or crown less than 20 feet may be substituted by grouping 6 the same so as to create the equivalent of 20-foot crown spread. For code-required 7 trees, the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 25 gallon, ten feet 8 in height, have a 1¾-inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground) and a four-foot 9 spread. 10 11 a. A grouping of three palm trees will be the equivalent of one canopy tree. 12 Exceptions will be made for Roystonea spp. and Phoenix spp. (not 13 including roebelenii) which shall count one palm for one canopy tree. Palms 14 may be substituted for up to 30 percent of required canopy trees with the 15 following exceptions. No more than 30% percent of canopy trees may be 16 substituted by palms (or palm equivalent) within the interior of a vehicular 17 use area and within each individual Type D road right-of-way landscape 18 buffer. Palms must have a minimum of 10 feet of clear trunk at planting. 19 20 b. All new trees, including palms, shall be of a species having an average 21 mature height of 15 feet or greater. 22 23 c. As of {Effective date of this Ordinance}, no more than 30 percent of 24 required trees for new landscaping plans may be slash pine (Pinus elliottii) 25 or bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) within the vehicular use areas or 26 Type D buffers. 27 28 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 29 30 O. Tree replacement or removal in shopping centers. 31 32 1. Purpose and intent. This section is intended to apply to the removal or replacement 33 of existing canopy trees within Type D buffers and vehicular use areas at shopping 34 centers. Extensive changes to mature landscaping have the potential to impact 35 aesthetic appearance, native plant preservation, buffering, and shade. This section 36 is not intended to prohibit other activities related to the development, 37 redevelopment, or maintenance of shopping centers. 38 39 2. Standards for tree replacement or removal within Type D buffers and vehicular use 40 areas at shopping centers. 41 42 a. A maximum of 50 percent of the required trees per 10-year period may be 43 replaced or removed through a landscaping plan change. 44 45 b. No more than 30 percent of replacement trees within Type D buffers and 46 vehicular use areas at shopping centers may include slash pine (Pinus 47 elliottii) or bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). 48 49 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2- 27-19.docx c. Replaced or removed trees shall not be located entirely within one 1 contiguous area and shall be evenly dispersed throughout the Type D 2 buffers and vehicular use areas. 3 4 3. Exemption. These standards shall not apply to removal of trees through a 5 cultivated tree removal permit or to replace diseased or dead trees. 6 7 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 8 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2- 27-19.docx Amendment History Over several years, residents have petitioned the Board regarding perceived aesthetic impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods when mature canopy trees are removed from shopping centers and replaced with the LDC’s minimum tree planting requirements. On January 23, 2018, Zoning Division staff presented background information to the Board regarding landscaping changes in shopping centers, and potential LDC changes that could mitigate the perceived impacts on the surrounding community from the loss of mature canopy trees. The Board directed staff to draft LDC standards that maintain the ability to change existing landscaping plans while also ensuring any changes would retain mature canopy trees and maintain an aesthetically pleasing community appearance. A previous version of this amendment which proposed a requirement for larger replacement trees was reviewed by the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) and the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). On June 21, 2018, staff presented price and availability data for trees with a five to six-inch caliper to the CCPC. In response to the increased costs and limited availability, the CCPC unanimously recommended not to adopt the proposed amendment, and to direct staff to review a new LDC amendment to be further refined with the following elements: 1. A limitation on the percentage of trees that may be removed or replaced within a given period of time. a. The trees removed should not be clustered in one area but should be spread throughout the project. b. The period of time established should be based on the expected life and canopy growth rates of removed and replaced tree species. 2. A limitation on the use of Slash pine and Bald Cypress trees within the Type D buffer for: a. New landscaping plans, and b. Existing landscaping plans when replacing or removing required trees from the Type D buffer or VUA. 3. An allowance for additional spacing between buffer trees in certain instances to allow for improved visibility into shopping centers. Existing Standards For many types of development, when trees are replaced in the VUAs or Type D buffers, the replacement trees are required to meet the same minimum standards for landscaping material required for new developments. The minimum tree height, caliper, and canopy spread required at the time of installation are: • Height: 10 feet, • Caliper: 1 ¾ inches, and • Canopy spread: four feet. However, when trees are replaced in the VUAs or Type D buffers at shopping centers, the replacement trees are required to meet the minimum standards in LDC section 4.06.03 B.9: • Height: 14 to 16 feet, 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2- 27-19.docx • Caliper: three to four inches, • Canopy spread: six to eight feet, and • Clear trunk height: six feet high. These larger trees are only required at shopping centers, which are defined in LDC Section 1.08.02: “A group of unified commercial establishments built on a site which is planned, developed, owned or managed as an operating unit and related in its location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that the unit serves. It consists of eight or more retail business or service establishments containing a minimum total of 20,000 square feet of floor area. No more than 20 percent of a shopping center's floor area can be composed of restaurants without providing additional parking for the area over 20 percent. A marina, hotel, or motel with accessory retail shops is not considered a shopping center.” Additionally, trees within Type D buffers are required to be spaced no more than 30 feet on center. This amendment does not propose any changes to the minimum height, caliper, canopy spread, or clear trunk height of trees planted at shopping centers. Proposed Standards The proposed standards are intended to balance the value of mature canopy trees to the surrounding neighborhoods and property owners with the need to redesign and update the appearance of shopping centers. The standards are intended to allow for regular updates to shopping centers while maintaining existing mature trees. Proposed Changes to LDC Section 4.06.05 C.4.a.i: Changes to this section establish new tree spacing standards within Type D buffers to provide better visibility to shopping center buildings and wall signage. This new standard would allow increased tree spacing from 30 feet on-center to 60 feet on-center when at least three trees on both sides of the 60 feet on-center spacing have a minimum of a 30-foot crown spread per tree. This arrangement is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of proposed visibility spacing within Type D buffers. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2- 27-19.docx Proposed Changes to LDC Section 4.06.02 D.2.c: Changes to this section prohibit slash pine and bald cypress trees within the VUA and Type D buffer area in new landscape plans because they do not provide adequate canopy or flourish in irrigated areas of a site. The inadequate canopy and visual buffer are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2: Bald cypress trees do not provide adequate canopy when leaves fall. Figure 3: Slash pine trees do not provide an adequate visual buffer. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 9 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2- 27-19.docx Proposed New LDC Section 4.06.05 O.: This new section limits the large-scale removal or replacement of mature canopy trees through a restriction on removing or replacing more than 50 percent of required trees within the VUA or Type D buffer within each 15-year period. For example, Figure 1 demonstrates one potential distribution of replaced or removed trees throughout the site. The limitation is based on public input during the amendment vetting process and a review of tree growth rates described in the Tree Growth Analysis section below. Figure 1. Example Distribution of Replaced or Removed Trees Throughout the Site This section also prohibits the use of slash pine or bald cypress trees as replacement trees within VUAs or Type D buffers and requires removal and replacement of trees to be evenly dispersed throughout the VUA and Type D buffers. Additionally, an exemption is provided for the trees removed through a cultivated tree removal permit, or to replace diseased or dead trees. Since the applicability of the proposed standards is limited to VUAs and Type D buffers, this section would not apply to building foundation plantings or any other required landscaping. Implementation The proposed changes will be implemented through the existing Landscaping Plan review process. Landscaping plans for commercial shopping centers are approved through a Site Development Plan (SDP) and changes to an SDP (SDPA or SDPI). 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 10 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2- 27-19.docx SDPs are administratively approved by the Growth Management Department and do not require public notice or a public hearing. Proposals to replace or remove trees within the Vehicle Use Area (VUA) or Type D buffer would require the landscaping plan to include a calculation of the percentage of required trees proposed to be removed or replaced. The determination whether trees may be removed or replaced through a landscaping plan change will function similar to the cultivated tree removal permit review. When a landscape plan change is submitted, landscape plan review staff will review the percentage of trees removed or replaced within the past 15 years. The landscaping plan change would only be approved if all landscaping plan changes within the past 15 years do not exceed 50 percent of required trees. Shopping centers may request relief from the 50 percent limitation through the PUD Deviation or Variance processes, as applicable. Both processes provide for public notice and public hearings. Tree Growth Analysis On June 21, 2018, the CCPC recommended that the limitations in the proposed amendment should be based on growth rates of canopy trees. To satisfy this request, staff consulted t he Native Trees for South Florida1 published by the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), which includes growth rate information for a variety of tree species. Growth rates are reproduced in the following table for those species that currently qualify as canopy trees in Collier County. Table 1. Tree Growth Rates from UF IFAS Extension Common Name Natural Height (ft) Growth Rate Growth per year (ft) Red maple 35-50 Fast >2 Gumbo limbo, tourist tree 40 - 60 Medium 1 to 2 Fiddlewood 25 - 30 Slow <1 Sea grape 15 - 30 Medium 1 to 2 Willow-leaved bustic 30 - 50 Medium 1 to 2 Wild tamarind 40 - 50 Fast >2 Sweetbay 40 - 60 Medium 1 to 2 False mastic 45 - 70 Slow <1 South Florida slash 80 - 100 Fast >2 Jamaican dogwood, fish-poison tree 35 - 50 Fast >2 Sycamore 70 - 110 Fast >2 West Indian cherry 15 - 40 Medium 1 to 2 Laurel oak 60 - 100 Fast >2 Live oak 50 - 80 Medium 1 to 2 Royal palm 60 - 125 Medium 1 to 2 1 Meerow, A.W., Broschat, T.K, and Donselman, H.M. (2017). Native Trees for South Florida. University of Florida IFAS Extension. Document EES-57. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Additional Background and Justification 11 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping (PL20180002769)\Second Draft\4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2- 27-19.docx Soapberry 35 - 45 Medium 1 to 2 Paradise tree 35 - 50 Slow <1 Mahogany 35 - 60 Fast >2 Bald cypress 60 - 100 Medium 1 to 2 Wild lime 20 - 30 Medium 1 to 2 It is important to note that growth rates may be influenced by a variety of factors such as soil, drainage, water, fertility, light, exposure. These conditions may vary from site to site and year to year. The IFAS growth rates were used to determine the potential time required for newly planted trees to grow from the code minimum canopy spread of 6 to 8 feet, to the code “mature” canopy spread of 20 feet. For the purposes of this amendment, growth rates of tree height were assumed to be the same as growth rates of canopy spread. Using this methodology, the canopy trees listed above require a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 14 years to reach a “mature” canopy spread. Given that trees in parking lots may not represent ideal growing conditions, this amendment es tablishes a limitation of 15 years before additional trees can be removed or replaced to ensure adequate time for canopy growth. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit B –GMP Consistency Analysis 12 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Memorandum To: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, Manager, Land Development Code Section From: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: September 14, 2018 Subject: Growth Management Plan (GMP) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: LDCA-PL20180002769 REV:1 PETITION NAME: LDC Sec. 4.06.02 & 4.06.05, Commercial Landscaping REQUEST: Amend LDC Sections 4.06.02 & 4.06.05, Commercial Landscaping, by making three modifications to the landscaping requirements for shopping centers to minimize the impact of mature landscaping being replaced with minimum sized trees: 1. Allows additional spacing in Type D buffers for improved visibility into shopping centers. 2. Prohibits slash pine and bald cypress in new landscaping plans or existing landscaping plans that are removing trees from the Vehicle Use Area (VUA) or Type D buffer. 3. Limits the large-scale removal or replacement of required trees in the VUA and Type D Buffer to 50 percent of the required trees within a period of 15 years. 4. Provides an exemption for trees removed through a cultivated tree removal permit, or to replace diseased or dead trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: In the limited areas where the Growth Management Plan’s (GMP) land use elements (Future Land Use Element, Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Immokalee Area Master Plan) address landscaping, there is no specificity provided that would conflict with the proposed Land Development Code (LDC) amendment. In the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), Policy 6.1.7 states, in relevant part: “The County shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into landscape designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to encourage water conservation. This shall be accomplished by: (1) Providing incentives for retaining existing native vegetation in landscaped areas; (2) Establishing minimum native vegetation requirements for new landscaping.” The proposed changes in this LDC amendment are not in conflict with this policy. CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, the proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with the GMP. IN CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director LDCA-PL20180002769 Sec. 4.06.02 & 4.06.05 Coml Landscaping R1 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2018\LDCA dw/9-14-18 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 4.06.02 and 4.06.05 Commercial Landscaping 2-27-19 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180003669 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment modifies standards for ground signs for facilities with fuel pumps. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 5.05.05 Facilities with Fuel Pumps 5.06.00 Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification 5.06.06 Prohibited Signs ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 02/07/2019 DSAC 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On December 11, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to draft an ordinance to address signage visibility for facilities with fuel pumps (See Exhibit A). Section 553.79(20)(a)2 of the Florida Statutes, was recently amended to prohibit any requirement on gasoline pricing signs that, “prevents the sign from being clearly visible and legible to drivers of approaching motor vehicles from…any lane of traffic...” (See Exhibit B). In coordination with local developers of facilities with fuel pumps, Staff has developed alternative standards for signs at facilities with fuel pumps which are consistent with Section 553.79(20)(a)2 of the Florida Statutes. The attached LDC amendment proposes the following changes to current standards for fuel pricing signs only: • One ground or pole sign on each major road frontage with a maximum of two signs, instead of only one ground sign per site. • A maximum sign height of 15 feet instead of 8 feet. • Each such sign may include an “Electronic Message Board” (EMB) only for advertising fuel prices. These EMB’s are subject to limitations on the movement of images, brightness, resolution, and other design standards and which are allowed on arterial and collector roadways. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with the GMP. -DW EXHIBITS: A) Executive Summary Providing Board Direction B) F.S. 553.79(20) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 5.05.05, 5.06.00 & 5.06.06 Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 5.05.05 - Facilities with Fuel Pumps 1 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 4 C. Building architecture, site design, lighting, and signage requirements. 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 4. Signage for facilities with fuel pumps. The following are the only signs allowed in 9 facilities with fuel pumps and convenience stores with fuel pumps. 10 11 a. Window, Wall, and other signs: As allowed in LDC section 5.06.00. 12 13 b. An illuminated corporate logo with a maximum area of 12 square feet shall 14 be allowed on a canopy face which is adjacent to a dedicated street or 15 highway. Otherwise accent lighting and back lighting are prohibited on 16 canopy structures. Color accent banding on canopies may be approved as 17 established in LDC section 5.05.05 C.1.b.iv.(b), above. 18 19 c. One ground sign shall be permitted for each site and shall be placed within 20 a 200 square foot landscaped area. Height is limited so that the top edge 21 of the sign face is less than eight feet above grade. Maximum permitted 22 area is 60 square feet. Said sign shall be consistent with the color scheme 23 and architectural design of the principal structure. 24 25 c. Each facility with fuel pumps will be limited to a maximum of two ground 26 signs, two pole signs or one ground and one pole sign that advertise the 27 retail price of fuel in accordance with Section 553.79(20)(a)2., F.S. 28 29 i. One fuel pricing ground or pole sign will be permitted on a frontage 30 of a parcel that abuts an arterial or collector road right -of-way. The 31 maximum height is limited to fifteen feet, measured from grade to 32 the uppermost portion of the sign structure. Maximum sign copy 33 area is 65 square feet. The sign must maintain a minimum setback 34 of 10 feet from a ny property line or road right-of-way. A minimum 35 of a 200 square foot landscaped area shall be provided around the 36 base of the sign. The sign structure shall be consistent with the 37 color scheme and architectural design of the principal structure. 38 An electronic message board (EMB) may be part of the sign area, 39 subject to the standards in 5.05.05 C.4.c.iii. 40 41 ii. One fuel pricing ground sign will be permitted on a frontage of a 42 parcel that abuts a road right-of-way other than an arterial or 43 collector road right-of-way. The maximum height is limited to eight 44 feet, measured from grade to the uppermost portion of the sign 45 structure. Maximum sign copy area is 60 square feet. The sign must 46 maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from any property line or 47 road right-of-way. A minimum of a 200 square foot landscaped area 48 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 5.05.05, 5.06.00 & 5.06.06 Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx shall be provided around the base of the sign. The sign structure 1 shall be consistent with the color scheme and architectural design 2 of the principal structure. An electronic message board will not be 3 part of the sign. 4 5 iii. If an electronic message board (EMB) is used as allowed in 6 5.05.05 C.4.c.i., each of the following apply: 7 8 a) The EMB is limited to fuel prices only. 9 10 b) Changes to the EMB shall occur instantaneously. The EMB 11 shall remain static without scroll, fade, flash, zoom, 12 sparkle, color change, or any illusion of movement. 13 14 c) Such signs shall be constructed with a photocell to 15 compensate for all conditions, day or nighttime hours, and 16 shall adjust the display's brightness to a leve l that is not in 17 excess of 0.3 foot -candles above ambient light levels, as 18 measured from the most restrictive of the nearest abutting 19 property line or a distance equal to the square root of [the 20 EMB sign copy area multiplied by 100]. 21 22 d) Exposed lamps, bulbs, or LEDs that are not covered by a 23 lens, filter, or sunscreen are prohibited. 24 25 d. Signage is prohibited above fuel pumps. 26 27 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 28 29 5.06.00 - SIGN REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION 30 31 A. Definitions. The definitions of the following terms shall apply to the requirements of the 32 Land Development Code, in particular this section 5.06.00, to be known as the "Collier 33 County Sign Code." 34 35 Activated sign: Any sign which contains or uses for illumination any light, lighting 36 device, or lights which change color, flash, or alternate; or change appearance of said sign 37 or any part thereof automatically; any sign which contains moving parts as part of its 38 normal operation, such as rotating signs, shall be considered an activated sign. 39 40 Animated/Activated sign: A sign depicting or involving action, motion, through 41 electrical or mechanical means. 42 43 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 44 Continued on next page 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 5.05.05, 5.06.00 & 5.06.06 Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx 5.06.06 - Prohibited Signs 1 2 A. Prohibited. Any sign not specifically permitted by this sign code shall be prohibited. 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6. Animated signs /activated or Activated signs. Except see Section 5.05.05 C.4 for 6 fuel pricing signs when located along an arterial or collector road right-of-way. 7 8 7. Clear or uncovered neon and exposed LED signs. Except see Section 5.05.05 C.4 9 for fuel pricing signs when located along an arterial or collector road right-of-way. 10 11 # # # # # # # # # # # # #12 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 5.05.05, 5.06.00 & 5.06.06 Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Executive Summary Providing Board Direction 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 5.05.05, 5.06.00 & 5.06.06 Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit A – Executive Summary Providing Board Direction 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 5.05.05, 5.06.00 & 5.06.06 Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Exhibit B – F.S. 553.79(20) 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Gas Station Signs (PL20180003669)\Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19.docx 553.79 Permits; applications; issuance; inspections. * * * * * * * * * * * * * (20)(a) A political subdivision of this state may not adopt or enforce any ordinance or impose any building permit or other development order requirement that: 1. Contains any building, construction, or aesthetic requirement or condition that conflicts with or impairs corporate trademarks, service marks, trade dress, logos, color patterns, design scheme insignia, image standards, or other features of corporate branding identity on real property or improvements thereon used in activities conducted under chapter 526 or in carrying out business activities defined as a franchise by Federal Trade Commission regulations in 16 C.F.R. ss. 436.1, et. seq.; or 2. Imposes any requirement on the design, construction, or location of signage advertising the retail price of gasoline in accordance with the requirements of ss. 526.111 and 526.121 which prevents the signage from being clearly visible and legible to drivers of approaching motor vehicles from a vantage point on any lane of traffic in either direction on a roadway abuttin g the gas station premises and meets height, width, and spacing standards for Series C, D, or E signs, as applicable, published in the latest edition of Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs published by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, Office of Highway Safety. (b) This subsection does not affect any requirement for design and construction in the Florida Building Code. (c) All such ordinances and requirements are hereby preempted and superseded by general law. This subsection shall apply retroactively. (d) This subsection does not apply to property located in a designated historic district. Link: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String= &URL=0500-0599/0553/Sections/0553.79.html 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 5.05.05, 5.06.00 & 5.06.06 Gas Station Signs LDC Amendment 1-16-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 2. Inspecting a physically nonadjacent portion of a building, structure, or real property that is directly impacted by the construction, erection, alteration, modification, repair, or demolition of the building, structure, or real property for which the permit is sought in accordance with the prohibition in paragraph (a). 3. Inspecting any portion of a building, structure, or real property for which the owner or other person having control of the building, structure, or real property has voluntarily consented to the inspection of that portion of the building, structure, or real property in accordance with the prohibition in paragraph (a). 4. Inspecting any portion of a building, structure, or real property pursuant to an inspection warrant issued in accordance with ss. 933.20-933.30. (d) This subsection is repealed upon receipt by the Secretary of State of the written certification by the chair of the Florida Building Commission that the commission has adopted an amendment to the Florida Building Code which substantially incorporates this subsection, including the prohibition in paragraph (a), as part of the code and such amendment has taken effect. (19) For the purpose of inspection and record retention, site plans or building permits may be maintained in the original form or in the form of an electronic copy at the worksite. These plans and permits must be open to inspection by the building official or a duly authorized representative, as required by the Florida Building Code. (20)(a) A political subdivision of this state may not adopt or enforce any ordinance or impose any building permit or other development order requirement that: 1. Contains any building, construction, or aesthetic requirement or condition that conflicts with or impairs corporate trademarks, service marks, trade dress, logos, color patterns, design scheme insignia, image standards, or other features of corporate branding identity on real property or improvements thereon used in activities conducted under chapter 526 or in carrying out business activities defined as a franchise by Federal Trade Commission regulations in 16 C.F.R. ss. 436.1, et. seq.; or 2. Imposes any requirement on the design, construction, or location of signage advertising the retail price of gasoline in accordance with the requirements of ss. 526.111 and 526.121 which prevents the signage from being clearly visible and legible to drivers of approaching motor vehicles from a vantage point on any lane of traffic in either direction on a roadway abutting the gas station premises and meets height, width, and spacing standards for Series C, D, or E signs, as applicable, published in the latest edition of Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs published by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, Office of Highway Safety. (b) This subsection does not affect any requirement for design and construction in the Florida Building Code. (c) All such ordinances and requirements are hereby preempted and superseded by general law. This subsection shall apply retroactively. (d) This subsection does not apply to property located in a designated historic district. History.—s. 10, ch. 74-167; s. 4, ch. 77-365; s. 10, ch. 83-160; s. 1, ch. 83-352; s. 2, ch. 84-24; s. 3, ch. 84-365; s. 2, ch. 85-97; s. 2, ch. 86-135; s. 2, ch. 87-287; s. 5, ch. 87-349; s. 2, ch. 88-142; s. 1, ch. 88-378; s. 1, ch. 91-7; s. 4, ch. 93-249; ss. 57, 260, ch. 94-119; s. 7, ch. 94-284; s. 461, ch. 94-356; s. 72, ch. 95-144; s. 2, ch. 95-379; s. 14, ch. 96-298; s. 73, ch. 96- 388; s. 1175, ch. 97-103; ss. 48, 49, ch. 98-287; ss. 82, 83, 84, 135, ch. 2000-141; ss. 27, 34, 35, 37, ch. 2001-186; ss. 2, 3, 4, 6, ch. 2001-372; s. 666, ch. 2003-261; s. 10, ch. 2005-147; s. 36, ch. 2010-176; s. 1, ch. 2011-82; s. 73, ch. 2012-5; s. 15, ch. 2012-13; s. 150, ch. 2013-183; s. 16, ch. 2013-193; s. 126, ch. 2014-17; s. 22, ch. 2014-154; ss. 19, 39, ch. 2016-129; s. 36, ch. 2017-3; s. 3, ch. 2017-149. Copyright © 1995-2019 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us Page 6 of 6Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine 2/27/2019http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_St... 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Excerpt from FS 553.79 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Select Year: 2018 Go The 2018 Florida Statutes Title XXXIII REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS Chapter 526 SALE OF LIQUID FUELS; BRAKE FLUID View Entire Chapter 526.111 Prohibited display of gasoline prices; penalty.— (1) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to display, or allow to be displayed on his or her premises, any sign, placard, or other advertisement relating to the retail price of gasoline unless numerals thereon indicating fractions or portions of a whole number are at least half the size of the largest whole number on such sign, and no such price of gasoline shall be advertised without the tax included. No such person, firm, or corporation shall be required to post prices pursuant to this section. (2) Violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 57-826; s. 508, ch. 71-136; s. 4, ch. 79-163; s. 718, ch. 97-103. Copyright © 1995-2019 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us Page 1 of 1Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine 2/27/2019http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_St... 9.A.2.l Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: FS 526.111 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Select Year: 2018 Go The 2018 Florida Statutes Title XXXIII REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS Chapter 526 SALE OF LIQUID FUELS; BRAKE FLUID View Entire Chapter 526.121 Pricing restrictions; separation of gasolines.— (1) The posting at retail service stations of a different price for the same grade of gasoline dispensed from one pump than from another pump supplied from a common storage at the same service station when represented to be and is sold as the same quality of gasoline is unlawful. (2) This section shall not be construed to prohibit a price differential between a cash sale and a credit sale of the same grade of gasoline or between self-service pumps and attendant-controlled pumps supplied from a common storage at the same service station. History.—s. 1, ch. 67-506; s. 7, ch. 74-162; s. 1, ch. 82-26. Copyright © 1995-2019 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us Page 1 of 1Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine 2/27/2019http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_St... 9.A.2.m Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: FS 526.121 (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Standard Alphabets For Traffic Control Devices letter combination a different dimension was pre- scribed. In concept this approach is correct; how- Introduction ever, it makes this method useable with only the more sophisticated signmaking software pro- The Standard Alphabets for Traffic Control Devices grams, because the myriad of unique spacing val- were prepared by the Federal Highway Adminis-ues can only be reproduced through the use of tration for signing and marking all streets, high-kerning pairs. Typically, CAD software applica- ways, bike routes, trails and other by-ways open to tions are not typographically sophisticated enough public travel.to handle kerning information. Unfortunately, this limits the use for the 1966 and 1977 alphabets. The alphabets were first adopted nationwide some time in the late 1940's and early 1950's after com-This edition of the Standard Alphabets For Traffic pletion of studies by the California Department of Control Devices contains a complete functional Transportation. A modified version of the Gothic specification for designing standard highway al- style alphabet was adopted having an openness in phabets. Much work has gone into updating the the rounded shaped characters. This modification alphabets. Particular attention has been paid to provided better legibility and readability for traffic make them adaptable to a broader range of equip- control devices. These alphabets contained dimen-ment and software application tools in use within sions for each letter (A, B, C, etc.) and a table that engineering departments and sign fabrication fa- permitted several sizes to be drawn mechanically cilities in the transportation industry. to scale for upper case series A through F. Overview of the alphabet spacing In 1966, the Federal Highway Administration re- printed the Standard Alphabets For Traffic Control Spacing for the 1966 and 1977 alphabets was de- Devices. This edition contained upper case series veloped a long time before computers and plotters B, C, D, E, E Modified, Lower case E Modified and F would be used to design and fabricate traffic con- (series A was deleted from this edition). These Al-trol signs. Letter spacing in particular reflects this phabets were placed on 1/4 inch grids which elim-because the method applied is better suited to man- inated the need for the previous tables of dimen-ual layout when using die stamp equipment and sions. However, the 1966 edition did contain six silk screen printing. tables for character widths and spacings for upper case letters and numerals. A simplified spacing Generally, a variety of different space values are chart also was included for E Modified characters. reserved for each letter of the alphabet. These In 1977, the Federal Highway Administration is-space values are applied depending upon a partic- sued a metric edition of the 1966 Standard High-ular letter to letter occurrence. This method is ac- way Alphabets in upper case Series B, C, D, E, E ceptable when a sign is being manually laid out, Modified, F and Lower case E Modified. The 1977 letter by letter and measurements are being made edition also contained the design standards for with a scale along a drawn baseline. alphabets, numerals and symbols to be placed on roadway pavements. These alphabets were placed In an attempt to simplify this system the FHWA on five millimeter grids for ease of use.implemented a procedure which converted the spacing values into a limited number of codes (see The 1977 edition also contained spacing charts for Figure 1). While this has helped the situation, it all alphabets and numerals which specified exact continues to have drawbacks because more than letter to letter distances to be used when construct-one spacing value is required for each and every ing words or legends. Depending upon the letter to letter of the alphabet. 9-1 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 1TrueType refers to Microsoft's industry standard font format description and specification. 2PostScript refers to Adobe's industry standard font format description and specification. Updating The Standard Alphabets In this Edition, a new specification for using the Standard Alphabets For Traffic Control Devices is presented. The new specification will make the alphabets adaptable to current industry software requirements. It is important to note that every effort has been made to maintain the same proper- ties of the existing 1966 and 1977 Standard Alpha- bets. A uniform stroke width has been adopted for all letters and numerals. Following is the specific criteria that was used to prepare this edition of t he Understanding Industry Specifications Standard Highway Alphabets For Traffic Control Devices. Current software industry specif ications for 12TrueType and PostScript format fonts assumes Criteria that every character will be positioned within a bounding box and the bounding box will be as-1.Develop a method of spacing that will signed a fixed value (see Figure 2). Within the work for both English and metric measure. bounding box, each character will have some amount of "white space" to its left, right, top and 2.Retain the letterforms basic shape, stroke bottom. This allows software to place bounding weight and proportion. Make slight boxes side by side, top to bottom, or line by line changes where necessary to ensure without needing to worry about the shape and size of the character or object (see Figure 3). Line space is controlled by a separate function in consistency of stroke weight and optical most software and is normally added in an incre-balance from letter to letter. ment of measure specified by the user. What's im- portant to know about line space is a correctly de-3.Maintain overall existing spacing of Stan- signed font will have some amount of line space dard Alphabets to ensure an easy transi- built into it to prevent succeeding lines of charac-tion in the field as it relates to the design ters from crashing into one another.and fabrication of new signs. Parking Space Value Bounding Box Figure 2. A ACode 4 .275A BCode 2 .825 Figure 1. 9-2 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 4.Develop spacing that will be proportion-vertical stems that makes up their design. Also, ally scalable and based upon a upper case they can be thought of as rectangular in shape. letter height of 4" (100 mm). This will erad-Second; the letters C, G, O and Q are obviously icate the need for complicated spacing round and third, the letters A, V, T, W, Y are trian- charts and codes which are based upon gular in nature. discreet letter heights. The goal in letter spacing is to develop an ideal 5.Standardize the inter-character spacing by negative (white) space for each class of letter. applying space to both the right and left When these letters are then juxtaposed, the white side of each letter. The objective is to cre-space between them balances with the white ate an industry standard specification that within them to create an optically even (balanced) will make the Standard Alphabets For Traf-tone or flow. This produces optimum readability fic Control Devices adaptable to a broad and good legibility. range of software applications commonly used in engineering departments and sign The spacing tables listed in the Series E(M) 1966 shops for standard highway sign design Standard Alphabet specification shows the dis- and production.tance from the uppercase H to other similar letters (B, D, E, F, H, I, K, L, M, N, P, R, U) in its class to be 6.Add drawings of lowercase letters to all 1.025" (at a letter height of 4"). In order to obtain a Standard Alphabets.proper left and right margin, or white space, it is necessary to first optically establish the "ideal" In order to proceed, first a departure from the code stem to stem relationship. In this case a slight ad- based spacing system is necessary. A careful redis-justment was made resulting in a value of 1.12". tribution of white space must be applied with em-This measure is then divided in half and applied to phasis on maintaining the existing spacial rela-every character that has a straight vertical stem. tionships of the 1966 and 1977 Alphabets.This will ensure that the distance between these letter combinations will remain consistent. For each letter there are basically three classes of relationships with respect to spacing. These The round letters are treated basically the same classes are determined largely by the simple geo-way. The Series E(M) 1966 Standard Alphabet spec- metric form that best describes their shape. For ification shows the distance from the uppercase O example; first, the letters B, D, E, F, H, I, K, L, M, to other similar letters (C, G, O, Q) in its N, P, R and to a great extent U all share one com-class to be .825" (at a letter height of 4"). To keep mon characteristic. They have one or more straight the conversion simple and orderly the value is ad- SpecificationAlphabet Line space Figure 3. 9-3 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) justed as previously discussed then divided. The result is a value of .4" of space which is applied to the side of every letter having this round charac- teristic. With these two basic values established for the two most symmetrical letters in the alpha- bet space values can be built for the remainder of letters in these classes. For example, the letter D will receive a left margin of .560" because it is a vertical stem, while the right margin will receive a space of .4". The width of the letter is 3.242, there- fore the total value is (.560+3.242+.4) 4.2" (see Figure 4). By dissecting and distributing the space values as very close length to those created using the 1966, described it is possible to redistribute the white 1977 Standard Alphabet specification (see Figure space and assign each character its own unique 5). An additional advantage to using this method space value. The net result when the letters are set of spacing is it provides a more even flow of black in succession will be of lines, or legends having a to white shapes which helps increase readability. D.560".400"3.242" Figure 4. Figure 5. 9-4 TURNTURN15.368" 15.385" 3.122 4.362 4.082 3.802 2.94 .825 3.19 3.19 1.025 3.191.025 4" 4" Series E(M) 2000 Edition Series E(M) 1966 Edition 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) The Alphabets Alternate sizes are proportional (scalable) and can The spacing tables on the following pages show be obtained by simply enlarging or reducing the the actual width of each letter (in inches), along upper case letter (along with its associated width with the space to the left and to t he right of each and space) to the desired dimension. letter. All dimensions are based upon an upper case letter height of 4" (100 mm). The lower case All letters are laid out on a grid and spaced flush letter height is 2.9" from the baseline. The height left to illustrate both upper case and lower case of the round (or loop) letter height is 3" (see Figure letter height relationships, along with the correct 6). Round or loop letters extend slightly below the inter-character spacing. In order to illustrate these baseline and above the x-height of both upper and aspects all alphabets are shown at a upper case lower case letters.letter height of 2".H x o4"2.9"3" Figure 6. 9-5 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) A .120 2.161 .120 o .200 1.481 .200 B .440 1.721 .200 p .320 1.481 .200 C .320 1.721 .320 q .200 1.481 .320 D .440 1.721 .320 r .320 1.040 .080 E .440 1.521 .200 s .120 1.280 .080 F .440 1.521 .120 t 0 1.200 0 G .320 1.721 .320 u .280 1.441 .320 H .440 1.721 .440 v .080 1.721 .080 I .440 .520 .440 w .080 2.241 .080 J .120 1.761 .440 x 0 1.841 0 K .440 1.761 .200 y .080 1.841 .080 L .440 1.521 .120 z .120 1.441 .120 M .440 1.961 .440 1 .200 .840 .440 N .440 1.721 .440 2 .200 1.721 .200 O .320 1.841 .320 3 .120 1.721 .200 P .440 1.721 .120 4 .200 1.961 .320 Q .320 1.841 .320 5 .320 1.721 .200 R .440 1.721 .200 6 .120 1.721 .320 S .200 1.721 .200 7 .200 1.721 .320 T .120 1.521 .120 8 .200 1.721 .200 U .440 1.721 .440 9 .320 1.721 .200 V .120 1.881 .120 0 .320 1.841 .320 W .120 2.561 .120 &.200 2.962 .120 X .200 1.881 .200 !.440 .520 .440 Y .120 2.161 .120 ".440 1.561 .440 Z .200 1.721 .200 #.320 2.521 .320 a .120 1.481 .280 $.200 1.721 .200 b .320 1.481 .200 ¢.320 1.761 .320 c .200 1.481 .080 /0 3.963 0 d .200 1.481 .320 aster .320 2.081 .320 e .200 1.481 .120 period .320 .560 .320 f .120 .920 .080 comma / apos .320 .600 .320 g .200 1.441 .240 colon .320 .560 .320 h .320 1.441 .280 (.320 1.200 .200 i .320 .520 .320 ).200 1.200 .320 j 0 .920 .320 hyphen .120 1.240 .120 k .320 1.601 .080 @ .320 4.000 .320 l .320 .520 .320 =.120 2.241 .120 m .320 2.361 .280 +.120 2.241 .120 n .320 1.441 .280 ?.200 2.081 .200 Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) Standard Alphabets Spacing Chart Measurements based on four inch (4") upper case letter height Series B 2000 REFER TO FORWARD IN STANDARD ALPHABETS METRIC VERSION FOR NOTES ON APPLICATION OF SPACE VALUES 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO SERIES B 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) PQRSTUVWXYZabcd SERIES B 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) efghijklmnopqrstuvw SERIES B 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) xyz1234567890&!" SERIES B 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) #$¢/*.,:()-@=+? SERIES B 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) A .120 2.561 .120 o .240 2.041 .240 B .440 2.241 .240 p .360 2.041 .240 C .360 2.241 .360 q .240 2.041 .360 D .440 2.241 .360 r .360 1.321 .080 E .440 2.041 .240 s .160 1.681 .120 F .440 2.041 .120 t .040 1.441 .040 G .360 2.241 .360 u .320 2.041 .360 H .440 2.241 .440 v .080 2.361 .080 I .440 .560 .440 w .080 3.762 .080 J .120 2.041 .440 x 0 2.601 0 K .440 2.241 .240 y .080 2.481 .080 L .440 2.041 .120 z .120 1.681 .120 M .440 2.642 .440 1 .360 .840 .440 N .440 2.241 .440 2 .240 2.241 .240 O .360 2.361 .360 3 .240 2.241 .240 P .440 2.241 .360 4 .120 2.481 .360 Q .360 2.361 .360 5 .240 2.241 .240 R .440 2.241 .240 6 .360 2.241 .360 S .240 2.241 .240 7 .120 2.241 .360 T .120 2.041 .120 8 .240 2.241 .240 U .440 2.241 .440 9 .240 2.241 .240 V .120 2.481 .120 0 .360 2.361 .360 W .120 3.042 .120 &.360 4.000 0 X .120 2.361 .120 !.440 .560 .440 Y .120 2.561 .120 ".440 1.721 .440 Z .240 2.241 .240 #.240 3.042 .240 a .160 1.921 .320 $.360 2.241 .360 b .360 2.041 .240 ¢.240 1.961 .120 c .240 2.001 .120 /0 4.083 0 d .240 2.041 .360 aster .320 2.081 .320 e .240 2.041 .160 period .160 .640 .160 f .160 1.240 .080 comma / apos .160 .640 .160 g .240 2.041 .360 colon .160 .640 .160 h .360 2.041 .320 (.360 1.200 .160 i .360 .560 .360 ).160 1.200 .360 j 0 1.160 .360 hyphen .120 1.401 .120 k .360 2.161 .080 @ .360 4.000 .360 l .360 .560 .360 =.120 2.601 .120 m .360 3.362 .320 +.120 2.601 .120 n .360 2.041 .320 ?.240 2.441 .240 Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) Standard Alphabets Spacing Chart Measurements based on four inch (4") upper case letter height Series C 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) ABCDEFGHIJKLM SERIES C 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) NOPQRSTUVWXY SERIES C 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Zabcdefghijklm SERIES C 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) nopqrstuvwxyz12 SERIES C 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 34567890&!"# SERIES C 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) $¢/*.,:()-@=+? SERIES C 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) A .120 3.402 .120 o .240 2.441 .240 B .480 2.723 .200 p .400 2.401 .240 C .400 2.723 .400 q .240 2.401 .400 D .480 2.723 .400 r .400 1.521 .080 E .480 2.481 .200 s .160 1.881 .120 F .480 2.481 .120 t .040 1.601 .040 G .400 2.723 .400 u .360 2.361 .400 H .480 2.723 .480 v .080 2.842 .080 I .480 .640 .480 w .080 4.523 .080 J .120 2.561 .480 x 0 3.122 0 K .480 2.802 .200 y .080 3.002 .080 L .480 2.481 .120 z .120 2.001 .120 M .480 3.122 .480 1 .400 1.000 .480 N .480 2.723 .480 2 .400 2.723 .400 O .400 2.842 .400 3 .720 2.723 .400 P .480 2.723 .120 4 .080 3.002 .480 Q .400 2.842 .400 5 .400 2.723 .400 R .480 2.723 .200 6 .400 2.723 .400 S .200 2.723 .200 7 .280 2.723 .280 T .120 2.481 .120 8 .400 2.723 .400 U .480 2.723 .480 9 .400 2.723 .400 V .120 3.042 .120 0 .400 2.842 .400 W .120 3.562 .120 &.400 3.562 0 X .200 2.723 .200 !.480 .640 .480 Y .120 3.442 .120 ".160 .720 .160 Z .200 2.723 .200 #.240 3.402 .240 a .200 2.281 .360 $.200 2.723 .200 b .400 2.401 .240 ¢.400 2.441 .280 c .240 2.361 .120 /0 4.123 0 d .240 2.401 .400 aster .320 2.161 .320 e .240 2.361 .160 period .160 .720 .160 f .160 1.441 .080 comma / apos .160 .720 .160 g .240 2.401 .400 colon .160 .720 .160 h .400 2.361 .360 (.400 1.321 .160 i .400 .640 .400 ).160 1.321 .400 j 0 1.321 .400 hyphen .120 1.401 .120 k .400 2.561 .080 @ .400 4.003 .400 l .400 .640 .400 =.480 1.921 .480 m .400 3.963 .360 +.120 2.682 .120 n .400 2.361 .360 ?.280 2.601 .280 Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) Standard Alphabets Spacing Chart Measurements based on four inch (4") upper case letter height Series D 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) ABCDEFGHIJK SERIES D 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) LMNOPQRSTU SERIES D 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) VWXYZabcdef SERIES D 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) ghijklmnopqrst SERIES D 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) uvwxyz1234 SERIES D 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 4567890&!" SERIES D 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) #$/¢*.,:()-@=+? SERIES D 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) A .160 4.083 .160 o .240 2.561 .240 B .520 3.242 .280 p .360 2.481 .240 C .400 3.242 .400 q .240 2.481 .360 D .520 3.242 .400 r .360 1.841 .080 E .520 3.000 .280 s .160 2.441 .120 F .520 3.000 .160 t .040 1.841 .040 G .400 3.242 .400 u .320 2.481 .360 H .520 3.242 .520 v .080 2.842 .080 I .520 .720 .520 w .080 3.842 .080 J .160 3.042 .520 x 0 2.922 0 K .520 3.322 .120 y .080 3.082 .080 L .520 3.000 .160 z .120 2.561 .120 M .520 3.762 .520 1 .400 1.200 .520 N .520 3.242 .520 2 .280 3.242 .280 O .400 3.362 .400 3 .280 3.242 .280 P .520 3.242 .160 4 .160 3.762 .400 Q .400 3.362 .400 5 .280 3.242 .280 R .520 3.242 .280 6 .400 3.242 .400 S .280 3.242 .280 7 .160 3.242 .400 T .160 3.000 .160 8 .280 3.242 .280 U .520 3.242 .520 9 .280 3.242 .280 V .160 3.682 .160 0 .400 3.362 .400 W .160 4.243 .160 &.400 3.602 0 X .280 3.482 .280 !.520 .720 .520 Y .160 4.083 .160 ".520 2.041 .520 Z .280 3.242 .280 #.240 3.482 .240 a .200 2.441 .320 $.400 3.242 .400 b .360 2.481 .240 ¢.400 2.922 .280 c .240 2.481 .120 /0 4.203 0 d .240 2.481 .360 aster .320 2.201 .320 e .240 2.481 .160 period .160 .720 .160 f .160 1.521 .080 comma / apos .160 .720 .160 g .240 2.481 .360 colon .160 .720 .160 h .360 2.481 .320 (.400 1.321 .160 i .360 .720 .360 ).160 1.321 .400 j 0 1.200 .360 hyphen .120 1.401 .120 k .360 2.401 2.080 @ .400 4.000 .400 l .360 .720 .360 =.120 2.601 .120 m .360 4.163 .320 +.120 2.601 .120 n .360 2.481 .320 ?.280 2.682 .280 Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) Standard Alphabets Spacing Chart Measurements based on four inch (4") upper case letter height Series E 2000 REFER TO FORWARD IN STANDARD ALPHABETS METRIC VERSION FOR NOTES ON APPLICATION OF SPACE VALUES 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) ABCDEFGHIJ SERIES E 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) KLMNOPQRS SERIES E 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) TUVWXYZabc SERIES E 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) defghijklmnopq SERIES E 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) rstuvwxyz1234 SERIES E 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 567890&!"# SERIES E 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) $/¢*.,:()-@=+? SERIES E 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) A .160 4.043 .160 o .440 2.722 .440 B .560 3.242 .320 p .800 2.642 .440 C .400 3.242 .320 q .440 2.642 .800 D .560 3.242 .400 r .800 2.000 .160 E .560 2.962 .280 s .360 2.642 .440 F .560 2.962 .280 t .360 2.081 .480 G .400 3.242 .400 u .800 2.642 .800 H .560 3.242 .560 v .360 3.082 .360 I .560 .800 .560 w .360 4.083 .360 J .160 3.042 .560 x .440 3.202 .440 K .560 3.282 .080 y .360 3.402 .360 L .560 2.962 .080 z .480 2.722 .480 M .560 3.722 .560 1 .480 1.200 .560 N .560 3.242 .560 2 .440 3.242 .440 O .400 3.362 .400 3 .120 3.242 .400 P .560 3.242 .160 4 .120 3.722 .560 Q .400 3.362 .400 5 .440 3.242 .440 R .560 3.242 .280 6 .400 3.242 .400 S .440 3.242 .440 7 .240 3.242 .400 T .160 2.962 .160 8 .400 3.242 .400 U .560 3.242 .560 9 .400 3.242 .400 V .160 3.682 .160 0 .400 3.362 .400 W .160 4.243 .160 &.400 3.602 .400 X .280 3.482 .280 !.560 .800 .560 Y .160 4.043 .160 ".560 2.281 .560 Z .280 3.242 .280 #.400 3.522 .400 a .440 2.642 .800 $.440 3.242 .440 b .800 2.642 .440 ¢.400 2.682 .280 c .440 2.642 .440 /0 4.283 0 d .440 2.642 .800 aster .320 2.241 .320 e .440 2.642 .440 period .160 .800 .160 f .400 1.681 .440 comma / apos .160 .800 .160 g .440 2.642 .800 colon .160 .800 .160 h .800 2.642 .800 (.400 1.521 .160 i .800 .800 .800 ).160 1.521 .400 j .080 1.481 .800 hyphen .120 1.401 .120 k .800 2.642 .440 @ .400 4.043 .400 l .800 .800 .800 =.120 2.601 .120 m .800 4.403 .800 +.120 2.601 .120 n .800 2.642 .800 ?.280 2.762 .280 Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) Standard Alphabets Spacing Chart Measurements based on four inch (4") upper case letter height Series E Modified 2000 REFER TO FORWARD IN STANDARD ALPHABETS METRIC VERSION FOR NOTES ON APPLICATION OF SPACE VALUES 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) ABCDEFGHI SERIES EM 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) JKLMNOPQR SERIES EM 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) STUVWXYZa SERIES EM 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) bcdefghijk SERIES EM 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) lmnopqrstu SERIES EM 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) vwxyz1234 SERIES EM 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 567890&!"# SERIES EM 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) $/¢*.,:()-@=+? SERIES EM 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) A .160 4.563 .160 o .320 3.202 .320 B .560 3.762 .400 p .480 3.162 .320 C .400 3.762 .280 q .320 3.162 .480 D .560 3.762 .400 r .480 2.000 .120 E .560 3.242 .400 s .280 2.922 .280 F .560 3.242 .400 t .120 1.921 .160 G .400 3.762 .400 u .480 2.962 .480 H .560 3.762 .560 v .080 3.362 .080 I .560 .760 .560 w .080 4.603 .080 J .160 3.322 .560 x .080 3.522 .080 K .560 3.762 .160 y .080 3.682 .080 L .560 3.442 .160 z .200 3.042 .200 M .560 4.323 .560 1 .560 1.321 .560 N .560 3.762 .560 2 .400 3.762 .400 O .400 4.203 .400 3 .400 3.762 .400 P .560 3.762 .400 4 .160 4.083 .560 Q .560 4.203 .400 5 .400 3.762 .400 R .560 3.762 .400 6 .400 3.762 .400 S .400 3.762 .400 7 .160 3.762 .160 T .160 3.442 .160 8 .400 3.762 .400 U .560 3.762 .560 9 .400 3.762 .400 V .160 4.203 .160 0 .400 3.882 .400 W .160 4.683 .160 &.560 4.603 .160 X .160 4.083 .160 !.560 .760 .560 Y .160 4.563 .160 ".560 2.000 .560 Z .280 3.762 .280 #.080 3.522 .080 a .320 3.042 .480 $.400 3.762 .400 b .480 3.162 .320 ¢.320 3.000 .200 c .320 2.802 .200 /0 4.283 0 d .320 3.162 .480 aster .280 2.241 .280 e .320 3.202 .320 period .280 .760 .280 f .120 1.721 .120 comma / apos .280 .760 .280 g .320 3.000 .480 colon .280 .760 .280 h .480 2.962 .480 (.400 1.361 .120 i .480 .760 .480 ).120 1.361 .400 j .040 1.240 .480 hyphen .160 1.401 .160 k .480 2.802 .120 @ .400 4.000 .400 l .480 .760 .480 =.160 2.601 .160 m .480 4.723 .480 +.160 2.601 .160 n .480 2.962 .480 ?.400 3.362 .400 Character Left (inch)Width (inch)Right (inch) Standard Alphabets Spacing Chart Measurements based on four inch (4") upper case letter height Series F 2000 REFER TO FORWARD IN STANDARD ALPHABETS METRIC VERSION FOR NOTES ON APPLICATION OF SPACE VALUES 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) ABCDEFGHI SERIES F 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) JKLMNOPQ SERIES F 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) RSTUVWXYZ SERIES F 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) abcdefghijkl SERIES F 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) mnopqrstuv SERIES F 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) wxyz12345 SERIES F 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 67890&!"#$ SERIES F 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) ¢/*.,:()-@=+? SERIES F 2000 9.A.2.n Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: 2004 Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs (8118 : Batch LDC Amendments) 03/07/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: ***This item has been continued from the January 31, 2019 CCPC meeting, and from the February 21, 2019, CCPC meeting.*** PL20180002258/CPSP-2018-5: 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 Immokalee Area Master Plan Restudy and specifically amending the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element and the Immokalee Future Land Use Map; and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity [Coordinator: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 03/07/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 02/22/2019 2:19 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 02/22/2019 2:19 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 02/25/2019 6:03 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/26/2019 1:40 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/26/2019 2:42 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/27/2019 3:40 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 02/27/2019 4:11 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 03/07/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 269 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.3 This item was continued from the January 31, 2019, CCPC meeting, and the February 21, 2019, CCPC meeting. You have received the complete packet materials at the January 31, 2019 meeting. You can also get the full packet from: http://colliercountyfl.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1 493&Inline=True PL20180002258 - 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 Immokalee Area Master Plan Restudy and Specifically amending the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element and the Immokalee Future Land Use Map; and furthermore recommending Transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Principal Planner] 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: 9.A.3-PL20180002258-Immokalee Area Master Plan-3-7-2019 meeting-Cover Page-Cont'd item (8147 : Immokalee Restudy COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) PROJECT: PL20180002258/CPSP-2018-6 CCPC: March 7, 2019 [continued from 1/31/2019 & February 21, 2019] BCC: March 12, 2019 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: CCPC COVER (3) (8147 : Immokalee Restudy Amendments - Transmittal) CCPC – IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TRANSMITTAL AMENDMENTS CCPC MTG: MARCH 7, 2019 [Continued from: JANUARY 31, 2019 & FEBRUARY 21, 2019] TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: PL20180002258/CPSP-2018-5 2) TAB: Staff Report Attachment A” DOCUMENT: Strike-through – Underline changes to proposed 2012 IAMP 3) TAB: Map 1 IAMP FLUM DOCUMENT: Existing vs Proposed 4) TAB: Attachment “B” DOCUMENT: White Paper 5) TAB: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit “A” text (and/or maps): PL20180002258/CPSP-2018-5 6) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisements/Immokalee Bulletin & Naples Daily News 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: CCPC Table of Contents (3) (8147 : Immokalee Restudy Amendments - Transmittal)