Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/07/2019March 7, 2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 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 Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 91 March 7, 2019 PROCEEDINGS MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the March 7th Planning Commission meeting. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dearborn had notified me he couldn't make it today for health reasons, so he will hopefully be here next time. That brings us to the addenda to the agenda. We have three legislative items on the agenda today. There's nothing else that I know of. We'll move on to the Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is March 21 st, 2019. Does anyone know if they're not going to snake it on the 21 st? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we'll have a quorum. We were issued our -- electronically our minutes from February 7th. Is there any changes? If none, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval of those minutes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl instead of Joe. How's that? Karl said it first. COMMISSIONER FRY: Either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 2 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. BCC report and recaps. Ray's not here. Did you have anything you wanted to throw in, Mike? MR. BOSI.• Yeah. At the February 26th Board of County Commissioners' public hearing the Board denied the conditional use and GMP amendment for the Grace Romanian Church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report: I don't have anything. Consent agenda: There's nothing there. ***So we'll move on to 9A1. The first item up today is an advertised public hearing for the water pollution control and prevention ordinance. We'll be sitting as the EAC in review of this. It was continued from another previous meeting in which we went through quite a bit of it. They came back today with some answers to our questions and hopefully cleanup language. Danette, it's all yours. MS. KINASZCZUK: Good morning. Thank you. I'm Danette Kinaszczuk, and I brought Rhonda Watkins with me also with pollution control. Thar -A( you guys for making time for us again. Hopefully after today we can make an ordinance that will last another 30 years. From your packet you can see that all the requested changes were made except for the increase in the fine amount, and we also have some slides that will address your questions from the February 7th meeting. So the first question was about water -quality impairments and how those impairments tie in with existing regulatory oversight specifically with the Clean Water Act. In a nutshell, the Clean Water Act gives authority to the state to implement some water -quality controls via environmental resource or other types of permits. Now, these permits use presumptive criteria. For an example, a stormwater engineer will presume that a retention pond treats for 80 percent nitrogen and 80 percent of the phosphorus in the stormwater it holds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you're going to be in the same trouble I'm in by talking so fast. So you should probably figure out a mellow way to slow down, so... MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. Thank you. There is rarely any water -quality monitoring done after the pond is built to followup on the presumptive criteria. It's just presumed to work. So then a 2007 study was done by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection that showed those same ponds only treat for 45 percent of nitrogen, 70 percent of phosphorus, and they don't treat for any other pollutants, which brings us to our water -quality issues and the regulatory requirements of the Florida Administrative Code 62-303, the Impaired Waters Rule. So Rhonda here has over 28 years of experience doing pollution control in Collier County working with the DEP water -quality programs. So she's going to review the Impaired Waters Rule process, and go through the Collier County impairments with you guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning. MS. WATKINS: Good morning, Rhonda Watkins, Collier County Pollution Control. I apologize, Commissioners. I wasn't here for the last meeting and probably could have answered a lot of these questions that you have, but feel free to ask as many as you need to while I'm here. Page 3 of 91 March 7, 2019 So the Impaired Waters Rule is actually Florida Administrative Code 62-303, and the Clean Water Act mandates that each state assess their waters to see if they're meeting water -quality criteria and, for the State of Florida, that's done through the Impaired Waters Rule. The Florida Administrative Code 62-302 is actually the rule that has all of the water -body classifications and those water -quality criteria that the state uses to actually do that assessment. Pollution Control does collect quite an immense amount of water -quality data that is used by the state for this Impaired Waters Rule, but we are not the only ones that collect water -quality data. It's done by many different agencies, and that data is then uploaded to the state's database. It used to be called STORET. Now it's called WIN. And if you want your data used in that assessment, you have to upload it to the state's database. Then the state does that assessment. That's actually done on a five-year cycle. So we collect the water quality in the first cycle. Then it gets assessed, and they determine that impairment. Once that impairment is determined, then they comeback in and set that TMDL, that total maximum daily load, and then once that total maximum daily load is established, they come back in and do a Basin Management Action Plan, which is the plan that's going to help you meet that total maximum daily load, and that involves all the stakeholders in the watershed. So it's not just the county. But the county is typically the biggest stakeholder because we hold the MS4 and PDS permit, which is basically all of our canals that drain that watershed. And then once that BMAP is set, you do projects to fix and meet that TMDL, and then you come back in and you reassess in five years to see if you're meeting those water -quality standards again. So this is the map that you saw last time, and we have -- currently 33 percent of our water bodies are impaired. We do have three TMDLs: One in Lake Trafford, one in Gordon River extension, and one in Cocohatchee River, and we don't have any basin management action plans currently. So there were questions about the water -body classifications. So a WBID is DEP's terminology for a water -body identification. It's basically the outline of the watershed. And so they assess the water quality based on the watershed. So what you're seeing in this map are the outlines of the WBIDs, and then all of the stations that were used in the assessment for the impaired waters. Those aren't all of our stations. That's everyone's stations. That could be South Florida, that could be DEP, it could be Lakewatch. It could be anybody that's contributing data to that database. If you want to dig into the individual impairments, I'm prepared to do that. If you have questions about the Impaired Waters Rule specifically that I can answer while I'm here, I can do that, or we can dig into the impairments that we have right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Normally we wait for the presentation to be finished before we ask you questions. Do you want questions during your presentation? MS. WATKINS: I didn't know how far you wanted to go into this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So some of your answers may be completed (sic) if you complete your presentation first, so... MS. WATKINS: All right. So these are the -- based on that same map that you saw initially with the 33 percent of the impaired water bodies. So these are the water bodies that are impaired for bacteria. And that bacteria impairment is based on fecal coliform criteria, and that criteria is listed in Florida Administrative Code 62-302. So the WBIDs that you see in red here are the ones that are impaired for dissolved oxygen. And DEP, initially, in their first run-through of this determined that dissolved Page 4 of 91 March 7, 2019 oxygen impairments were based on nutrient impairments because we don't have any nutrient criteria for canals in South Florida. We don't actually have a number to say that total nitrogen or total phosphorus is meeting a specific criterion. What we have is narrative criteria and dissolved oxygen concentrations. So DEP recognizes that a lot of our low oxygen in our canals is because we have a lot of groundwater coming into the canals. We also have a lot of slow-moving water. We have a lot of dark water. That all leads to low oxygen impairments. So if and when we get numeric -nutrient criteria, these would probably change drastically. We already have new dissolved -oxygen criteria, and a lot of these impairments are probably going to go away. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do we have to wait till she's done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We typically do. If you want a question that's pertinent now, go ahead. She might answer it, but... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Your DO is a snapshot, right? MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL• So it varies -- I mean, these boundaries would vary with the water temperature and season and rainfall and all? MS. WATKINS: Correct. Yes, they're definitely -- you can see a daily pattern and a seasonal pattern. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So this snapshot would be just typical or just -- I mean, if there's that much variation, the map looks pretty specific. How do you do that? MS. WATKINS: Just all the readings that we take — and, again, they're all during daylight hours, and we're not going out and getting diurnal samples for dissolved, and diurnal just means that we're taking them all through the night. We're just taking them during the daylight period, so we would expect there to be dissolved oxygen. In part of their assessment, when DEP does this, they actually do it to a time of day and temperature. So they relate it back to that. So it albeit a snapshot, it's a snapshot for the conditions at that time. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I -- MS. WATKINS: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- also ask a question? And this comes from someone who is not an engineer or science prone. But what in the world is dissolved oxygen? Oxygen's an element, right? What does it dissolve into? MS. WATKINS: It's dissolved in the water, so that's what the fish use to breathe. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. So it's something you want? MS. WATKINS: It is something you want. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. MS. WATKINS: Yeah. It's the only thing in this slide that you want more of and not less of. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since we're stopping at this point to ask questions, what -- how do you consider oxygen -- less oxygen to be a discharge of a pollutant? You said that it comes from groundwater, potentially, and other things, but when you do your analysis and you say all these bodies are impaired, that means they have some level of discharges of pollutants that are problematic. Page 5 of 91 March 7, 2019 If oxygen can be -- if low oxygen levels can be introduced naturally, how is it a discharge of a pollutant then? MS. WATKINS: Well, that's what they go in -- when they do the TMDL, they have to make a determination of the source of that pollutant. So in our case the source is likely groundwater inputs. There are situations where you do have potentially industrial runoff that has things in it that you're going to consume the oxygen in the water, and so that's what they're looking at. So even though it's impaired, they're still going to come back and verify that through the TMDL process. Is that an actual natural impairment, or is that a real impairment? And it gets a different classification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I'm worried about how you're defining impairment. Impairment, according to your definition, is supposed to be a holder in part due to discharges of pollutants. So can we confirm that all of the -- let's go back to the oxygen page, because that was the one where all this came up. So all those areas that are -- have dissolved oxygen above a certain level, has someone made a determination that it isn't -- it goes beyond just groundwater, especially in areas -- these are all residential in farm areas. So I'm wondering how we get there. MS. WATKINS: So the actual -- the definition of impairment is actually that you're not meeting the classification for that water body. So in the situation -- most of these that are red, they're Class 3 fresh water bodies. And the dissolved oxygen standard for them at the time was 5 milligrams per liter. If you're not meeting that 5 milligrams per liter, which means that's healthy for fish to be able to live in, then it's considered impaired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is it because of a discharge of pollutants or something else? MS. WATKINS: That's what we have to come back and determine after -- after DEP says it's impaired, then they have to come back and determine what's the source. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've made the determination in all these colored areas on this map that the sources are all pollution discharges and not natural? MS. WATKINS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why is the map colored in the way it is? MS. WATKINS: DEP makes the decision on whether or not it's impaired. That's by Florida Administrative Code, not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read your definition in the ordinance you're asking us to approve. MS. WATKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Impaired waters shall be defined per Section 1640.210 (sic) FAC, 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. So, again, why are we -- why are we saying all these are impaired if our definition says it has to be more or less proven to be whole or in part by discharges of pollutants? And I think you just said that isn't the case. MS. WATKINS: So in this situation, for dissolved oxygen where the state is saying these water bodies are impaired for dissolved oxygen, the goal of the ordinance is to address those impairments that are tied back to a pollutant discharge. So in this case we're not going to go out and do anything for somebody to try to meet an impairment that we know is from a natural source. Page 6 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then who produced this map? You said the state. MS. WATKINS: That is -- yes, DEP does the assessment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you send a link to us for that map so we can see it? MS. WATKINS: I actually produced this particular map, but it's based on the DEP Florida Administrative Code FAC 62 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, can we see a map based on the definition we're asking to approve in the ordinance you're rewriting today? The definition I just read to you is -- part of it's on Page 6 of that ordinance. So if you're -- if your definition says one thing, I don't really care what the state says. I don't really have a lot of faith the state's doing anything for home rule in Collier County. I'd more like to see what we really think the problems are, because I'm worried about the property rights of people that live there. You're covering most of Golden Gate Estates as well as the coastline as well as Immokalee, as well as parts of the RLSA, and I know its -- conveniently, the Big Cypress and the rest of them aren't covered. And if Mike will put on that map, I'll show you why I'm concerned about that. One of the problems I have is if someone were to come in and do a proper due diligence and want to understand what kind of property they're buying, these maps may give them pause saying, wait a minute, what are we buying here? Is this an impaired property? Well, it's not the property that's in question. It's those points that you take out of the canals. And I would agree with you, if the canal numbers are not accurate, the canal itself may be impaired by the numbers if they hit the proper definitions. But up in the north -- let's take a look at the northeast part of this map. All that red area is all of a sudden impaired because of two points that go out from the east side of Immokalee. So why do we have thousands of acres that are considered impaired for just a small number of points? And at the same conclusion, if we looked at the south part, the area where the Picayune Strand is and Big Cypress and all that, there's a whole pile of the impaired points there, but none of that's got impaired properties. How does that happen? MS. WATKINS: That happens -- so let's use -- OK Slough is the one you're actually referring to out in the northeast side. And there are two places where we can sample that watershed and still be not on private property. The other issue is we don't have an unlimited budget for water -quality monitoring, so we have to monitor all the waters in the county and able to -- for them to be able to do this assessment. Technically, DEP only needs one site four times a year in any WBIDs to make a determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what's the radius from that one site that the county -- MS. WATKINS: Just in that WBID, in that watershed. So that outline of that watershed, they only need one site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you think that's a little bit of an overreach? MS. WATKINS: I do; that's why we do our own water -quality monitoring. We're not required by state to do any water -quality monitoring in Collier County, so that's why we get -- we have as many sites as we do, because we want to make sure they're using accurate data and the most efficient and most numerous data points that we can give them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'm not against the water -quality monitoring. I think it's great you're doing it. And I would -- hopefully you -- for the most part, this Page 7 of 91 March 7, 2019 document I'm in favor of it. What I've been concerned about is the unintended consequences of a map like this that spreads an impairment by philosophy over huge acreages in Collier County when the impairment is a point within a water body. We're going way beyond water bodies here. And if you were to outline the canals which are about -- anywhere from 60 to 100 feet wide, and say that water body is what we're talking about being impaired, that's one thing. But then saying all these lands are impaired, I'm concerned about that. MS. WATKINS: Yeah. We're not talking about the land. We're just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are they colored? MS. WATKINS: We're just talking about the watershed. So any -- I don't think there's a lot of canals out in OK Slough. I mean, there's only a couple plus the slough itself. What we're trying to capture is the actual slough as it comes through and hits 848 -- or 846, I think, and 585. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would rather that instead of all these lands being labeled red as impaired, they be labeled as to if they're discharging to an impaired point. That's different than being impaired. MS. WATKINS: That's not -- that's not our legislation. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you made this map up. MS. WATKINS: I made the map up with what DEP -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can't give us a link to what DEP provided. MS. WATKINS: I can give you a link to Map Direct, and you can map it yourself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they're not going to show this, then how would be map it? I mean, I don't even know how you mapped it. I assume someone in GIS did this. MS.WATKINS: No, I actually did this. So you can go to Map Direct, and you can pull up the layers of Map Direct and say, show me the impaired water bodies, and it will produce a map very similar to this. It will highlight those WBIDs that are considered impaired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then all the lands around those WBIDs, as you call them, whether they're thousands of acres or 10 acres, are all of a sudden impaired by the color red? MS. WATKINS: The watershed, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to be clear, what you're stating or what this is actually stating based on -- let's use the example that Mark brought up on the northeast. You have two points you measure so, therefore, you extrapolate and basically say everything within the watershed potentially is to the -- is heading to these two points so, therefore, the state is classifying the whole watershed, then, in that area as impaired because of the data from these two points. MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCIB41TT: But you don't validate -- you don't go up in the northeast corner and you don't have another -- do you go up and access, let's say at the corner of -- northeast corner of Collier County, you don't have any access to go up there and validate that -- MS. WATKINS: Yeah, there's no access point. The sites that we pick, we try to pick to be the most representative of that watershed. So the water is draining to that slough. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And there's a statistical basis to make that assumption with no -- is there a confidence interval? Are you doing a statistical analysis? MS. WATKINS: No, we're not doing statistical analysis. I mean, it's just -- Page 8 of 91 March 7, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCIB41TT: It's just basically the assumption it's in the watershed; therefore, it's impaired. MS. WATKINS: No. We're looking at how the water flows through that watershed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. So you have to -- MS. WATKINS: So we also have to have access to it. We can't walk out into the middle of the slough on the very north end and get water -quality samples, unfortunately, unless we want to get a helicopter. (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm real concerned about the unintended consequences of maps like this being all of a sudden produced by the government, and now the government has rights we never expected because a map was labeled this way. I'm not sure this is the right way to go. And, also, addressing to the south, in the Picayune Strand and Big Cypress, why isn't the state showing -- there's more points down there apparently may be impaired than the ones to the north, so why aren't those being looked at or considered? Or are they all clean? MS. WATKINS: They're all looked -- they're all being looked at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how come they're not colored red? MS. WATKINS: Because they're not impaired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm saying. So those points down in the south have all been determined not to be impaired? MS. WATKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the one point to the north that basically encompassed all that acreage -- and, I mean, I know there's a lot of farm and cattle land up there and, I mean, I've been on the properties up there. They're beautiful properties. I don't know why, especially if they're not actively farming a lot of it, there's impairment issues with the whole thing. So anyway, this map -- and I overlaid your two maps that you gave us previously to produce what you see in front of you, and that's how I came up with my questions, because the points just didn't make sense in the areas that they were encompassing. I am worried about properties within those red areas getting caught up into issues that may be problematic because they're of the colorations. And I don't find necessarily the supporting data to call these impaired in regards to how Collier County's definition's looking at it. But we'll go on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi,Rhonda. MS. WATKINS: Hi. COMMISSIONER FRY: Also not a water -quality engineer, so looking for two clarifications from you. MS. WATKINS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: First is just the definition of a watershed. I believe you're saying you're taking point measurements in a water body, and the watershed is all the properties that the water drains into that body of water; is that correct? MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that's why the red area is much bigger than just the waterway. It's all the areas around it that drain into it? MS. WATKINS: Correct. Page 9 of 91 March 7, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. And the second is dissolved oxygen impairments, meaning too little oxygen in the water for fish to live in a healthy fashion. MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the assumption that that oxygen is being eaten up by fertilizers -- nitrogen, phosphorus from fertilizer runoff, or industrial runoff? Is that the -- MS. WATKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- likely assumption of the causes of those? MS. WATKINS: You got it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just not confirmed specifically that it is that, correct? You just -- MS. WATKINS: Right -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- know there's not enough oxygen. We assume its from fertilizer and natural, perhaps, livestock runoff, that type of thing? MS. WATKINS: So the state determines that it's impaired, then we have to come back and figure out why it's impaired, and that's part of the reason this ordinance is going to help us come back in and determine why it's impaired. Can we find a point source? Maybe we're assuming it's groundwater, and it's just naturally low. Maybe we're missing a point source in that watershed that's discharging that has high biochemical oxygen demand, which is something in the water that will consume the oxygen, and we need to be able to address that, and right now we don't have the tools to do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: But when you say -- you use the term "groundwater," that implies that it might have fertilizers in this. MS. WATKINS: Groundwater is naturally low in oxygen. It's just not exposed to air, so it just doesn't have a lot of oxygen in it so -- COMMISSIONER FRY: This is not runoff. This is not storm runoff. This is groundwater -- (Simultaneous speakers.) MS. WATKINS: This is groundwater seeping into the canal. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. THE COURT REPORTER: I canonly get one ata time. You guys are talking over each other. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sorry, Terri. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If the state's driving this train, is anything we do of any consequence? MS. WATKINS: It is, because we've been able to keep ourselves out of getting basin management action plans, and we would hope having an ordinance like this would actually keep us possibly from getting into a TMDL situation. If we have a document that says we can go in and do our own source track and we don't have to wait for DEP to come in and tell any MPDS holder that they need to do it, then maybe we can get ahead of the game and stay out of that whole TMDL cycle and take care of our own water -quality problems instead of having the state come down and telling us what to do. MR. KLATZKOW: Have these canals always been impaired, or is this recent? MS. WATKINS: This is actually the 2012 iteration and, again, this process happens every five years. So guess what we're in right now; it's another assessment cycle. MR. KLATZKOW: You're saying it's likely caused by groundwater, and you said Page 10 of 91 March 7, 2019 that's because groundwater does not get oxygenated. MS. WATKINS: Yep. MR. KLATZKOW: And, you know, they built these canals decades ago, and they've been having groundwater in these canals decades ago. So my question is, have they always been impaired? MS. WATKINS: So by their definition, yes, but the state recognizes after this first iteration that state water -quality standards don't always apply for a natural stream versus a canal. So they're actually coming back, and they've come up with new dissolved oxygen criteria which have not been applied to what you're seeing now. They're also coming up, trying to develop numeric nutrient criteria to address that in canals, but they haven't done that. They have that -- MR. KLATZKOW: If they've always been impaired, what is that we can do? MS. WATKINS: For that situation, if we can prove that it's a natural condition of the canal, we do nothing, and DEP won't -- they'll classify it as impaired but impaired from natural conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rhonda, does your presentation cover what specifically this ordinance will allow you to do in order to identify the source? MS. WATKINS: Yeah. Danette's going to cover that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're doing with these colored areas, you know the canal has a questionable numeric issue with whatever standard there is. So instead of showing the canals that have the problem, you're also making the presumption of guilt on the rest of the watersheds around those canals that they are causing the problem by the way you've structured these maps. And my concern there is we're not supposed to be approaching farmers and communities on a presumption of guilt but a presumption of innocence. I don't know -- you have no proof that these watersheds are contributing it to (sic). You're saying you need this document hereto research those watersheds. I don't disagree with the text in the document. We've gotten into a point where I think I'm more comfortable with it. What I disagree with is the presumption that's put forth by these maps, and I think those maps are harmful to property owners across the county, especially the far eastern property owners. And from that perspective I'm having a real problem fitting those into this whole conversation. I would much prefer you just show your data points and not produce this coloration that's an assumption of a problem that has yet to be proved based on the ability for you to now go out and test it on the language you're asking for today. Does that sound reasonable or not? MS. WATKINS: I mean, we can't get away from what the state's doing. They're going to produce their own maps, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just said that we can -- we can -- if we do our thing and we can keep out of the state's interference to a certain extent, it looks like they've substantially interfered if we're accepting their presumption that all these properties are problematic. MS. WATKINS: But they're required by the Clean Water Act to assess the waters and report back to EPA through that 303D report, and that's what this whole program is. There's -- I don't think there's any way around that. We can get around the TMDL process and BMAP, but we're not going to get away from the impairment process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the assessment of those properties has not occurred. Page 11 of 91 March 7, 2019 You've only assessed the sampling of the canals. MS. WATKINS: Which represents that watershed, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are these images official pronouncements of the county, or are they just to illustrate something for us? MS. WATKINS: They were just to illustrate for you all to see what --where the impairments are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it's not part of the ordinance. It's not going to be part of rules and regulations of the county. MS. WATKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you look for the definition of impaired water, what will you be looking for as far as impaired areas? Will you use these maps? MS. WATKINS: We will use the latest iteration of what DEP is saying is impaired for Collier County, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you use these maps then? MS. KINASZCZUK: I think what -- where we would go with the source tracking is we would find the outfalls. So we would look within the red area, or the gray -- whatever -- for the impairment is, whatever we're searching for, and then we would go to every development that drains into there and try to find the source. So would we use the map as a tool? Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think if I understand the Chairman's concern, it is, as he says, the unintended consequences of having -- I mean, we're a government. You're part of a government, and you've got these maps. You're using them for illustrative purposes to show us something. But what happens -- after today, what happens beyond this meeting in conjunction with these maps is of concern, and why wouldn't you just be able to say to us that they will not become a part of the record? Once you're finished with them you'll dispose of them; is that a fair request? MS. KINASZCZUK: We will not include a map as part of the ordinance. I mean, these maps will change once every five years, I mean, at the very minimum. But, yes, we use them as a tool, and we will not add a map to the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe there's a legend of some kind you could put on the map, then, that clarifies that this is not an official pronouncement of impaired land. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it appears to be, if the state is classifying it as -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let the state do it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- through the Florida Statutes. That -- my other concern is, if I'm a property owner in that area and I'm selling and somebody does due diligence and they would say, do you know you're trying sell me a piece of property that has been identified in an area that has water impairment? And, I mean, there's homes up there. There's wells. Are the homeowners advised of any concerns that the county may have or any of the other governments in regards to water quality? I'm just -- Pm looking at how this whole thing can be interpreted, especially as Mr. Strain pointed out, about the property owners up in that area. He's done -- two points made a very broad assumption that certainly could impact anybody that's doing due diligence and trying to purchase a piece of property up there and go back to the owner and say, hey, your property has far less value because you're in a watershed that has -- has been determined to be impaired. MS. KINASZCZUK: Well, as Rhonda said before, the DEP allows it to be done at Page 12 of 91 March 7, 2019 one site per watershed only sampled quarterly, whereas we're doing as many sites as we can monthly. We're using the best available data. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm having difficulty -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can you show them page by page. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're not on the air. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can you show them page by page where the definition of impaired water is within the text of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6. Top of Page 6. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's under definitions, but I want to know where it is in the text where you're enforcing it because it may be a definition that's not even mentioned in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nine, if you look at the word "impaired"-- "impair." If you look at the word "impaired," you get less. If you use the word "impairment," you get different. So we'd have to do three searches of three different words to get them all. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Getting back to these images. Can't we -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I mean, the point is the whole ordinance is relating to the discharge of pollutants and enforcing things that are polluting. So it's not just those areas that are shown in red. It's anybody who's polluting they could technically go after. So I'm not really seeing the connection as far as where it is in the ordinance with what you're displaying. So I was just asking if you could show the connection within the body of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think there's a simple fix to this problem; I really do. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Maybe we can get rid of the definition. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If you could relabel a map like this to show that it's an internally generated document and it is not a county pronouncement of land impairment. Whatever the state does, it does. But the concern is is that this would -- this could affect adversely someone's property. MS. KINASZCZUK: We do that, and I think we just -- the map is part of the presentation. It's not -- it's not included as part of the ordinance. So the map won't -- won't make it into -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: We don't know what will happen to the map, so let's just label it correctly. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. We can do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so we're comfortable, what will the label be? What were you suggesting, Ned, for the label? Just so we get it right. I want to make sure everybody's in agreement, because when this gets resolved, when we finish this item for today, I want to make sure the resolution is correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I may use too many words; it could be boiled down. But the concept would be internal for illustrative purposes, not a county pronouncement of land impairment. Boil it down if you can. MS. KINASZCZUK: How do you feel about "for internal use only"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It still doesn't say what you're going to use the map for. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I suggest an alternate solution? I believe the map has created unintended consequences to your mission by showing a giant area in red when, in fact, what is actually red, what is actually impaired are these spots where you've measured the water. So that body of water is considered impaired. Page 13 of 91 March 7, 2019 I think if the map showed the bodies of water that are impaired and maybe just had a dotted line around the watershed around it that isn't red but just kind of guides you as to the areas that are feeding that body of water that you want to investigate, that might raise less of a red flag with the Chairman and others in terms of property owners seeing they're in a field of red for whatever reason and believing that they're in a challenged area. MS. WATKINS: Yeah. I don't think -- the intended consequence of putting this map in there was just to show you that in places in the county we aren't meeting water -quality standards. So we need to have the tools to be able to enforce our own pollution discharges to our water bodies. So this is not something that's going into the ordinance. It's just a tool to say, hey, what we have in place right now isn't working. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying you're going to use this for enforcement purposes? Can you explain that? We're just digging a deeper hole here, and I'm -- MS. KINASZCZUK: We're going to use it for source tracking. So when we are trying to find -- when we have a pollutant load, we're going to try to find out where it's coming from. And so we're going to say, okay, in this red area -- and truthfully, this one's dissolved oxygen. At this point we're going to -- that's not our focus. So we're going to go to an area that has a different impairment, and we're going to look at that, and we're going to look at it on a map, and we're going to find every development that discharges to that water body, and then we're going to try to narrow it down where it's coming from so we can find the source. But I think -- I'm completely comfortable with putting some language on -- putting some sort of disclaimer language on any maps that we use going forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But based on that, what you just said about you being able now to pinpoint what developments are causing potentially the discharges, you previously said those points were minimal up in the slough area that I started out, because they were surrounded by private property and you couldn't go on the private property. Well, now that these impairments are thought to be beyond the water body you sampled, and this -- if this ordinance were to go into play, would that give you the right to enter those properties even though they're private? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes. We have a section about right of entry. It's the last -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these maps are being used to provide a right of entry onto properties that are presumed problematic where they're not known to be -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, that's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that you can't do today. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's not correct. I just did a quick skim. I don't have electronic access to be able to search the word "impaired water," but the impaired water definition is there for reference. It's not referenced anywhere that I could find in the ordinance. I don't know if you, being more familiar with it, could point out those locations. I mean, the point is, with this ordinance, if they find a place, whether it's in the urban or rural area, that is polluting, they can contact people, go on their property, and enforce it before the Code Enforcement Board if they don't get assistance from the property owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But the impaired water, that's just a reference in the definition. It's not in your definition of pollutants or discharges that I could find. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's nine references using that in the document. I did electronic scan. Page 14 of 91 March 7, 2019 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Where it says "impaired water." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says -- it uses the word "impaired." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, but the defined tennis "impaired water." That's the defined tern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I'll search "impaired water." I mean, I -- I didn't know this was going to -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, if it's the defined term, it's capitalized with IN W. (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nine locations that I show use the word "impaired," and I'd have to go to each one of those nine to tell you for "impaired water'; otherwise, I'll get too many that will just say water impaired. I would get them together. But I think I now understand why you want this ordinance, because if you've got a -- if you've got an impaired water body, like you do in the slough with one point that shows you've got possibly too many height of dissolved oxygen, you don't know if it's coming from the groundwater or from the farm activities out there. You now have the right, based on this ordinance, to go out to those farm fields basically anywhere you want and start plugging around to see where this dissolved oxygen could be coming from. And if you can't find it anywhere there, then the assumption would be it must be natural. Is that a scenario that you might be doing? MS. KINASZCZUK: Yes and no. When I was talking about right of entry, Heidi is right, it was more about a place where we're finding -- it would be more as a response to a pollution complaint. But we already have the right to test at the outfall because it's outfalling into our water body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. KINASZCZUK: So we will be standing in the canal testing water coming off. But we already -- we could do that right now with or without the ordinance. But then the other part of it is, leading up — maybe we need to test a little bit upstream of that and then, in coordination with the property owner, we would try to do that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Danette, are you going to start testing and then searching for property to find out if there's a pollutant, or you going to wait for calls? You know, how is that going to work? MS. KINASZCZUK: It's a little up in the air right now without the funding for it. But the best that we can, we'll take on our most polluted water body and try to, okay, at this point, we have -- we'll say we have 20 outfalls, right, so we're going to test right in the middle and try to eliminate here downstream, and then we're going to focus on trying to find the development that is causing the pollutant, whether it's copper or nutrients or what have you. MR. KLATZKOW: Is -- are you going to be testing septic fields at all? MS. KINASZCZUK: No. We would -- if there was a -- if we saw a septic issue, then we would respond, but we're not going out and randomly testing septic tanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When you have a test point that's impaired, you don't call the whole watershed that it's in impaired. You just have the portion of the watershed that's upstream of the test point that's impaired? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The map. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, yeah, but you can't say that downstream of the impairment is where the impairment is coming from. MS. WATKINS: That's the way it is actually done is it could be one point in that watershed. Page 15 of 91 March 7, 2019 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And it's the whole watershed, even what's downstream of the one point? MS. WATKINS: It's the whole watershed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's crazy. MS. WATKINS: So -- but that's what -- the TMDL will try to take into account the sources of that and define more monitoring in that watershed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if you had gotten far enough into your presentation or had any more you wanted to do. MS. WATKINS: Just going through the rest of the impairments. So these are the water bodies that are impaired for nutrients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, they're not water bodies. They're apparently watersheds, because the water bodies are the only points of discussion that you -- MS. WATKINS: I apologize. I used the term watershed and water body interchangeably because DEP uses WBID, which is water body identification. For the layman it's a watershed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does DEP have a definition for water body? MS. WATKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what that says, or do you have that handy? MS. WATKINS: I do not know what that says off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if a water body defined by DEP is strictly the water body where the sample points are taken from and not -- they don't refer to the watershed because the watershed is upland. MS. WATKINS: No. It's defined as that entire unit that you're seeing there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like -- okay. Go ahead. MS. WATKINS: These are the copper impairments. Any more questions? Iron impairments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Afraid to ask anymore. COMMISSIONER FRY: Have we resolved anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean, some may. I'm very concerned about the unintended consequences of the way you're approaching this for the property owners who not necessarily -- I understand the gated communities and the other things that have discharge -- point discharges, but I'm looking at a broad swath of, what, 195,000 acres alone in the RLSA plus the Golden Gate Estates area in the RFMUD and even Immokalee, and I'm just wondering how this is going to have -- what kind of impact that's going to have on those property owners. MS. KINASZCZUK: Again, the only reason this map was put in this presentation was to show you that we do have impairments in Collier County and that currently what's happening for water -quality treatment isn't working. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. WATKINS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would -- I understand that. But, again, you keep saying the word "impairments," and there's nothing that's been produced that I can see that shows sampling that shows the properties, the uplands are impaired. You have a point that you tested in a canal that shows an impairment from some source that's unknown, whether it's natural or a pollutant. And that's going to lead to a whole bunch of consequences for the adjoining Page 16 of 91 March 7, 2019 property owners in the sense that they're now all considered impaired. MS. WATKINS: That's why we need to be able to go in there and source track. CHAIltMAN STRAIN: Ah. And then you're going to go in there based on the areas shown on this map in the various colors and charts. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they have to have the rights to enter easements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think this document is giving them that right. That's what I'm concerned about; is it not? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You still have to apply for lands easements for rights -a -way, don't you, to enter a private property? (Simultaneous speakers.) MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's the entire county, okay. If somebody is polluting, they can go to the property, whether it's impaired or not impaired, okay. That's what this gives them the right to do and enforce it if there's a pollutant. CHAIItMAN STRAIN: But don't they need to have some reasonable cause to go onto the property, as this map is, that's the piece I'm puzzling with as -- this map, is it intended to provide reasonable cause? Is the watershed enough reasonable cause? Is the unknown source in a point discharge -- I mean in a discharge in a canal -- say a canal is sitting there, and they did -- and it could be groundwater or a pollutant, is that enough reasonable cause just to go onto private properties and start poking around? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I don't think this ordinance is about monitoring and testing, I think. This ordinance is about enforcing of the monitoring and testing that they already do or they become aware that somebody's discharging oils into one of the canals, a business, and they can't do anything about it. And DEP's -- it's not big enough for DEP to get involved, so they're, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Heidi, that's exactly what I thought this ordinance was going to do, and I applaud that. That's what I thought was a good thing, but it now sounds like it could go beyond that. You could be taking thousands of acres up on a questionable point in a canal way out east, and all of a sudden, as we've seen here, all those areas are now subject to additional trespass by government officials to find something that may not even be part of that party's problem. I do understand -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think that's the intent of the ordinance. If staff overreaches, hopefully that can be controlled by management. But as far as what the ordinance gives them is the enforcement part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show us -- can you -- rather than have us look through 48 pages, can you tell us what paragraph we could read your enforcement provision so we could refresh our memory in the language now? MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure. Under the one that you were just given, its Page 16, Article VIII, right to enter and enforcement fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Article VIII. MS. KINASZCUZK: The area that you're referring to, Mark, it's the least of our worries at this point, and still -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it is, and I -- and, Danette, I like everything you're doing. The problem is, government has a way of changing. And, look it, I've been -- the little bit of time I've been at Developmental Services people -- there's almost all new staff constantly. They'll read things differently. They'll start exercising rights that were never intended at a meeting like this, and because -- we never discussed it because we knew you never wanted to go there. It's not what your intention is that I'm concerned about. It's how this could be misread for unintended consequences down the road by somebody else. Page 17 of 91 March 7, 2019 That's where I'm -- that's the problem. That's been the problem with a lot of our interpretations in our code, and I'm worried about that when I see this broad swath of land being considered something questionable as an impairment. Let me look at this language that you've just pointed us to. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And closely regulated facilities are really any property in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Closely regulated facilities, under this definition, is any property in Collier County whether its residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is the first reference that they talk about in -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So they can go up to anybody's home and they can go up to anybody's business and say, you know, we're here for an inspection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Which I suppose they could do already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean they could do already? Don't they have to have reasonable cause, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, right now they could contact somebody and say, we want to meet with you on your property and go look at a whatever it is that's discharging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't there have to be reasonable cause? I mean, they just can't wake up one day and say, I want to go inspect that property over there at so and so street. They've got to have a reason. They've got to have something that ties that property to a -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, they can do that now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Look at the definition of closely -regulated facilities on Page 4 of the ordinance. It says, it shall be defined at those facilities or property regulated by the provisions of this ordinance. It's circular. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So anything that pollutes. It's any property within Collier County. COMMISSIONER FRY: What would the procedure be now? If you had a large ranch out east that you had an impaired waterway and they had a creek running from their property that fed into that waterway, would you now be able to go upstream in that creek and do measurements? If so, how? MS. KINASZCUZK: If we own the creek, we could. If it's a public -- if it's part of the Collier County stormwater system, we could, but if it's a private area, we would go knock on the door and say, hey, can we test your water or, you know, can we take a look around and see what's -- we have an issue here, can we figure out what's causing it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does this ordinance change that process? MS. KINASZCUZK: No, it doesn't change the process. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you still need permission to go on private property to test their water? MS. KINASZCUZK: That's my understanding of it. I mean, we're able to do it between eight and five Monday through Friday. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you can't get a warrant the way this ordinance would permit you to do? MS. KINASZCUZK: Yes. We could ask the Sheriffs Office to get a warrant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It says in the subsequent paragraph below, Page 18 of 91 March 7, 2019 basically -- I could say no, but then they can go get a warrant to come on the property. (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you can do that now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time so that the court reporter -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And they can still say no for one of our landfills. In the past, the county had to condemn the property with a temporary easement in order to go on and do the testing when the property owner said no. That was in the'90s. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a rule in the state of Florida that a licensed professional engineer in pursuit of his duties has the right of trespass. You know that, right? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. If you have a licensed professional engineer saying I have an engineering problem here, I have too much pollution, can they order somebody to go on that property without anybody's permission under that rule and do what they have to do? It was always my understanding. When I worked in private sector, we did that all the time. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I can tell you that we had at least one case where the county had to go and condemn the property with a temporary easement in order to go on the property. So in that case, there was an ability to say no. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You may want to check out that rule. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm familiar with the rule. I wasn't involved in the eminent -domain case at the time that did the temporary easement, but I'm sure that that was evaluated as part of the proceedings. COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll have to figure this out as we get to voting on it. Do you have anything else you want to present? MS. KINASZCUZK: Do you want to hear more about impairments? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I mean, we're here to -- I still want to understand what you're doing. Unfortunately, the more you talk, the more understanding we all seem to have, and it becomes more of a question. MS. WATKINS: At this point I'm afraid to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you speak slowly, everything will be fine. Is that the -- well, you've got herbicides, okay. MS. KINASZCUZK: Well -- so the last unanswered question from the February 7th meeting was about homeowner exemption for herbicide application in Article II, Section 2. You guys asked if a homeowner could apply to a water body that's on their own property, and the answer is yes, they can, unless it's a restricted -use pesticide. Then they need to get a private applicator's license, and a homeowner is not allowed to apply to a water body that's shared amongst multiple properties. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that's by a reasonable language change you made. MS. KINASZCUZK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. KINASZCUZK: And then our last slide. This was actually taken -- this was a complaint that we got a day after our last meeting. Just a little reminder of why we're Page 19 of 91 March 7, 2019 here. These pictures are of a stormwater pond and one of its inhabitants. A local business cut through the concrete curbing that was containing their stormwater in their area that housed their fuel tank and their grease tank, which allowed the contaminated discharge to flow out into the stormwater pond. And as you can see, this turtle is covered in so much grease and other contaminants that it's creating its own sheen while it swims. So with that, staffs recommendation is that the Planning Commission, sitting as the EAC, provide a recommendation of approval to the Board of Comity Commissioners 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further questions of -- go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have at least two general questions and maybe four or five specific ones. The general question that -- if it was answered, I didn't comprehend the answer. Would this ordinance give you more power than you currently have, you being the County of Collier, to enter private property against the wishes of the owner? MS. KINASZCUZK: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It would not. MS. KINASZCUZK: I need a little help with this one, Heidi, because I'm not sure how much power we actually have right now. I mean, our standard operating procedures is if we have an issue, we walk up to the front door of the business or the front door of the house and say, hey, can we see what's going on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those are the easy cases. I'm talking about where you're denied entry. Would this ordinance give you more power than you already have to overcome that denial? MS. KINASZCUZK: I don't think so. And I would look to our county attorneys to answer that one because I'm not -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm reading through it, and I don't really think A or B would. C is requiring them to maintain records that I'm not sure what rules they already have in place in the state level on keeping the records, so that may be an increase. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just talking about entry. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For entry? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, while that's being looked at, the other general question I have -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the difference is it makes it a violation of the ordinance. But to enforce -- if they say no, it makes it a violation of the ordinance that gives them a little bit more teeth than what they currently have right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Currently they'd have to declare a temporary easement; is that what you're -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think in -- I'm not really saying that, but I'm saying if push comes to shove, even under the ordinance, they may have to proceed. You know, that would be the worst-case scenario, and they probably -- they'd have to file suit; the Board would have to authorize it. So it would -- I doubt that it would probably happen. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So you don't -- then you don't think that this gives more substantive power to the government than it already has to enter the property against the wishes of the owner? (Simultaneous speakers.) Page 20 of 91 March 7, 2019 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Probably not, because I think it might be a little bit more intimidating to the owner if they said, hey, here it is written in our ordinance. You have to let us on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But as far as can they say no, I think even with a warrant they can say no. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then my second question, which I think is really quite a bit more simple to solve, and that's just to label these maps so that its clear that the county is not -- by having them the county is not pronouncing that land is impaired. At most it's saying that maybe certain lands need to be looked at, but it's far too early for anybody to conclude that the surrounding land is impaired. MS. KINASZCUZK: We'll pull up the language you recommended, and we'll use that on our impairment map going forward. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Then I have some procedural questions about the language. First on -- well, it's Page 112 of the packet, but it is Page 2 of the ordinance. The thing at the top where it says Section 1, Collier County adopts an ordinance that reads as follows. I think that's a non -sequitur. It follows Page 1 where you've said, now, therefore be it ordained. And usually you wouldn't have an article being a subset of a section. So it just looks like a non -sequitur tome. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It is a little bit atypical in how we do ordinances, but it was a little more tricky because of the consolidation. So I followed the format that we did for the consolidation of the code enforcement ordinance, so that section is necessary to be there and somehow got omitted. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So there's a Section 2? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, Section 2 is actually on page -- MS. KINASZCUZK: Nineteen. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: At the end of the ordinance, which is on page -- I'm not sure where it is in the electronic version, but it's labeled Page 19 of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I agree its unusual. I don't have a problem with it if there's a method behind it. So articles have become a subset of sections but that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, its a little atypical, but we have done it in previous cases. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thankyou. Can I say something complementary of staff: I thought that the chart you prepared was very helpful where I had asked for points where it was more strict than the state law. And I went over those and they all made sense to me, so thank you for doing that. MS. KINASZCUZK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then I go to Page 9 of the ordinance, Section C, having to do with fire departments washing down motor vehicle scenes. And the way it's still worded, lets say that a pumper arrives on the scene, washes down the MVA, and the pollutants then flow onto the land of an adjacent landowner, it becomes that landowner's responsibility to remove those pollutants? MS. KINASZCUZK: It does if the responsible party doesn't clean it up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the person responsible for site rehabilitation, would that possibly contain the driver who caused the accident? MS. KINASZCUZK: That's what's typical. If, you know, a truck overturns, then they're -- they call their insurance company, the insurance company calls the cleanup crew, the environmental cleanup crew, and they take care of it all. At the end of the day, if Page 21 of 91 March 7, 2019 there's no -- I think we've only had one case; and we actually got DEP to come out and take care of it at this point. So I haven't seen it fall on the property owner but, at the end of the day, if there's no one else, then it does fall back on the property owner. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't want to lose my place by going back to this definition, but can you refresh my -- the definition of person responsible for site rehabilitation, just to show that it starts with, I guess, the tortfeasor. MS. KINASZCUZK: Sure. It says, person responsible for site rehabilitation shall be defined as the real property owner, the facility owner, the facility operator, the discharger, or other person or entity responsible for site rehabilitation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it doesn't really sound solid to me getting at the trucking firm, but I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wouldn't that be a legal issue? I mean, we're not going to cover that in the ordinance because that's a -- that would be after the accident, a legal issue or a -- (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is the County Attorney okay with that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the insurance company. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. On to the next one. Oh, could you briefly tell me the status of the cooperative efforts that are taking place, the partnering effort with the City of Naples in that area around Ridge and Rosemary and septic tanks. How far along is that? MS. KINASZCUZK: Last I heard it was in the planning process. They had a bunch of community meetings and were able to get the price down for the individual homeowners with various grants from the Water Management District and other places. So as far as I know it's in the planning stage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. KINASZCUZK: Or maybe in the design stage by now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, as a point of discussion. I know there are issues with the map. I had some conversation with the staff in regards to this, and just for a little background, of course, as a former district commander and district engineer in the Army Corps of Engineers, I have lots of experience with dealing with the federal permit issues and, of course, my time with the county and state. The sad part about it is the Clean Water Act, though it mandates requirements under Section 4.04 and specifically 4.01 for water -quality certification and in the state through your ERP process, Environmental Resource Permit, they're very strict in regards to the staffing and issuing of the permit, but once the permit is issued, none of the agencies are funded to do enforcement. Now, that may be a choice of our legislators. I know in my years in the federal government, enforcement of 4.04, it's probably the most sorely funded program in the federal government because I think it's a conscious decision of our elected officials; they want enforcement but they don't fund it. And if you don't fund it, it doesn't get done. So the sad part about it is under state and federal permit process, they enforce the issuing of the permit, and they're, like I said, very strict prior to the issuing. But once it's issued, everything falls on the county. And if we want to assure at least some water quality within Collier County, I really have to support this ordinance as written. There may be flaws in the map, but we have to Page 22 of 91 March 7, 2019 do something. And sadly to say, it falls down to the local government. And unless we go back to the state and feds -- and the only way that the federal -- the feds will get involved is if, in fact, there's a validation of a violation, but it has to be significant enough even for the -- for the -- what do you call it? Well, through the Army Corps or through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or through Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to actually come down here and do an enforcement measure. So I support the ordinance as written. There may be some discussion on some modifications and changes. I think you've made the changes, and Ion happy to support it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And as the other environmental member on the Board, ditto. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question or two. On Page 18, the first paragraph, you changed some language in the sentence, the water is -- last sentence of that first -- or second -to -the -last sentence. The water purveyor shall, within one hour of notification is what it used to say. Now it will say, the water purveyor shall, upon notice by the County Manager or his or her designee, reinstate water surface. That's almost instantaneous, and you changed it from being an hour. Is that going to work? MS. KINASZCUZK: It will work. The problem is with the -- I had a meeting with Water Distribution, and we had talked about it earlier in the process, and they bad wanted -- like, if it's 3 in the morning, they have two crews out and they have a main break, they might not be able to get over to that house to turn the water back on within one hour, so that was the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So upon notice, though, you'd notify them and they'd come out within what, some time then. You think that provides enough latitude. It doesn't have to be within an hour. It could be within one day. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think its within a reasonable time. I had raised that question, because when you put an hour in there, then it's no longer within a reasonable time. When you take it out, I think that's implied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to make sure "upon notice" doesn't make it worse. I was just -- this doesn't say reasonable time. It shall within -- upon notice. That almost seems instantaneous. Maybe it's within a reasonable time upon notice or something to that effect. MS. KINASZCUZK: Sure. We can make that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't want anybody to misread it in that regard. The maps. I understand -- MS. KINASZCUZK: I will never make a map again. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will never make a map again. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what Christopher Columbus said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since there's a need to differentiate between the word "impaired" and "watershed," when you make this presentation to the Board, the Board's records are usually looked at a little more than ours, and their records are easier to find than ours for that matter. I would -- there's two things. You got the -- you're going to have the language, but could you try to remember using the reference to watershed for the lands around the impaired water bodies? And an improvement on the map, in those areas that you've got colored and crosshatched, instead of having the table on the side say they're impaired, why don't we just say --or whatever they want. Why don't we just say those are the watersheds Page 23 of 91 March 7, 2019 that are contributing to the impaired or that are -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Abutting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --abutting the impaired sample point? And that way it's also -- it's not saying something is impaired. That's the -- and that's the piece that got me concerned when we first started this. Is that something you could do instead of using where you're calling them out now? MS. KINASZCUZK: I'm having a little trouble trying to separate our program from -- on something like this, that it's kind of an industry term and an industry standard. I mean, yes, we can do it and we can talk about the distinction and talk about what your concerns were. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think Danefte provided the map to provide context that, you know, we have a problem in Collier County. There are certain areas that have been designated by another agency as impaired, and they attempted to reproduce a map based on the data that they were giving. So I think it was more of a context than these are the areas we're going after, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, Heidi, that's clearly the intended consequence, but it's the unintended consequence that I think we're concerned about. MS. KINASZCUZK: The board members -- actually, we've met with them to talk with the Pollution Control Ordinance, and they've already seen that map. So we can -- we can talk about leaving the map out altogether after this discussion, but they have already seen it. So I will definitely -- we will work on, during that presentation, to making some sort of clarification that we sample in a water body, and the drainage basin may or may not be in -- may not -- may or may not be the cause of the impairment; how about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works as long as -- yeah, as long as you make that clear. That's what got us -- at least got me into a tangent that I wish -- probably none of us wish we had gotten into. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion on this particular ordinance as the EAC? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I make a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consistent with staffs recommendation. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. Tony Pires had submitted a speaker slip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I thought he was for -- boy, he's a man of all things, isn't he? MR. BOSL• It was a late addition. I think he was compelled by the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He just happened to be here. MR. KLATZKOW: And now he can bill two clients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He can bill two clients. MR. PIRES: I'm trying to find a third. Thank you. For the record, Tony Pires, law firm of Woodward, fires, Lombardo. I'm just speaking on behalf of myself, listening to the conversation. It's a good conversation and a good discussion. Just a couple of items carne to my attention while listening to the discussion and reading the ordinance. First of all, on the construction status of Ridge and Rosemary, that area, I can tell you it is way underway. Our office is on Ridge Street and 41. They've got this big hole in the ground that they've put something big in the ground, they've been working since January, the first of January, that's why Ridge Street is cut off between 41 Page 24 of 91 March 7, 2019 and Goodlette pretty much. COMMISSIONER FRYER: When do you think it will be completed? MR. PIRES: They said 10 months. I'm thinking two years, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: From new or from the beginning? MR. PIRES: Well, they said 10 months from January. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. MR. PIKES: But it's a big project, as we all know, and that's just Ridge Street. They haven't started Rosemary yet, and Rosemary has a narrower right-of-way, so it ought to be interesting as sidewalk superintendents. So we have firsthand observation of that. A couple of comments. With regards to inspections, just quickly I was looking at the Florida Statutes, and there's a statute, Section 933-20 through 933-30, it talks inspection warrants, which I'm sure the county staff is very well aware of, and I think that provides the mechanism for inspections of the laws because it involves directed to a local or state official commanding him or her to conduct an inspection required or authorized by state or local law or rule relating to municipal or county building, fire, safety, environmental, animal control land use, plumbing, electrical, health, et cetera, standard, so I think there is that mechanism available to your point about how do they inspect. They can get inspection warrants. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You say that was a part of the Florida Statutes? MR. PIKES: Yes, 933.20 to 933.30. The reality, though, it might be difficult to get those. I remember the State Attorney's Office and law enforcement, generally -- hopefully they're more helpful nowadays, let me put it that way. Lastly, with regards to the section -- there's one section that caught my eye was with regards -- in Section 3: Requirements to prevent, control, and reduce pollutions by the use of best -management practices. As I read that, that excludes county bus barns, that excludes the county maintenance facility, that excludes the school bus barns or maintenance facilities because all it says, 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 waste into the environment through the use of structural and nonstructural BMPs, best management practices. And you look at the definition of commercial, and the definition of commercial is defined as property devoted in whole or in part to commerce that is the exchange and buying of and selling of commodities or services. I would submit that does not occur at a fire station. It does not occur at a governmental bus barn, maintenance facility. Industrial is defined as being business engaged in industrial production or service. It is a business characterized by manufacturing or productive enterprise or related service business. So I would submit that that exemption needs to be looked at, because right now you could drive, no pun intended, a bus through it the way it's so wide. And, secondly, South Florida Water Management District has BMPs for structural and nonstructural urban water management systems, and my understanding is that they are incorporated into their stormwater management permits, their ERPs that they issue. So I would suggest looking at that exemption more carefully to make sure that your unintended consequences -- that you're going after and penalizing residential property owners, but the govermnentai facilities are left completely out of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. Page 25 of 91 March 7, 2019 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: As long as we're reading into the record, Florida Statute 471.027, engineers are authorized to enter lands of third parties under certain conditions. Engineers are hereby granted permission and authority to go on, over, and upon the lands of others when necessary to make engineering surveys, et cetera, or cetera. And that's different from a land survey. A land survey is done by a land surveyor. An engineering survey, you go in and you look at what parameters you have to take into account to design the engineering product to clean up the water. So you might want to take a look at that as giving you the right to enter upon those lands. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I would like you to do is respond to Tony's concerns over the definition that was -- especially the maintenance facilities and bus barns. It seems like those are real concerning activities. So are they intended to be exempt from this ordinance? MS. KINASZCUZK: No, the government facilities were not intended to be exempt. In fact, we should be leading by example, so we can include -- in that particular one we can put in government facilities as well. I'm not sure what the code enforcement process is for the county bringing ourselves to Code Enforcement. MR. KLATZKOW: We don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't do what? MR. KLATZKOW: We don't bring ourselves to the Code Enforcement and say -- we just fix it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, okay. So you're going to add that language for governmental facilities. I think that's a -- MS. KINASZCUZK: Yes. UP. matter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- good suggestion, and appreciate Mr. Pires bringing it Okay. Now, with that, is there any other speakers, Mike? MR. BOSI: None that are submitted here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody here that would like to speak on this Garrett, come on up. Identify yourself for the record, and we'll be glad to listen to you. MR. BEYRENT: For the record, I'm Garrett FX Beyrent. I had this piece of property on Rattlesnake Hammock Road rezoned for affordable housing, and now it is a bus storage depot. Somewhat complicated, but I'm only up here because I went out to the site to see what it evolved into. It was originally called College Park at the end of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and I traded the property for -- it was somewhat a convoluted trade, but it was an 80 -acre mangrove high school of Marco Island High School. And in any case, the property now is almost totally paved where it was all trees before, and it's -- I traded it to the school board, and it is a bus storage depot. The odd part was I put a well in the back of the property way before I traded it, and the well is still there, and it's sitting right next to, believe it or not, where they wash the engines of the buses. So -- and I'm sure that that dirty, oily water is filtering down to the well that I drilled back in 1981. So I just thought the perfect example of the government has its own criteria for determining whether or not they're going to pollute something. And I think it's not intentional; it's just -- it's problematic, and thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on this item? Page 26 of 91 March 7, 2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if we want to entertain a -- first of all, anybody -- any further discussion on the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we can entertain a motion as the EAC for the Water Pollution Ordinance that's in front of us. I would like to suggest that if the motion maker continue, two things: Subject to clarification on the maps for the intent of those maps regarding the -- how they're described as impairment areas, and then the government facilities to be included in the context that Mr. Pires had brought up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I support that -- those inclusions as stated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Second by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. See, in the end, Danette, we got through it. MS.KINASZCUZK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's take a break for -- till 10:30 and resume at that time. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSL Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, thank you for the live mike. Welcome, everybody, to the second item for today's public hearing, and it will be a -- it's a continued item from February 7th. It's for a series of LDC amendments. And, Mike, before I read these off, are any of them -- are we going to hear all of them on the list today or some of them -- or, Jeremy, is all of them up for discussion today? MR. FRANTZ: I think they're all up for discussion. I expect that at least two of them we'll have to come back to you again on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll read them off. The ones we'll be discussing is 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 signage for facilities with fuel pumps; and to allow electronic message boards for price signage, and to add standards and requirements for permanent emergency generators for single-family and two-family dwellings. So before we go into that, I'd like to accommodate the members of the public who are here for a specific item, if there are any. So we may take them out of order. So what I'd like first to ask, is there any member -- I know, Tony Pires, you're here for the generator issue. Is there any other member of the public here for a specific item? Norm. MR. TR'EBILCOCK: Lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lighting. Okay. So we've got the lighting and -- Page 27 of 91 March 7, 2019 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not members of the -- they're government employees, so they have the whole day to sit here and wait. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, no. The chiefs got to protect us. Come on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll start with the generator one, and then we'll move in order that -- we'll move in order of the — Norm is privately here, so we'll go to Norm, and then third we'll go to the -- well, the generators are here -- the Fire Department's here for the generators; is that not the case? MR. FRANTZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Let's just take the generator one first, for the benefit of the Fire Department. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Appreciate it, sir, thank you. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Rich. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. Rich Henderlong, for the record, principal planner. In followup to your last month's meeting, we provided in your packet, which is highlighted in yellow, text changes based upon some of the recommendations and comments made by the Commissioners. We've also included an exhibit in there that identifies to help you analyze a little bit more about the noise study, the 2017 noise study that was presented to the Commission back then. And in addition, we went back and looked at the manufacturer's normal operating hours recorded sound levels, as well as their testing levels. If it's -- on the chart there's one particular manufacturer. There is no information there because they didn't give us that information. Additionally, there's a note there that we provided for you on that exhibit that -- we went back and talked to Code Enforcement to find out, since January of 2017 up to about this year, how many complaints had been registered by noise. There were over 274. Out of that, that was registered, only four were related to generator noise, and of that that generator noise was not permanent generators, but they were all temporary generators. I want to just make that for the record. Secondly, we've got two letters that have come in since then. One from Mr. Joe Dvorak. It's in your packet. He's in support of the -- he couldn't be here today, he wanted it read into the record, and so just -- we gave it to you as a backup recommendation to let you know he's supporting the issue. His primary issue is that its two or three inches. That once this gets approved, he'll be in compliance with it as it relates to the side -yard setback. As it relates to the distance separation between a generator, we don't know until we see -- he will have to come back for another application for that. Secondly, Mr. Tony Pires is here today to represent Fiddler's Creek Community Development District. Staff has reviewed that letter. It's been talked amongst staff with the Planning and Zoning Department, both Matt McLean and Chris Scott and ourselves, and we have no objections to the language that he is proposing to be amended to the text. We can put that on the visualizer for you when we get there at that point. Lastly, but not least, is we have the presence of, today, representatives from the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, Mr. Captain Sean Lintz. He's here to address any -- some of the concerns that you had raised at the last meeting regarding emergency service and access between the smaller zero lot lines. So with that, I turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. There's been some new language generated or corrected since the last time we got together, so let's start out with, is there Page 28 of 91 March 7, 2019 any questions of staff from the new language for this item? Go ahead, Stan, then Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's not exactly new language, but I had a phone call from someone about this item, and they asked if you guys are talking to Florida Power and Light, because they expressed some concern that when these systems go in, if they're not wired extremely well, that when these systems -- when the other systems are being worked on by their people, these systems could accidently electrocute some of their guys. So are you keeping FPL in the loop about this? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. They're very involved. And one of the things that the Building Department, and particularly the electrical guys that are reviewing this, is they look -- FPL has a requirement that they want at least three feet setback from those transfer switches and boxes that are set up there, and those loads have to be set up so that they're not immediately interacting. They have to have a shutoff, and they have to have an interconnect, and they coordinate regularly with FPL on it, on every type. So when a new system comes in by another manufacturer, they run it through and make sure that they're both working in sync together. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The new language that all easements burdening the property be displayed, what would the cost of complying with that new language be, and who would bear it? MR. HENDERLONG: As it relates to the fee in the process, staff sees this as about $100, $200 to the applicant to go through if -- they would have to make a request. Staff would also revert to the holder of the easement. They will ask for that request, that that easement holder be signed off, allowed as a permissible use before they would issue the permit. That would be the direct cost to the applicant. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're quantifying it about 1- to $200 only? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, that's correct. It's just a form and an application. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I had several emails and communication with the staff in regards to the placement of these generators. Specifically, I was using my neighbor as a -- he had applied. He ended up having to put it in the backyard. And I got clarity on everything that needed to be done now. But I have to again ask, the 10 -foot clearance -- and I did respond to you -all, and I finally understood the 10 -foot clearance between two generators was mainly because of the air intake for the safety factor there. But my concern -- and maybe the captain will talk about -- my concern, again, is emergency -- ability for emergency services to go between -- between pool equipment, air conditioner, and the generator if all of them are placed in the side -yard setback. Are you -all looking at the spacing of all of the various items in the side yard to assure that there is access to the rear yard of single-family homes or multifamily homes? That was my main concern. I want to make sure that with the various items that are in the side -yard setback, that there -- and especially when you have the two homes, either at a 5 -foot setback or 7 -and -a -half -foot setback, typical -- or a zero lot line even, that there's sufficient access in case emergency services have to get through the side yard to get to the rear yard. MR. HENDERLONG: To answer your question, are they looking at it, the answer Page 29 of 91 March 7, 2019 is yes to the extent that there's any -- that mechanical piece of equipment has an air intake system of some sort. A/Cs or compressors do not. The handlers, unless it's a packaged unit -- the two units come together -- it would be a concern. But when the staff looks at it, they look at the mechanical equipment, and they make sure that we do have a criteria for air intake. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand that. MR. HENDERLONG: But for the other, as it relates to pool services and so forth, there is no standard for -- (Simultaneous speakers.) MR. HENDERLONG: -- a relationship between that and -- other than what the manufacturer recommends. For example, when you put a generator in, the majority of manufactures require a 3 -foot separation around, so they adhere to that. That's test one. So if they're going to have an A/C, they'll see that that's too close. If it's impeding within that space of 3 foot, they would not accept it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if you have an A/C unit and a generator, the A/C unit is just the heat exchanger. It's not the air intake. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you've got the various -- and let's say the pool equipment, so you've got various pieces of mechanical equipment, some developments require sound walls to be constructed. That's not a requirement of the county. It's typically required as part of the -- MR. HENDERLONG: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- HOA or other criteria for the development. My concern was for access for emergency services. I mean, what kind of spacing is required for -- in case someone bad to get into the -- a firefighter has to get to the -- into -- through the yard to fight a fire in the backyard. If all these -- this equipment is in the way, are there any spacing requirements to allow for emergency services to access or to get through the -- compete with the various items that are now going to be in the side -yard setback? MR. HENDERLONG: I would like to defer to our fire official to answer that question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're talking about apparatuses, aren't you? COMMISSIONER SCIB41TT: Well, not -- typically not apparatus. They won't -- but it would be a firefighting crew hose through the yard -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Hose, ladders or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- or emergency -- somebody's incapacitated in the backyard, you've got to have access through these side -yard setbacks for litter or whatever you're going to -- so my concern was the spacing required for that, that there's sufficient spacing, that it doesn't restrict access to the side yard through the side -yard setback. But I'll defer to the captain. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Certainly. Good morning. For the record, Sean Lintz, North Collier Fire District, Captain Lintz speaking on behalf of Chief Ricardo. So I believe that what we were presented with in this package that we reviewed, we do not see any concerns with emergency access, EMS, or firefighting tactics, you know, within this. You know, the only thing which we have addressed here today, and we've talked some about, was the ownership safety of this generator, the carbon dioxide, possible carbon dioxide intake into the home and, therefore, you know, recommending to the Page 30 of 91 March 7, 2019 commission that we implement carbon dioxide detectors in these homes if these generators are placed. We have -- I believe, worst-case scenario, from what I had seen in the packet, we did have a 2 -foot separation between these in this lot line; is that correct? MR. HENDERLONG: For the zero to five, it's a minimum one foot off the property line, which would give you at least two feet, but the generators would have to be offset 10 feet between adjacent abutting properties like this. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Again, getting back to, I see no problems with firefighter tactics in that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So 10 feet is the distance, or excuse me -- yeah, the distance that you would need to pull hose through, ladders, stretcher, medical equipment, that type of thing, but you wouldn't -- you wouldn't ever, or would you need to drive an apparatus between properties? CAPTAIN LINTZ: No, no, we would stretch our equipment across. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Clarity, the 10 -foot is the separation between two generators, nearby generators. So one on one home, one on the other, but its not a 10 -foot separation between a generator, an air -conditioner, and pool equipment. It's -- there's no criteria, as I understand it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How narrow could it be? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's my question. There's --there are no criteria. It's basically -- the only criteria that was established -- (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see -- yeah, we're going to be establishing the narrowness based on how much space we leave between the outside edge of the generator and the property line. And then the distance between one generator -- and I would strongly suggest to the Fire Department not to consider generator to generator but generator to any other obstruction. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because what could end up happening is pool equipment, A/C equipment, who -all knows else, right up to 1 foot for -- 3 foot into the -- into the setback. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a generator, yeah, right across the way because the ordinance says generator to generator. It should be any other obstruction. So you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- always have diagonally 10 foot or more clear, and I think that's probably where you're coming from. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Absolutely, I agree. There should definitely be an offset between this equipment if entertained. I mean, again, as you go down the wall of these homes, you've got, you know, well -water equipment, pool -water equipment, you know, air-conditioning, generator, but we do have an offset from the home on the generator, so we're -- and I believe you're presenting the three feet, you know, clearance around that, so -- but definitely offsetting the equipment would give us the advantage, you know, instead of side by side. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is the widest thing that would go through a stretcher with medical bags on it? CAPTAIN LINTZ: Would be a person -- yes, a stretcher or a person carrying Page 31 of 91 March 7, 2019 those medical bags around. But as far as firefighting equipment, you know, a hose, a ladder with a potential of, let's say, six inches to a foot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we finish, before we -- you're going to see probably some paperwork from Tony Pires that shows an interesting scenario, and it isn't an obstruction like an air -conditioner or a generator or a pool equipment. It's actually hedges. Some of these facilities have hedges or walls weaving around the side setbacks to a point where you're going to almost be going through an English maze to get around there with a stretcher. So 1 think that all this ought to be taken into consideration, notjust generator to generator. But if they've got landscaping that's going to impede a 10 -foot pathway to the back diagonally, that's a problem. If they've got equipment that's not offset enough to give that 10 -foot clearance so they can get through it diagonally not -- because they're not going to be hitting it on straight on, and either their landscaping or something else is preventing that, we've got a serious problem. And so I would suggest when we wrap this up today we consider all these elements, not just generator to generator. So we might ask you to comeback up to comment on it after you see some of the pictures that I'm sure Tony's going to show us today. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the minimum width that you need for access? I mean, we mentioned a person carrying bags. Is -- if you're weaving between equipment, though, if you have a path of five feet width, is that sufficient? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I mean. It's got to be -- you've got to understand a diagonal width, not a straight -on width, because they're going to be a stretcher and two men with heavy packs and hoses and all the other stuff they're going to be carrying, is going to require a little bit wider width at a diagonal than there would be necessarily straight on, so that's the question I think we -- COMMISSIONER FRY: This seems to me we're talking about where you have a generator adjacent to an air-conditioning unit, adjacent to pool pad on the same -- on the same homeowner's side, and then you have similar equipment on the other side, you need a path between that of a certain width to be maintained, which 1 think is what we're after here, correct? And I'm just wondering what you think the minimum width is that allows you safe access and efficient access for anything you might need to get back there. Is it five feet? 1s it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diagonal. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ona diagonal. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Yeah, on a diagonal. Yeah, you know, again, I do want to make, for the record, though, that we have no governing authority over one- and two -single-family homes per the State of Florida. So we can only give you recommendations. Our recommendations, I would say, two to three feet, you know, for us to be able to -- you know, be able to get equipment through there safely. But I do agree, when you throw landscaping into this issue, hedges, things to that nature, this could pose a problem, and we'd be relying on you guys to enforce that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of the fire chief while he's up here? (No response.) Page 32 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. We might ask you to come back up before we wrap up today. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Certainly. Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, anything else you had to offer? MR. HENDERLONG: Other than that you may want -- the Planning Commission may want to make that a recommendation that it be three foot between all mechanical equipment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I think what we're -- what I -- MR. HENDERLONG: That's what I'm hearing today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to hear from the public yet, but there are some questions I have if everybody else is done. I am concerned about the clear distance between any obstruction from any new element, and if we're adding a generator and it will have a greater input to the setback than we allow by standard three feet for air -conditioners and pool equipment, now we're looking at, what is it, four feet, whatever it would take to put a generator there. MR. HENDERLONG: It's minimally four feet, but if it's a wider setback, if could be five -and -a -half to six feet, seven, depending upon the side -yard width. The bigger the lots go out, the further they have flexibility to place it in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. My understanding from Rich, what I got back from you -all, was a seven -and -a -half -- or seven -and -a -half yard setback, so it's -- but even a five -- MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Five -- or 7 -and -a -half foot or 5 -foot setback between houses. But you said it still has to be no -- it has to be within two feet of the property line or greater. MR. HENDERLONG: Well, the table in your text is based on four different side -yard setbacks. Zero to five, it's one foot from the property line; five to seven -and -a -half, it's two feet; from seven -and -a -half up to, I believe it's 20, it goes to a three; and then it goes to -- there it is up there, greater than seven -and -a -half, above 20, it's four feet. So you would have, between two lots, under the first -case scenario, a 2 -foot if they're perpendicular together, you'd have four feet, five to seven -and -a -half feet; at seven -and -a -half up to 20, you'd have eight feet; and then 20 or greater you're going to have 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, the intention of our setbacks was also to offer a compatibility standard -- basically, it was part of a compatibility analysis for a unit. So when two units are set back by -- we started out at greater -- seven -and -a -half years ago it used to be our standard, then it got down to five. But we always required a minimum 10 feet between buildings, and then we started creeping into the setbacks with these various types of appliances, and now we're looking at a third element. I mean, pool equipment and air-conditioning units have become almost standard. Now we're going to be adding a generator. And, of course, we've got drainage swales usually between the unit, and we've got now landscaping, and in some cases some developments require walls around their elements that go there. Well, setbacks are becoming almost wiped out by some of this, and I'm not sure, from a compatibility standard, it's 100 percent right to do that, especially if you look on page -- I think it's 20 -- you did a sound analysis -- 25. I find this interesting, the sound level limit of 75 dBA. First of all, what does that mean, the first -- it's on your slides that you didn't show us. Page 33 of 91 March 7, 2019 MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner, would you -- the packet page, I've got the copy for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a different -- it's Page 25 in my packet, but that doesn't mean anything for anybody else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He's always on a different sheet of music, I've got to tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a -- MR. HENDERLONG: Help me along. What packet page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a black page like that. MR. HENDERLONG: Gotcha. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it starts out on the top of this particular -- it looks like a slide somebody was going to use, sound level limit, 75 dBA. Where did -- let's start with that. What does that mean? Where did it come from? MR. HENDERLONG: That number came from code as it relates to manufacturer or industrial. It's your highest allowed permissible sound levels for -- by the noise ordinance adopted by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, when we assess for sound levels, they do it at the property lines. MR. HENDERLONG: Actually, it can go up to 50 feet away depending upon what the noise complaint is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where this comes into play is look on that page. If 75 is the sound limit level, we only got one -- two instances way down on the bottom, 45 kWs that get us there, right? MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we know we're going to be introducing a problem, because a 45 kW is a pretty big machine, and not everybody's going to need it or want to afford one like that. I think I've got one at 15, or less than that. I just don't know --and mine is a portable. I'm not sure how we think this is going to be acceptable to people living next door on a standard for compatibility by allowing a dBA we know is going to be higher than what they should be expecting from their neighborhood property. MR. HENDERLONG: That issue was --just recalling the minutes, in 2017 (sic) the issue with the Commission that struggled with it at the time, tried to get around the fact that these are -- some refer to them as a standby generator in the sense that they're -- it's usually a testing period. We've regulated that, so that noise is a very short period. The probability of them being used full time can only occur, state of emergencies, or when there's extended power outages beyond 30 -- 30 minutes, for the most part, because most of the equipments they're putting in a trip button or a mechanism in there that allows it after 30 minutes, the quick power outage, it's not going to kick on. So there is an override there that kind of protects that. If it goes beyond 30, then it will kick on. It's a matter of trying to decide whether the sounds, as they relate to here. And this technology, this database that you're looking at were, at the time, in 2007, the best information that they had for that equipment. I'm told by some of the vendors that -- that's why we gave you Table F. That database is more relevant in terms of the decibel levels and that they can vary as much as from zero to 5 dBAs. So when you're looking at that data, it's an average of operations, because when you're in what's called a free environment, Exhibit F, the free environment tells us that at 23 feet away, when that equipment is running, without any background -- it's a controlled Page 34 of 91 March 7, 2019 environment. They do a decibel reading over a series of them, and they come up with an average. Every manufacturer does that. So these are their database that's recognized in what they call the free environment without any background noise. The numbers you're looking at in the 2007 study include background noise which will increase the decibel levels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, would you put on that overhead I asked, or Jeremy. That table you just showed us, see those houses? How can you be 23 feet away from them? You can't, and that's the problem. I understand what you just said, but you're going to be -- now those are 10 feet apart, five foot each side. You put a generator four feet into the side lot, you're going to be six feet from that house next door. That's going to produce an echo chamber, most likely, in that -- between these two walls that are just going to sit there and vibrate and even make it seem louder to the people involved. I don't care if it's 30 days or -- I mean, 30 minutes or five minutes. I don't know if that -- if you -- you come down here to move into a lot with a small house on it with tight setbacks, you're almost forced to be contentious to your neighbors, and I'm not sure allowing generators to be installed in those very narrow situations is beneficial to people who moved into a community not expecting that to happen, to be honest with you. MR. HENDERLONG: I respect that, and that's a policy matter for the Commission to decide whether they want to allow them at all in those tighter confiner spaces -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and the way your -- the way your tables work out, they -- theoretically, if we look at a -- because you have a -- on the table it says, if you have a setback of five feet or less distance to the lot line, one foot. So those are the extremes, and even the one above that. So I'm real concerned about how close these units are going to be to the properties next door as a compatibility standard. And the other piece that I'm worried about is obviously the separation distance when you take all of the obstructions that go in that little confined area between those two houses and then tell a firefighter to figure out how to get back there to save someone's life. I don't know how you could do that with a lot of the other pictures that I'm sure Tony's going to show everybody. His purpose is to show everyone to make sure we have concerns over the easements that may be in place. But in looking at those pictures, it reminded me, there's a lot more to this than just an easement, and that's just --the maze of getting back there is a bigger problem. So I just wanted to mention that part of it. On that same table that we've got where it talks about generator setback and separation standards, the separation on the second part of that table, it says, distance to public and private road right-of-way, five feet. I would suggest we need to cross that out where it says "public" and just say "private," because if we have a public road right-of-way and we get into a situation where we need to expand the right-of-way for whatever reason, five feet may not give us much of an issue before we have an eminent domain issue that's going to cost us a generator relocation, and those could be extremely costly. So I would not think that's a good idea to have the public roadway -- it be five feet off a public roadway, but maybe that's something the County Attorney's Office can weigh in on if they have a concern over it. Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I always recormnend a 10 -foot setback from public right-of-way. I think this was in response to something that must have been raised at the Page 35 of 91 March 7, 2019 last meeting. MR. HENDERLONG: DSAC brought it up during the DSAC recommendation was that it include public right-of-ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't know they brought it up, but it wouldn't matter. I don't agree with them; that's not unusual. I think it -- I think we ought to strike the word "public," and if there is a public road right-of-way, we separately list it for 10 feet, and that way we've got some clearance in case we need it for any unknown effort in the future. MR. HENDERLONG: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you were already -- we're going to be talking about adding the language that Tony Pires is suggesting, and those are the only issues I have right now until we hear public speakers. Anybody else? Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Does the language that's being added to that give the ability to keep the generators out of all drainage easements in -- MR. HENDERLONG: No. What the language allows is that there has to be a requirement. First of all, let me back -- make a point -- a clarification. The county does not allow them in drainage easements that they own and maintain and so forth. If it's to go in any kind of a drainage easement, be it an HOA, which is what is proposing, or any other holder, which would also include the county, in order for it to get a go-ahead light, they have to have an agreement signed. And I've shown a draft of that that Palm Beach County uses, and it's very common in that regard to get -- as long as the landowner's in agreement on it. Now, there's yet to be discussed about whether a removal agreement could be brought in at some point in time, that the easement holder may want that, and they're certainly at liberty and freedom to do that, is to say that you, the owner, or the corporation or the entity go ahead, put it in the easement, we'll let you go. But in the Palm Beach code requirement -- I want to make a point of clarification -- it stipulates this; they go one step further. There has to be a demonstration and proof that it cannot fit to anywhere else on the property. I hope I didn't confuse you or get -- go off in a different tangent there, but they will be allowed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I'm just concerned about being in a drainage easement, like on the side of my house there's a — our property lot there's, you know, 10 feet on each side of our house, and five feet from the property line, each side, is the drainage and your public utility easement. And it is for drainage, because there's water in it when it rains hard. So this could either make it -- the neighbors air -- the generator, if it could even fit with the pool pumps and the air-conditioning units, it could go possibly within the five feet, but you're giving the ability for it to go into the drainage easement -- MR. HENDERLONG: Right now -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- two feet even. So, you know, if people want to -- if you need something done in the back of your house, tree trimming or anything, something needs to get in there, you're taking up -- you're taking that ability away or making it cost more for the homeowner to trim a tree because everything has to be done by hand, cut up smaller, pulled out. So I'm not -- I don't understand it going into an easement. And sometimes even -- the FPL on Lakewood Boulevard a few years back, there was poles that needed to be replaced between Lakewood and Kings Lake. They drove the trucks in between the Page 36 of 91 March 7, 2019 homes, because there's 10 feet there. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So if that were to occur, then if there was a generator in that easement, then the homeowner has to move it out if it were allowed. MR. FRANTZ: Perhaps we could put the language up that was suggested, because staff is in agreement that we can add that language in. It does provide the requirement to have a sign -off from the easement holder, and if that were not provided, that approval would not be obtained. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The easement holder being who in a situation like mine, if there's five foot on my neighbor's side and five foot on my side? MR. FRANTZ: Well, I don't know who holds the easement. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that's the whole -- the homeowners own it. MR. FRANTZ: Then it would be coming from the homeowners' association, whoever is -- whoever's the -- on that easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your plat would say who the dedicator is for the easement, so who receives the easement. That person would have to provide a letter of no objection to the county in order to put a generator in there. Usually that letter of no objection would have something into the effect that if the generator needs to be moved, harmed, or destroyed, then it's their problem. It's not the HOA's problem. But go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think, Karen, maybe -- a drainage swale may be -- is different than a -- a drainage easement is shown clearly on the plat or plan. It's a drainage easement -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and it's dedicated -- let's say the HOA -- and typically, if the HOA owns them or the CDD, what it typically is, is a -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're nota PUD. I'm not talking about a PUD. This is just a subdivision, and it's our own property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a subdivision. It's typically a dedicated drainage easement, the outfall from the street where it drains, there's a pipe, typically, underground in that drainage easement that may run into the -- one of the lakes or retention areas. And what my concern was -- and I've had this with the staff and then I saw Tony's language, basically, it's saying, okay, you can get the easement -- approval of the easement owner, except for the county. The county says not in the county drainage easement. But you can get the approval of the -- in this case let's say it's a CDD, and then the CDD may say, yes, you can put the generator there, but if we, some day, have to dig up and get into our pipes, you're solely responsible for any and all costs to remove that generator. So if you get the approval of the easement owner, it holds harmless the easement owner and puts the onus on the property owner to pay for any -- if, in fact, that generator had to be removed. That's my understanding. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. I can give you an example of Palm Beach, if you'd like, to show you -- they have an instruction sheet, and it gives you an example. But in talking with staff, that's the sort of thing they will be looking for the easement bolder to generate and submit to the county, if that helps. (Simultaneous speakers.) MR. HENDERLONG: And then we have on the visualizer for you the language as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And who is the -- Page 37 of 91 March 7, 2019 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Both sides, both owners, five feet on one side and five feet on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use your microphone, Diane -- Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It fills on one side of the house, because my house is older. Their house is nine feet and mine's seven. In a heavy rain there's actual water in the grass. So it's for drainage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If it's a dedicated easement between the two homeowners, you'd have to get approval from the two homeowners, am I correct? MR. HENDERLONG: Correct; that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, we'll start with registered speakers and then anybody else that wants to speak. MR. PIRES: The only registered speaker we have for the generator issue is Mr. Pires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't he already speak once today? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Different client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Different client. MR. PIRES: This is the client. The other one was a public service. This is a -- these are clients, yes. Tony Pires, law firm of Woodward, Pires, Lombardo, representing Fiddler's Creek Community Development District No. 1 and Fiddler's Creek Community Development District No. 2., two community development districts that are the infrastructure owners and operators within Fiddler's Creek. Thank you for this opportunity, and I appreciate the reception that my proposed language has obtained. And I provided photographs, and I can give one to the fire official also, of the situation that generated the interest on the part of both District I and District 2. The photographs that are provided reflect placement of a generator in a side yard but also within a 7 -and -a -half -foot drainage easement. In this situation, the distance between the two structures is 15 feet, and they are set back each seven -and -a -half feet from the property line, but that entire distance between the two homes as reflected on that one photograph is encumbered by a drainage easement. And it's dedicated on the plat, the drainage easement, to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. And to the CDD2, in this instance, to -- with responsibility for maintenance. So I would submit that Collier County would have a stake in those easements even if they have no maintenance responsibility to have a drainage easement, which provides them the ability, if they wish to -- if the District doesn't do its work, the county can go in there and perform maintenance activities or drainage activities. In this instance, the specific instance that's depicted in the photographs, that occurred in District No. 2, but my understanding is we have other issues in District 1. The districts are not notified when permit applications are made, and quite often we find these encroachments after the fact, sometimes many years down the road. That happened in Pelican Marsh with fences going into lakes, and it's happened in other communities where structures are placed within the District's dedicated drainage easements or easements provided by a grant of easement. And the difficulty is -- I understand the question was about how much does it cost to get a survey up front or what cost is associated with getting the necessary information to Page 38 of 91 March 7, 2019 put on the site plan, and it might be 100, it might be $400, but I tell you it's a much more expensive proposition when three or four years or five years down the road the entity that has that easement discovers that the structure is in the easement. We don't go doing home inspections, we don't do building inspections, and then we try -- we, the District -- in my case it's happened a couple of times -- tried to get the homeowner to comply. The only option then is to go to court to require removal of that particular structure, and then on the homeowners' parts it becomes very expensive to have to remove that facility, relocate it, and it becomes expensive for the District to enforce its easement rights. So I think a proactive approach, I applaud that. I think it would help the districts, help the property owners, everybody, to not have these issues on a go -forward basis. Fortunately, in this case, you see from the photograph, the first photograph, were taken by the neighbors to the south where they saw this generator show up one day in the side yard. A few days later, after a demand later was sent to the property owner of the Lot 2 to the north and to the contractor, the generator was removed and pad remained. The pad has ultimately also been removed. The third document in here reflects the -- basically the location of the properties and the location of the drainage easements, and the last one is an overhead shot showing the distance between these two structures and where the drainage easement takes up the whole space between two structures. I do appreciate that in this instance of this generator, the county staff, during the permit review process, did tell the contractor to get the consent of the easement holder with responsibility. The contractor did not and went ahead and placed it. So I do appreciate the fact they did, but this has happened in many other instances where the county did not require that the consent of the easement holder be obtained. To the question as to what type of document, there's a -- sort of a standard template I've created, and I've used other counties' examples of an encroachment and non -disturbance agreement. If my CDD clients are agreeable, amenable to an improvement being constructed, say, pool equipment, air-conditioning equipment, walls, or generators within a drainage easement or a lake maintenance easement, because they also can be impacted, then this encroachment and non -disturbance agreement tells the property owner, okay, you can build this improvement, or you can keep the improvement, but it we ever need to use that drainage easement or replace what's in that drainage easement or that access easement or that lake maintenance easement, we will notify you. We will first try to see if we can work around it. If we can't, we will notify you to remove the items, the structures or improvements, and if you don't, we can remove it, and you hold us harmless, and then you're responsible for the expense. So there are a number of those agreements already of record, and that gets recorded in the public records of Collier County. So that's how we've approached it both here in Lee County and in Collier County. I appreciate the consideration by the Planning Commission and request this additional language. Any questions, I'm here to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I don't have any questions. I don't think anybody else does. Pretty straightforward. MR. PIRES: Thank you very much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate your recommending it. It looks like staff supports it as well, so that's good to hear. Page 39 of 91 March 7, 2019 Anybody else have any -- or any other speakers, Mike, first of all? MR. MITCHELL: None for the generators. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody here who would like to speak on this item who hasn't already spoken? Norm. So you got two clients, too? MR. TREBILCOCK: Taking Tony's lead. No. I just want to echo, actually, one of the concepts you brought up about the -- for the record, Norman Trebilcock, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, professional engineer and certified plainer. The idea of the setback from the right-of-way, I think it would make sense to apply that for the private right-of-way as well because, typically, when we plat road right-of-ways, whether they're private or public, and particularly on the private, we normally have a 10 -foot PUE, a public utility easement, and so that would really prevent that conflict from ever happening. You know, most of the time we will always have a 10 -foot PUE next to a right-of-way, and so that will keep the equipment clear of that particular easement. So I would echo that same idea that the County Attorney mentioned for the public -- to do the same thing for a public right-of-way. And then also you mention about the decibel levels. I mean, it's good having that criteria you have because, you know, oftentimes they can put additional measures in to prevent the noise levels from occurring, too, you know, additional over the equipment itself, so that's good. And then also on the -- not in the easement, just echo the idea that you have about the permissions, but really put it incumbent on the applicant to verify. You normally have this anyways to make sure they've gone to the HOA. Our HOA does not permit any type of equipment or anything like that in a drainage easement or other such easement as well. So having that measure that you all have in your system makes a lot of sense to prevent that from happening. So with that, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Norm. Anybody else? Sir, come on up. CAPTAIN LINTZ: I'd just like to reiterate, after looking at the pictures that were presented there, that I am very confident that we would have the ability to perform our tactics regardless of the situation. I mean, we train for everything. We train for every scenario that we encounter. After seeing those pictures, I'm very confident that we'd be able to perform. Again, I commend you for pushing the carbon dioxide detection within the home. I think that is a very, very important element. So, thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are you talking carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide? CAPTAIN LINTZ: Carbon monoxide; Ion sorry. My apologies. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that in the ordinance now? I didn't -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Carbon dioxide detectors. I didn't catch that. Where would they be located? It would be throughout the house or -- MR. HENDERLONG: They -- if it's within 10 feet of the generator, they're required -- on every floor on that window opening they will be required. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good. I know a lot of homeowner services now -- I mean, home secure services have those as integral parts of their security system, Page 40 of 91 March 7, 2019 so --yeah. Good, thanks. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would the installation of that carbon monoxide detector or detectors be confirmed at inspection time for the generator? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good point. CAPTAIN LINTZ: And that's what we would recommend, that those carbon monoxide detectors go inside and outside every sleeping quarters. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that is a specified point of inspection by electrical or mechanical when they come? MR. HENDERLONG: Electrical. We've had the discussion. Yep, when they go out for the final to do the spot survey at the end, they're going to go and double-check that that's installed, or they don't get the final. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The final approval. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Captain, you just made a comment about positioning of multiple carbon monoxide sensors inside and outside bedrooms. That's not required specifically in this amendment. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Okay. Again, we recommend that, you know, as we do smoke detection inside and outside every sleeping quarters. Obviously, outside for the early detection. If it was to venture inside, you would have the detection inside of it. So that's what we'd recommend, inside and outside of every sleeping quarters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Provided it's got an exterior opening on the wall that's facing the generator, right? CAPTAIN LINTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. This is specifically requiring at least one inside the structure near the exterior opening, the window or door, and on each floor level. So it would be one per floor level near that opening. Is that sufficient for your life -safety concerns? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you reading that? COMMISSIONER FRY: It's on the -- MR. HENDERLONG: It's the visualizer. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- visualizer. It's the top of Page 5 in the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you didn't -- I thought — I didn't hear you state what was No. 4. No. 4 says, if any exterior wall openings are within 10 feet of the generator's exhaust outlet, at least one carbon monoxide (unintelligible) should be installed inside the structure near the exterior wall opening on each floor level. So it's not every bedroom. It's just those that have windows within 10 feet of that exhaust. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we understand that. I thought you were looking at a broader application. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if its more than 10 feet away -- if that window or door is more than 10 feet away from the exhaust, you're not concerned about carbon monoxide getting into the home? MR. FRANTZ: This is -- just to be clear, this is the language that staff recommended. It sounds like he may be suggesting something a little more restrictive. COMMISSIONER FRY: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Actually, Pd like to introduce -- I brought with me Daniel Page 41 of 91 March 7, 2019 Zunzunegui. He is from North Collier Fire Plans Examiner, and he kind of specializes in those codes and looking into those distances, so if I may allow him to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. As long as he spells his name. And don't introduce any maps, please. MR. ZUNZUNEGUL• Daniel Zunzunegui, for the record. Pm actually a retired fire lieutenant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't spell that name. MR. ZUNZUNEGUL• Z -u -n -z -u -n -e -g -u -i. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason I ask is our court reporter has to get it accurately. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: No, I got you. I'll give her my card after that as well. So to agree with the captain, I think it is a little more restrictive, but there could be an opening. If we have multiple generators abutting each other -- and this is something that's spreading throughout our community -- it doesn't hurt to have these inside sleeping areas and outside. Certainly, I think there's a higher risk when people are asleep, just like with smoke detection. We want to wake them up; make them aware of a hazard. So I agree with the captain's recommendation 100 percent. I think that that's something we want to look at within your amendment. Also, just to reiterate, we don't regulate on one- and two-family homes. We stay out of that. We're commercial and multifamily. So we just want to support education, when it comes into installing these, installing them safely. I think Richard's done a great job on what he's put together, been able to review that a bit, and I think he used a lot of standards that we would use on commercial properties and multifamily that really help make this safe and help to guide these in a way that's safe for the community. But, again, just --our stance is that we would just recommend that CO detection is put in, and if there's anything we can do to help with the public education with these, we're glad to do it, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you — COMMISSIONER FRY: To your point about inside and outside sleeping quarters -- so I have a background in low voltage systems including -- not fire alarm, but security, and carbon monoxide detectors were a part of that. So in different municipalities, Collier County, City of Naples, different requirements for the location of those carbon monoxide sensors. So those are handled by the code when the building is constructed or a major remodel is done. This is only what would have to be added when a generator is installed. So just in thinking this through, we have a requirement here for one per floor near any window or door that's within 10 feet of the exhaust. Would that not be enough? It would catch carbon monoxide, it would measure carbon monoxide that enters through the window if it was -- and it's required to be near the structure -- inside the structure near the exterior wall opening. So inside the window, inside the door. Would that not be enough? Do we need to add a requirement for additional carbon monoxide sensors, or would this be sufficient? MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: Well -- so let's say we had a new multifamily dwelling come in with a communicating garage. We would have on the floor, a fuel burning appliance or communicating garage, parking garage, we would -- that floor would be protected with CO detection and outside the sleeping rooms and inside. So that's where that recommendation evolves from. Would one be enough, I don't know. If it's your family, I guess -- again, this is Page 42 of 91 March 7, 2019 one- and two-family. It's -- we don't push any fire codes or local codes from our district on single-family homes. But just looking at what we would do commercially or on a multifamily unit, I think it's a sound recommendation to go a little above and beyond with CO detection. It binds the hemoglobin in your blood. It has a greater affinity than oxygens. So its aharmful substance. And if we're -- if you guys are potentially looking at these popping up throughout Collier County, and they're -- you know, with the threat of storms and power outages, multiple generators going off, and we have them issuing out CO, we want to make sure that people are safe and they can go to sleep at night with confidence that if there is a leak in their home, they're woken up; they can get out. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I agree with that completely. I'm just -- I'm noticing the scenario, is that a company that installs generators is -- as part of the project, this is requiring a carbon monoxide sensor to be installed in the home, which is probably not inside their core competency. So I want it to be enough to be safe but not so much that it's burdensome or, you know, imposes an undue burden on the homeowner. So just to use an example. Let's say that the generator is here and within 10 feet is a bedroom window, a child's bedroom window, and this would require a carbon monoxide sensor inside that bedroom near that opening. Would you then need an additional carbon monoxide sensor to be safe outside that child's bedroom? Because to me that seems a little bit like overkill. But I'm not a life -safety expert, so that's why I'm asking you. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: My recommendation -- what I would recommend is looking at what is a good practice for multifamily out of NFPA or the Florida Fire Prevention Code and what you would do if you bad a communicating garage or a fuel -burning appliance in the home. And I think that's -- the risk is similar, so -- in terms of implementing CO detection, so that's why I would say. And just --you know, what the captain recommended is in alignment with that. So we would just recommend to you that you look at those standards, and if you're concerned about CO, that you implement something that's already out there and it's vetted. So whether or not it's overkill, that's up to you. Again, we have no stake in the game. We want to stay out of the one- and two-family. We're not looking to overreach. I think that was part of your previous discussion. We never do that at North Collier, so -- but if you're looking at CO and what to do and what the best practice is, look at what's already written for multifamily and try to implement something along those lines. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would it be possible -- last question. Would it be possible for the sensor near the window where the exhaust is traveling in to not measure a reading or not alarm -- not arrive at alarm condition but the sensor outside the bedroom to realize carbon monoxide from the generator? Without the first sensor going off, would the second sensor possibly go off? MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: I mean, anything is possible if you have a malfunction. COMMISSIONER FRY: Malfunction. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: And some of the -- there's combination smoke/CO detection out there as well. We see a lot of that being installed in remodels, like you mentioned. We get renovation and for a condo or something. And a lot of the contractors are really good at putting those in even when CO isn't required. They want the added protection for their customers. And we recently had a contractor put them in where it wasn't required per code, and it actually saved a life. They put it in a neighbor's renovation; another neighbor had their car on in a communicating garage. It filled her home with CO, and then got into the neighbor's house. He was alerted by the detector and was able to call our district out for Page 43 of 91 March 7, 2019 help, and we went around, found that there was a leak, and evacuated everybody that was affected, and no one was hurt. So CO detection is great, and we recommend it. And, again, if you're going to implement it into your plan here, we recommend you use something at a multifamily and do it thoroughly, do it right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But we are talking about supplementing the already existent carbon monoxide system within a home when they add a generator. MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: If they have one. I don't -- if they have one already, how would you supplement it? I mean, if they had one installed per code, it's there. So that should suffice. Now, if they're putting in a generator, from what I understand, that's what this is about, and it's not present, then you should probably look at implementing it with a standard that's out there, and that's all I would say. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It may be present but not -- MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: Then, again, this is all up to you. Our district is not -- we're just here because you asked us to come, and we wanted to collaborate with you and see if there's anything we can add. But we're not trying to push this or -- you know, we're impartial to whatever you decide. And to reiterate from -- what I saw as well, as a former fire lieutenant, I'm very confident in our district and what we can do on scene. We overcome challenges, and we train for all sorts of obstacles. We may have other things in people's yards that get in our way, and we get around it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? MR. ZUNZUNEGUI: Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute. Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A comment for Karl. I'm in a small unit, and I have four smoke detectors just in case, a couple battery, a couple hard wired in. I'm curious, is it possible for somebody to install a generator that is closer than 10 feet to their neighbor's window? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you look at the setback -- if you have a five and five on each side and you install a generator that has to be two or three feet from the wall and it's going to be one foot from the property line, it's going to be less than 10 feet to the property next door, which is exactly the issue that's going to come up, how do you protect the people next door if they don't want to have a smoke detector or carbon monoxide detector installed in their house? MR. HENDERLONG: I'd like to -- after looking at so many permits -- to answer your direct question, yes, it's been done. The windows that are fixed, that's a problem. We're cleaning it up with this regulation. Once you adopt this, they're going to -- whether it's fixed or not fixed, it's going to be 10 feet. Right now that's not -- there have been permits that have gone through with that. I've talked to some of the building guys regarding that as well, Stan. So with this regulation, they're going to have to be 10 feet from those, even if they're fixed. They're going -- because a fixed window is not considered like an awning where you can open it up or -- to get the air in, and so -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So they're going to have to submit a drawing that shows where the neighbor's windows are -- MR. HENDERLONG: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- and they're not allowed to be within 10 feet -- MR. HENDERLONG: They might, depending upon the parameters that we adopt Page 44 of 91 March 7, 2019 today. These parameters, they're going to be looking at the adjacent as well, particularly on those smaller lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Rich, one of the choices you've got on the table, Table 1, if you could put it -- right there. Bring it down a little bit. Five feet or less distance to lot line, one foot. That means a generator would be, what, three feet -- say you've got a 24 inch -- how much separation from the wall of the house? MR. HENDERLONG: Eighteen inch for a one-hour fire -rated wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got 18 inches. That gives you three -and -a -half feet. You're going to be one feet, so you're two -and -a -half feet away from the property line. That means you're going to be right on top of that 5 -foot set -backed house next door. So the question is, will they have to install a carbon monoxide detector if they have a window within 10 feet of the air -conditioner? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the answer would be yes. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, can we enforce them to do that? No. MR. HENDERLONG: You can't today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But somehow that would have -- be an application if we went with that minimum setback standard of five foot or less side lot line. MR. HENDERLONG: Good point. MR. FRANTZ: I would suggest that if you have a concern about the neighboring property's windows, that maybe we just adjust the setback from windows so that it is outside whatever distance is concerning rather than trying to enforce installation of a carbon monoxide detector on someone else's property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't accepted that table yet. MR. FRANTZ: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by the time we get done today, that table may be moot, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And I'm kind of worried, if you put a generator in the lot next door -- thanks -- and the lot next door is vacant, I assume when this guy submits his building permit for his house, somebody's going to look to see that the property next door doesn't have a generator on it within where this guy's window is going to be? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good luck. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there science behind the carbon monoxide requirement of 10 feet from an opening where the carbon monoxide detector is required? Is there science behind that 10 -foot measure? Meaning beyond that it's no longer a risk? Because this is -- this is life or death, I mean, in talking with our fire guys. MR. HENDERLONG: As he had mentioned, it follows the mechanic -- the Florida Building Code and the mechanical code that is adopted by the county, and that's the criteria that they regulate, but I do want to male clear that right now carbon monoxide monitorings are not required in any single- or two-family home, period. There's nothing in the Florida Building Code on it. The fire code for the state does not require it. Those are recommendations. And I had this discussion with a couple other fire officials, and they basically said that it's -- once you move into the interior of a home, what people do within their private property within the house is up to them. So this is a standard -- a new standard that we're introducing to the Commission. Page 45 of 91 March 7, 2019 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But we'll be breaking new ground if this guy's generator does anything to people in that house and we let them do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's only if we adopt some of the table standards that are here. We don't have to adopt those. That's what today's all about. So we can avoid that whole issue by just structuring the setback to be appropriate. That's what I think we should do as we get to wrap this discussion up. Anybody else have any questions of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's talk about discussions on the generator . issues. I think we all concur that Tony's language should be added to the ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looking at clear distance to any obstruction, including landscaping. Initially the plan says 10 feet to generator to generator. I'd suggest, based on discussion we had today, that it's 10 feet to any obstruction. So you've got a clear 10 -foot diagonal somewhere between the property -- between the different elements going in the setbacks to get to the back of the lot. Is that what everybody's thinking? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, but my only concern is on landscaping; typically that's not showing on a spot survey or for an individual home. Is that something you're going to ask to be inspected once they're out there doing their final inspection? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if we want to assure the fire department's got access to a back of a lot, we're going to have to show it, because how are they going to -- if someone doesn't show the landscaping and they can't get through the hedge very easily, is that a right thing to do for pubfic safety? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not arguing the point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm just -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm trying to understand how we're going to enforce it, because landscaping can always be planted once the final permit is approved, and next thing you know somebody's putting frcus hedge or something in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We're using side setbacks for things they were never intended for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's causing -- it's starting to build up to a problem. But now it's getting to be a life -safety problem more than anything else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, you're exactly right. We're talking, in essence, could be in some units four different systems: Air conditioner, generator, water softener system or water system if you have a well, and pool equipment. MR. HENDERLONG: We can stipulate that that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, I agree, show where the landscaping is, and if it has to come out, it comes out. MR. FRANTZ: You -all may want to just consider looking at those distances to the lot lines in general, and if it's a setback of five feet or less, you may have an issue with that, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have two other issues that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree with that because the -- as Mark pointed out, we were typical in this county at 7 -and -a -half -foot setbacks, and we went to 5, which was -- so the minimum became even zero lot lines it was 10 foot between individual homes. And, you know, we really start filling up side -yard setbacks. It becomes a problem. And I think that's -- the five -yard one is one we need to look at as well, the five -yard setback. Page 46 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two other items. And addition -- the distance to a public or private right-of-way would go from five to 10 feet. Is everybody satisfied with that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the last issue is the one that's probably most impactful. How much distance should we require to the property line from the generator? And that is -- if we look at the table, we're already learning that if you do a -- if you have a 5 -foot setback, one distance that -- one foot's going to create problems for your neighbor. Two foot certainly probably would because you're going to be 18 inches. So most of the time that stack's going to be pretty close to the wall of the other house. When you get up to the greater than seven -and -a -half, up to 20 feet, you're looking at four feet, that leaves you eight feet clear between the accessory uses that are there. I don't -- I don't know, this board hasn't discussed these distances yet but, you know, the first two don't seem even logical based on the carbon monoxide issues we've been hearing about, and I -- that's a starting point. Does anybody have any comments? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I think I -- I would like to see a stipulation that the generator is not placed within 10 feet of a neighbor's window or door that might allow carbon monoxide intrusion, because I guess I'm concerned a way to enforce that the neighbor has to put a carbon monoxide sensor in their home because of my generator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but if we -- COMMISSIONER FRY: That's problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- required a 5 -foot setback to the property line regardless of where the generator is, that means the other side would have to have 5 -foot. It couldn't be. See, the problem we're going to have is if you say the neighbors -- if you're five foot closer to the neighbor's window, what if the neighbor's not built yet and he builds later on? Now, he's restricted on where he puts his window or he has to put a monitor in because the guy next door wanted to put a generator because he wasn't there. I'd rather look at it as potentially saying why don't we just keep the setback enough from the property line that we can never see that happen. Then you don't have the issue. I mean, wouldn't that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: These distances just don't work. I mean, the concept didn't work. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If you have a 5 -foot setback, let's say -- Mark, you're saying on five -- let's say 7-and-a-balf foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You couldn't do it with a 7 -and -a -half foot. You'd need an 8 -foot or greater. COMMISSIONER SCIB41TT: You need 8 -foot or greater. And if you have a 5 -foot setback requirement, the unit is 18 inches from the structure. The unit itself is, in many cases, 30 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you said 30 inches earlier. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- 30 inches. So you're probably never going to be able to install it in a side -yard setback. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's either going in the front or the back? MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is interesting, because the rear lot setback is five feet, so that means most of these homes, the aerials we saw, all have pools. They could put one of these in the corner of their pool enclosure -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's right. Page 47 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and run it right there. But the reason they want it in the side setback is? They don't want to have the disturbance of that machine near an area where they're probably living. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that's what's happening. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A lot of these are -- some of these are natural gas, and they have to now run -- both the cost of running the gas line and the electrical. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. It is more expensive in the rear than the front. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I don't care. COMMISSIONER FRY: Isn't the concept -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Why is it more expensive? Because their pool probably has it anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. You'll put the -- what do you call it -- the junction box and everything on the side of your house so you've got to then run everything -- all the feeds back to the generator, which is behind -- MR. HENDERLONG: Supply, COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the supply behind the pool. Not a bad place, really, for it to be, quite honestly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Isn't the concept that we're going for that we don't want to allow a generator to be placed closer than 10 feet to someone else's house? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. Someone -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Someone else's, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: An opening, a potential opening. Is that what you're saying? Or someone's house? (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if it's 10 feet, then it's not going in the side -yard setback. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not with the houses that close together. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. You have seven -- if you have 7 -and -a -half yards -- 7 -and -a -half -foot setbacks, and we require it 10 foot from the house, it's not going in the side -yard setback. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly, And I think that's probably the -- that's what I would like to see be prohibited. MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioners, I would like to clarify that when they're raised 30 feet above the ground, it is 10 foot. It's considered structure. So we require 10 -foot setback structure to structure. We're talking about generators that are below that aren't raised up above that 30 inches above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like the pad that was shown in the photograph. MR. HENDERLONG: Exactly, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on that pad, if that pad would have put the generator closer to the =- closer to the -- let's say that was a seven and -- do we know what if that was a 7 -and -a -half or 5 -foot? MR. PIKES: Seven -and -a -half -foot yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven -and -a -half -foot yard. So that generator at the width would be 30, plus 18, you're looking at five feet, so you're about two -and -a -half feet off the property line. The nextdoor neighbor would be seven -and -a -half feet. So you're, what nine -- yeah. So you're one foot short of the 10 foot, so yeah. So the only way we get there is to go to they can't be in setbacks that provide less than, I would suggest, five feet to the property line would be safe, but that's something that Page 48 of 91 March 7, 2019 would -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then we're dealing with -- again, its not going in the side -yard setback. It's either going in the front of the house, and if you've got a side -entry garage, it's going to go on the front, or it's going in the back, the generator. Typically, many HOAs prohibit it in the front. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, not my problem. They can deal with their HOAs. And if you put it in the front, they're going to require some kind of a, what do you call it, a wall that screens it or something that will screen the -- MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we're going to make this very difficult for people to get generators if we -- so that's the whole issue here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think so. I think the difficulty's going to be they can't put it where its going to cause their neighbor the most problem and not themselves. So if they really want a generator, they can stick it in their backyard. I mean, it works there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It works there. It works behind the pool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other thing, the City of Naples, I believe, is the principal setback, so they'd have to put an alcove into the principal structure in the city so they don't violate that setback. To me, that's -- I don't know why we're violating setbacks like we are now to the extent we are. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My house, I think, is one of the only on my entire street that has an indent for all the pool equipment. All the rest of them are in the side -yard setback. But my house was designed that way, with an indent and a wall. MR. HENDERLONG: Keep in mind, permits have been issued under the 36 inches, 18 inches from the wall, and in zero -to -five envelopes. Those permits have been built, constructed, and are in place. So you're looking at a four -foot separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a non -conforming structure -- non -conforming -- MR. HENDERLONG: That's -- once you codify this, that's correct, they'll become non -conforming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they can still exist. They just can't -- NM. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certain modifications they can't make in the future. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: We have a lot of zero lot lines in Naples, Florida, and I guess I'm concerned that if we were to ask homeowners that live in those properties where would you like to locate your generator -- and a lot of them have pool cages that extend across the entire back of their home, and I believe that -- and I'm throwing this out for the other commissioners. I believe a lot of those, a vast majority would say, I would like to have it in my side yard, and I would like my neighbor's to be in the side yard where I don't see it. And I work in a lot of homes, and doing outside lighting, I'm down the sides of those homes. So I think that people want to hide the not -aesthetically -pleasing equipment, pool equipment, all these things we're talking about, there's a reason they're in the side yard. It's because they don't want to see them. So my opinion, just to throw it out there, is that we need to -- I think the majority of people would like us to find a way to accommodate these in the side yards where they're not visible and where it's practical to put them but in a way that doesn't offend life -safety Page 49 of 91 March 7, 2019 issues so long with that I think we've got to address the zero -to -five lot lines in a practical way but also pointing out, as far as the access for the fire and life -safety people, we have to consider both sides of the house. So if you have one side that is restricted by landscaping and equipment, to me they need one side of the house or the other. They don't need to have both. So do we need to be looking at this from a clearance perspective? If it's not available on one side of the house, do we have to -- do we at least need to maintain it on one side or the other rather than on both sides of the house? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you're going to be getting into controlling the different properties. If one guy wants this side clear for access, a new neighbor moves in next door and he wants to do the other side, you still don't necessarily have what you need to get on the other neighbor's property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we need to set it up by requiring the right distance to the property line, and then you're always covered. COMMISSIONER FRY: So both sides under the same rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then there's -- any obstructions stay out of a certain distance apart, and then the Fire Department can get back there appropriately. And, you know, there's something else, too, and Joe's project is a typical one. Some of the stuff is so close together because of the way it's lined up, I don't know how they get machines back to cut grass, enough to save somebody's life on a stretcher. I mean, the stuff -- they're real tight. COMMISSIONER SCIIA41TT: I absolutely agree. COMMISSIONER FRY: To Joe's point, how do you regulate landscaping that's put in after the fact? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: HOA does all that now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: HOA would have to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything's a common area. Staff, we've had a lot of discussion. Is it better for you to go back and kind of think about some of the things to make sure how practical our discussion is and then come back with some finalized language, or would you rather see it finalized today to the best we can with the language we've talked about? MR. FRANTZ: Well, we should probably come back with the finalized language, but 1 think that we're getting at least close to having a pretty good idea of what you're looking for. I think the outstanding things that are unclear to the are exactly how many of these setbacks are you looking at removing. I'm definitely hearing five feet or less is too small. I'm not clear on the greater than five or up to seven -and-a-half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I was looking at a separation to the -- distance to the property line of five feet, and that was just a suggestion to throw on the table for discussion. The reason is we've always looked at a 5 -foot setback as the minimum setback between buildings. Well, now we're not -- now Rich is saying some of them are structures, so that would be like a building. Some of them are just obstructions because they're on the ground, but we really always wanted to keep five foot between units so people can get back and forth between their units and water can drain. By encroaching as tight as some of these suggestions go, we're going to -- I think we're going to have drainage -- we could potentially cause drainage problems in swales that exist there, and the closeness to those units -- the farther apart they are, the better off we're going to be for noise transmission and other things, and any carbon monoxide may Page 50 of 91 March 7, 2019 be minimized. And I don't know why we would -- I just don't know why we wouldn't keep at least five feet, but that's -- I'm certainly open to suggestions from the panel as a whole. I'm not trying to say five's got to be it, but that seemed to be a starting point. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark, when you say 5 -foot setback, so from this -- the edge of this building to the property line -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Five foot from the edge of the generator to the property line remaining. COMMISSIONER FRY: So with a zero lot line -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd have 10 foot on one side, so you could do five foot on that side, but then you don't have -- oh, that's a good point. You don't have 10 foot clear between the -- we don't have enough clearance between the -- MR. HENDERLONG: We you allow them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Zero lot line, it's not going in the side -yard setback at all. I don't even know how we would go in -- if we have 5 -foot requirement for a 7 -and -a -half -foot setback, it's not going in the side -yard setback there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, technically, a zero lot line might be a problem with how this is -- that's why I'm suggesting staff needs to come back after thinking about some of the suggestions. If you have a 10 foot to a zero and you still have to have five foot to the PL, you can put a generator on a zero lot line then -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's a catch we -- that's a condition we want to catch, because now you've got a problem. You don't have clearance to the house and the windows to the home next door. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. FRANTZ: So -- yeah, I think we can address this. I think we can, in that distance to the lot line for 5 -foot setbacks or less, if the direction you're headed is to not allow it in those zero lot fines, we can write it that way. We can set it at a 5 -foot distance that's set to the lot line for all the other -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Personally, my concern is -- because we've heard about 10 feet from a neighbor's window, let's say. And I think that that -- if that's the standard of care or standard of safety for one zoned dwelling, it certainly ought to be for the -- out of respect for the neighbor's dwelling, so I would not want to see a generator closer than 10 feet from that structure, the neighboring structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what we're trying to -- that's at least where we're trying to go. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. And so I think if the distance to the lot line, apart from all the other issues, is five feet, we can address that in the top part of this table. Then if the -- if the other consideration is 10 feet to any structure, we can make whatever modifications are necessary here to make sure that it's always 10 feet to another structure. So that -- I mean, both of those scenarios would have to be met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FRANTZ: Both five feet from the property line, and if that doesn't provide 10 feet to another structure, then that wouldn't work in that case. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that's heading in the right direction. COMMISSIONER FRY: Notwithstanding noise and exhaust issues, are we not Page 51 of 91 March 7, 2019 trying to place these in the same ribbon of property as the air-conditioning and pool equipment goes, like along the same -- kind of like the same ribbon along the side of a property? Isn't that the intention here? The generator is in line with the pool equipment, in line with the well equipment, in line with the -- MR. FRANTZ: I don't know that that's our intention. I mean, we have this encroachment that's allowed right now. The Board asked us to make it easier to provide a little bit more flexibility. We don't have any particular concern about the alignment. As long as we're hitting the separation distances that are appropriate, then I don't know what that means. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why would a generator's placement be anymore restrictive than the placement of an air-conditioning unit or pool equipment or anything like that if it's alongside the house, notwithstanding the exhaust issues and the noise issues, the placement of them? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one of those is enough right by itself. COMMISSIONER FRY: No, I mean, those have to be taken into account. But if those conditions are met, then wouldn't this naturally be in alignment with the pool equipment and the well equipment along the side of the house? MR. FRANTZ: Well, I mean, those are the two major issues, but there has been concern raised by this Planning Commission that we're adding yet another piece of mechanical equipment, and it's kind of like accumulative impacts, you know. COMMISSIONERFRY: Right. MR. FRANTZ: But also, those A/C units, they can go right up to the property. There's no -- there's no encroachment limitation on A/C units, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can't go -- I thought it was three foot into the setback. MR. FRANTZ: For A/C units, no, there's no limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought there was -- I thought any of those obstructions were -- pool equipment and all that were limited to a certain extension into the setback. MR. HENDERLONG: I misspoke at the last Planning Commission about that, Commissioner. I did go back and look at it, and that's correct, we don't have a standard for the A/Cs. MR. BOSI: Part of the -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Part of some of the generator installers concerns were -- issues raised, they said, well, the pool equipment's all the way to the property line. Why can't the generator be on the property line? So that is the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff? MR. FRANTZ: So my last question was, you had said 10 feet to any obstruction. I understand that would mean any mechanical equipment. We're talking about pool or A/C equipment. There was some discussion about landscaping. I'm not clear if you -all are still trying to capture that as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Were we talking about 10 feet? CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the original proposal shown in the diagrams is 10 feet between generators, and I was suggesting, make it between any obstruction. Then we got into the pictures that Tony showed showing the amount of landscaping in some of these side setbacks and the fact these guys have got to carry a litter, potentially, back and forth. I don't know how they're going to do it through hedges. So I suggested that the landscaping be considered as another obstruction. Now, that's something staff needs to go back and research how practical is that to Page 52 of 91 March 7, 2019 apply and can it be applied, then when they come back, we'll probably get that information. MR. HENDERLONG: If I might step in for a minute. Some of the manufacturers require no landscaping in three feet, period. Others just don't require it. We heard from -- our fire official talk a little bit about three foot for movement. I think that's a reasonable standard, it sounds like to me, that three foot at least from the generator to -- and we tried to do that with vegetative anything around. That's that 3 -foot clearance around the generator. No obstruction, at all. That's what we're trying to accomplish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't so concerned around the generator. If you wanted to put a generator in but your neighbor's got a solid wall of landscaping there, there's got to be a certain clearance for the firefighters to get through that landscaping as well as any obstruction. Now, if landscaping doesn't need as much of a clearance as a hardened facility like an air -conditioner or something, so be it. That's what you guys need to look at and come back with a recommendation. But I want to make sure that they get the minimum passage they need to get to the back. You've got to always understand that if there's a loophole here, someone's going to find it and come in with it and try to get approval, and that's all we're trying to prevent is think of all these things and avoid any kind of loopholes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, may I ask the fire captain to comeback up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you mind, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way, I don't think we're going to get to the Immokalee discussion before we break for lunch, so if anybody's here for the Immokalee one, we're going to break for lunch here close to noontime, or maybe we'll take one more, the lighting one, just before noon, then we'll take a break for one hour for lunch, then come back and work on the rest of the LDC and the Immokalee language in the afternoon. So if you're here for either one of those, you might want to -- you can break anytime. We're not going to be able to get to them before lunch. So go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Captain, it's my understanding that with respect to fire suppression personnel, they're pretty much going to go right through the vegetation, the hedge. And it might slow them down for a few seconds, but they'll manage to get through it. They're trained to do that. They have the equipment to do it. It might be different for EMS personnel, though, to -- who would -- might be effectively blocked by vegetation. And so what is your sense of whether we should be looking at an obstruction or a structure? And the question comes to proximity to a generator. CAPTAIN LINTZ: Well, to answer your question, yes, we would get through it and, if needed, we would make a path for EMS to get through there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you respond to every scene, then, that EMS goes to? So you're always there to cut paths for them? CAPTAIN LINTZ: Almost; generally, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if there's an emergency call on a heart attack, you'd be there as well as EMS, so if EMS had to pull somebody out of the back of the house and get through some heavy vegetation, you'd be able to -- CAPTAIN LINTZ: We would offer assistance, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They'd probably get there first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 53 of 91 F March 7, 2019 CAPTAIN LINTZ: Appreciate it. MR. FRANTZ: So I'm hearing that we can modify those setback distances to the lot lines, and then we can take a look at this obstruction language and come back to you with something on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If the landscaping doesn't need to be addressed as obstruction, that's fine, too, but it needs to be considered before we -- MR. FRANTZ: We'll bring back some considerations on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will wrap up the issue for now on this, and what I'd like to do, while Norm's here, I don't expect we'll need a lot of time on the lighting one. This is the lighting one, I think, on private properties that we had come up. I'd like to try to get that done before we break for lunch. Is that okay with the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's move to that one, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: So for this amendment, what we did was we came back with just a foot candle standard that is consistent with our standards for some other commercial uses up against residential. So that's .5 foot candles. I'm waiting for this document to load now. But I do want to maybe kind of back up and just discuss this issue in general a little bit, because the last time that we met, the language included a limitation based on the strength or the lumens of the bulbs. We thought that we may be resolving the issue a little bit better by going to foot candles. After going out and visiting the property that -- of the gentleman that came and spoke before you -all last time, the standard that we have in place would not come anywhere close to actually addressing the issue. And I don't know that our language from the last time would have addressed the issue either. There's multiple things going on in a case like this. There's some instances of just direct glare that maybe shielding could address. There's other instances where -- I mean, the main problem that you see -- and I can pull up some images -- it's neither direct glare nor more bright than the standard that we had suggested for this time. So, you know, I guess I'm looking for this policy direction on exactly how far do you -all want to take this restriction on lighting. I'll pull up those images now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need a defensible position if we're going to take one, and if there isn't a defensible position, maybe it's not serious enough to be considered. I mean, I don't know what else to do with it. MR. FRANTZ: So some of these pictures are pretty dark. I tried to not use any flash. But, essentially, in this area here is the homeowner's -- is the actual home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the complainant. MR. FRANTZ: Of the complainant. And there's -- there is another home a bit further away on the other side of their house, but it's pretty dark over here. This is the problematic lights. It appears to be very bright from a picture like this. This is the impact on the complainant's home. So standing in the backyard, and you can see how much it lights up the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: How many foot candles is that in that picture? MR. FRANTZ: The foot candles were -- one moment. Standing here on the side of the house, near the bedroom ranged from .03 to .05. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's worse on the second floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .03? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What's it on the second floor? Page 54 of 91 March 7, 2019 MR. FRANTZ: I didn't go into the home. COMMISSIONER FRY: .03 or .3 to point -- 0.5? .03 -foot candles? So less than a tenth of what is written in the standard? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's moonlight? MR. FRANTZ: When I was standing on the other side of the home, it was .01. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that doesn't get it, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the picture -- well, also, the pictures -- it seems to make it appear worse than what it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: .01 would be very close to no light at all. MR. FRANTZ: It was very dark. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why does it look so light? Is it a time exposure or something? Who took the picture? MR. FRANTZ: I took the picture. It is just a standard cell phone image. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And it looks bright. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's -- that light is from the glare from next door, right? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. FRANTZ: And what's happening there is it's a light that's on the -- maybe on the ground. You can't actually see the bulb. It's reflecting against the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how far apart the homes are? MR. FRANTZ: I don't know how far apart they are. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They're not homes. The one -- he has a home, but the neighbor has a guesthouse between his house and this home, and the light is on the outside of the guesthouse. I looked on Google Earth because I was curious what this all looked like. I have a question. Is — you know those big search lights that they used to have in World War II for finding German bombers? If you had one of those on your property and you aimed it at your neighbor's house, do we have an ordinance against that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Probably nuisance. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. It might fall under some general nuisance issues. We don't have any lighting standard. That's the reason for this amendment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So this guy -- from what I could tell on Google Earth, the neighbor just -- there's something going on between the neighbors. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeremy, as part of research for this issue, struggling with what 0.5 foot candles would represent, I consulted an engineer in the outdoor lighting company that I represent, and l asked them just different ways to look at this issue. One question I have for you, Jeremy, is could you describe the fixture that was pointing at the guesthouse. Was it a large, flat LED panel of some kind, or was it a single bullet light? What kind of fixture was that? MR. FRANTZ: I'm trying to zoom in here. You can't really male it out. All the glare -- I didn't really get a sense for exactly what kind of fixture I was looking at. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It has to be a -- well, 110 spotlight. I mean, it actually has to be -- it's not a low voltage. This has got to be a spotlight. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. So just in -- it sounds like we're going back to the Page 55 of 91 March 7, 2019 drawing board on this, so I'm just going to give a little bit of possible input for your consideration. You have -- lumens is one way that you attempted to look at it initially, and, you know, I do low -voltage outdoor landscape lighting, which I think is something that is acceptable to most people. And the residential outdoor lighting is low voltage by and large. Commercial outdoor lighting is 120 -volt by and large, and they employ fixtures that while -- my most powerful 9 -watt bullet light is 720 lumens, and I have a fixture -- I could put three of those together for about 2,2001umens. Some commercial lights are 10,000 lumens or more. Just looking at the impact of this, I would guess this is a commercial -- clearly a commercial fixture, and I've seen this at other homes, these LED panels that really were meant to light up worksites and they're being applied on a residential basis. So my question for the engineer was, is there a way to differentiate? Is there an official categorization of these lights as residential versus commercial? I wish I could say he said yes, but the answer was there's no clear. So you could differentiate by a maximum lumen of any fixture, as in limiting it to 2,500 lumens or something like that. It would still be a very powerful light but not -- but I believe this light is probably well exceeding that, and it might be something to measure. The other aspect is the City of Naples in their ordinance does have a clause that I think, you know, might be good to have in there, which is exterior lighting shall be designed, arranged, or shielded in such a manner that all adjacent properties in the public roadways are protected from direct glare. That's not measurable, but certainly all the fixtures that I sell are engineered with a shroud so they're aim -able, and they have the ability to be protected from direct glare from adjacent properties or roadways. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. And we had some shielding requirements in the previous version -- COMMISSIONER FRY: You took them out. MR. FRANTZ: -- but I'm not sure that that would resolve this particular issue. You know, like I said, its not really that I'm seeing the bulb directly on the lights that are facing -- they're facing the house, you know. COMMISSIONER FRY: The only thing I can see is maybe a lumen -- a lumen maximum per fixture and shielding to protect glare. It might be some combination, but it sounds like we're in a tough situation here. MR. KLATZKOW: Have we looked at other jurisdictions at how they approach this? There's 400 local governments -- over 40 to 50 local governments in Florida alone. God knows how many nationally. Have we looked at what other people are addressing this? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. We have a table with some other standards in other communities, and it's kind of some of the things that we're talking about today; requiring shielding, preventing glare, that kind of thing. The issues that -- MR. KLATZKOW: The shielding I understand. This looks like the problem is indirect lighting. MR. FRANTZ: Right. And I think that, you know, we're just trying to figure out exactly which of these is actually going to resolve this problem, if that's what we're trying to -- if that's the goal here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, from your table, Marco Island limits it to 1.0 foot candles of illumination to fall on adjoining residential single-family property. By your measurement, that would be -- that would be like an industrial flood light pointed right at the house. Page 56 of 91 March 7, 2019 MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I did have some other pictures here of -- I stopped at a commercial shopping center after leaving that property, and that range, just walking in a line through the parking lot -- because the light changes as you move away from the lights -- it's .8 to 1.8. So, yeah, that's more like a commercial area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In order to -- this is going to probably take longer than I thought. We probably shouldn't have started it before lunch. In anticipation, I was going to let Norm get done and get out. Norm, why don't you explain to us your position on it. We'll certainly listen, and then we'll come back after lunch, probably, and debate the issue further. That might be a way to expedite our process here. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure, thank you. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock, professional engineer and certified planner. My company, we do transportation and traffic engineering, but we also do site lighting, area lighting. Don't really deal with the homes as directly but the streetlighting as such. So one of the things that I see -- and really bringing some of your ideas forth and working with Jeremy as well -- I recommend -- the Illuminating Engineering Society, IES, I'm a member of, actually has a model ordinance that they would recommend and I would recommend us considering here, and it -- because initially I was looking at the foot candles as well as a way, and it works well with larger sites that we work with, but when you get to a smaller situation such as a lot, it can be different. And so the Illuminating Engineering Society, their recommendations and their guidance really provides some very specific tables of illumination that can be allowed that I think would be helpful, and what we could do is put that together and work with staff and bring that forward to you, because I think it would address exactly what you're looking for. And also, they go as far as having a site schematic of atypical residence and provide lights that would be allowed, and exceptions, too, because, you know, it's understood that folks will want to have sconces and things like that. But what it wouldn't allow is that type of situation there where you get kind of a commercial -grade type light fixture that creates, as you said, a glare issue. So that would be the recommendation in looking at that, because what it gets into is -- you know, the goal is to reduce the light pollution, glare, and excessive light. And, also, it establishes a thing for us to consider is what we call lighting zones for different areas, such as a rural area having a different lighting standard than a downtown area, and then even wilderness areas to be different as well. And it's identified in the model ordinance that they have, so that, I think, would be helpful. And there are exemptions to that such as public road right-of-way and such as well. So with that in mind, I can show you some of the examples if that's helpful or maybe bring back to you, really, this model ordinance language that kind of brings into mind that combination of the illumination that you talked about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think this is going to go anywhere today. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather that you — if staff would be so inclined, you got together with staff, and at least that sample ordinance come into play. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if lacking that ability, there -- there are examples in other towns where they've addressed glare, they tried to, maybe some of that language, but I don't think this language is going to fly because it's not going to accomplish anything, Page 57 of 91 March 7, 2019 so... MR. KLATZKOW: I'd be so much more comfortable if we used somebody's existing ordinance. If that model ordinance has been enacted by numerous jurisdictions, it would be a good start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's --1 agree. And if it isn't, look at the City of Sanibel. It seemed to address glare as well, and they had separate standards that weren't even in here, so maybe they'll be helpful. So why don't we start with that and come back. MR. FRANTZ: These types of standards might be going quite a ways beyond the type of direction that we got from the Board, though. It might be -- if we're looking at something more comprehensive like the City of Sanibel or like a model ordinance like this, we may want to just bring that issue back to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Board's that serious about doing this. We've only had one instance where this has been a problem in Collier County, right? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. So that's why I kind of am hesitant to just immediately jump into adopting a model ordinance that's going to apply everywhere for -- I'm not exactly sure what their knowledge of the issue was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at this point, there's so much indecision about the way this is written or how it could be interpreted, I can't -- it doesn't warrant going forward, at least I don't think anybody on this panel would think so. And lacking that, is it necessarily, then, something we need to even consider? Did the Board direct this to happen; is that how it happened? MR. FRANTZ: The concept of trying to address impacts from neighbor's lighting was about the extent of the discussion at the Board level. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that seems to be a direction to us to consider a model ordinance. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if they said to look at neighbor lighting, I mean, what are we -- how do -- we tell them we don't want to? I think we're better off -- why don't you put -- take a look and try to put something reasonable together. I'm not thinking we're going to write a whole new ordinance, but maybe something that could fit in the LDC as a paragraph or language, and let's see what happens at the next meeting. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: To Jeremy's point, I think it sounds like that ordinance goes way beyond, as you said, the intent of what you started with here. I would ask Norm, the term "residential outdoor lighting" is pretty broad. You have architectural lighting like sconces, down -lights that are in the soffit around a home. You have security lighting, like floodlights, which are on part of the time. Does the ordinance address the -- plus landscape lighting. Does it address all three of those types of lighting? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. That's what I thought was good. That's why I did dig into this a little deeper in the IES model ordinance. What we could do is peel away the residential portion of it and bring that to you, because it really does, I think, cover the bases well, even to the extent of, you know, holiday lighting, that kind of thing. I mean, there's a lot of nuances that I didn't realize when I was first looking at it as well that this, I think, model ordinance would be helpful to us as a community. And, you know, because things have evolved a lot. You know, color temperature of light would be something that we would want to look at, again, to keep that residential feel of lighting that I think would help a lot for us to really kind of keep things in line and really addresses the very issue, because that was the key thing that Jeremy had pointed out Page 58 of 91 March 7, 2019 to me as, you know, does this really address the -- you know, the problem we've seen and really what the Board had asked to take a look at. So I believe we can with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a stab at it and at least come back. Is that good with everybody? Okay. With that, let's take a break for lunch and come back at 1:15 from our lunch break. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. BOSL• Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Before we start, something that we seem to be drifting away from doing, in order to keep everything in order and for our court reporter to adequately take care of the minutes, everybody needs to be recognized before they speak, and we should never speak over one another. And if everybody speaks as slow as I do, things will be really good. But I don't do that too often. So please keep that in mind as we go forward. That will make the recording a lot easier. And with that, Jeremy, we took care of a couple of items. We've got -- what's next that you want to hit on the LDC? MR. FRANTZ: We've got two more. The next one that we could tackle is the commercial landscaping amendment. The last time that you -all reviewed this, you asked us to make a few changes to remove the word "mature" from the purpose and intent section to reduce the 15 -year limitation to 10 years to consider moving the prohibition on slash pine and bald cypress or to — or to create a limitation on how much they could be used and to remove the reference to PUD deviations and variances. We've made all of those changes to the document. So if you -all have any questions, we can address those. The limitation on slash pine and bald cypress, we mirrored the limitation on palm trees in shop -- in vehicle -use areas. They're limited to 30 percent of the required trees, and we use that same number for slash pine and bald cypress. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on the landscaping portion of the LDC amendments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Jeremy, neither do I. Are there any members of the public here, Mike, that you have got cards from? MR. BOSI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the audience want to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we don't have any comments and, Jeremy, it doesn't look like we have, you did a good job. And everything seems to be in line with what we discussed before, so I think that one's good to go. So how does this -- you want to -- since we're sending some back, do you want to separately -- a motion from us separately on each one so you can take it forward, or how are you going to -- you going to hold them till they're all together? MR. FRANTZ: It might be kind of nice to get a separate motion, because I'm kind of wondering if maybe one or two of these might be a little more long-term revision process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval for 4.06.02, buffer requirements, and 4.06.05, general landscaping requirements? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion. Page 59 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HONIIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Who carne up and said something to me at break that I thought we'd be done with all these in the morning? That's because I thought they'd all go this way. MR. FRANTZ: We got one out of three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're doing -- we're getting there. MR. FRANTZ: The last one is the gas station signs amendment. This one was a -- we didn't have any changes, specifically, to make, but we were supposed to come back with a little bit more information. We had hoped to bring back more justification for the need for a higher sign. I did get an image of the prototype sign that Wawa uses, but I didn't get any more information from the industry. And then I also did attach the references to Florida Statute that were made in the -- in the draft. So those are all a part of your packet. I did want to note that over the past, I think it was week or two, we -- staff has become aware of some new issues associated with corner lots. When we drafted this language, we were envisioning your typical corner lot that's got -- is located directly on the corner of two frontages meeting at the intersection; however, we're now aware of some instances of a -- something that would be defined as a corner lot maybe is broken up in that there's -- it kind of surrounds another corner lot. I don't know if I'm describing that very well. But we'd like to maybe actually take some time to revise that language and come back to you -all, but we'd be happy to take any comments you have on the remainder of the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this isn't going to be done today. It's going to come back. In the meantime, are there any comments on the language that's in front of us today? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm looking at the 4, Subparagraph C, and then I, and double I. So arterial and collector road right-of-way, the maximum height is limited to 15 feet, and then one fuel -pricing ground sign will be permitted on the frontage of a parcel that abuts a road right-of-way other than an arterial, and that's eight feet. So we -- are we all -- we are comfortable with the 15 -foot elevation? I still think that's -- or height. I think that's probably a bit excessive. Is that something that was mandated by law, the height? MR. FRANTZ: No. This is -- this was actually some negotiation between staff and the industry. We brought 15 to you -all. You -all expressed concern last time. We don't really, unfortunately, have a lot more justification for you from the industry, but if Page 60 of 91 March 7, 2019 we're coming back to this amendment, we may be able to -- we may have more time for the industry to provide that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I just think 15 feet is more than they need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I think we all had indicated that last time it came through, so I'm not sure why that's still here, but you didn't have anything to replace it with, so that's probably why. MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeremy, in our -- in between meetings we received an email with a letter from Doug Lewis, attorney for Wawa. I think everybody received that letter -- email. I'm sorry, it was an email. And in the letter it seemed to be stating that they -- state statutes gave them the -- kind of overrode county ordinances in terms of their ability to put up signs. I spoke with Doug yesterday -- signs of a certain height and a certain style, and I spoke with him yesterday, and he actually told me that he thought this was being continued today; that he was notified that it would be continued. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We were aware -- staff was aware of the corner -lot issue, so I knew that we would not be able to -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So this was related only to the corner -lot issue, okay? MR. FRANTZ: From staff s perspective. I mean, I think it's -- the height is still an open question, so -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, he said their -- they -- their minimum sign, I think, was 18 feet. It was a standard for Wawa, but that they had come up with, like, an "A" version of a sign that would fit in 15 feet. So I'm just --I'm bringing that up because I anticipate, from my conversation with him, a conflict if we try to go below 15 feet in terms of them feeling that they're entitled by state statute. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. Just because Dougie wants to put a sign up for Wawa, I mean, doesn't mean there's a conflict. I mean, 25 feet, 30 feet, 50 feet? I don't care what Wawa standards are. I mean, you guys make the standards for Collier County. COMMISSIONER FRY: I didn't mean a conflict with -- MR. KLATZKOW: There's no conflict with state law. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I meant a conflict from the industry, I guess, is what I was referring to, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The industry has already accepted the 8 -foot and 12 -foot numerous occasions throughout Collier County, so there's no -- I don't know where -- the industry is not represented by one individual or one group. COMMISSIONER FRY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would take all that a little skeptically until we get into it, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else; any comments on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing is, you're going to address the corner lots? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the first paragraph of C on Page 2 of the language indicates there are two ground signs -- maximum of two ground signs. I think by insinuation the two is if it's a corner lot. I just would want to make sure that's clear. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. It's a maximum of two signs, but you only get one sign per frontage. Page 61 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it wasn't as clear as I would have hoped it would have been, but I certainly understood the intent. I appreciate you providing the statutes. They certainly clarify that we are not restricted by statutes to looking at some of the issues we're going to be looking at, so I do thank you for that. I don't have anything else. We'll wait till it comes back with how you address the corner lots and go from there. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So we'll bring back the corner -lot language, any changes that we have for that. In terms of the height, I don't have a specific number to go down to, so you'll probably see that same number the next time, but it will be the point that we're evaluating that justification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understood. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody here in the audience for this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is nobody, okay. Thank you, Jeremy. That wraps up the LDC issues? MR. FRANTZ: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. Next item up for today is 9A3, which is a continuation of the review of the hnmokalee Area Master Plan. This has been continued from the 31 st meeting to the 21 st of February -- 31 st of January to the 21 st of February and then until today. And as we discussed last time, there were still some outstanding questions or clarifications, and I'm assuming staffs here to put it all together. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Good afternoon. Anita Jenkins with Community Planning. Mr. Chairman, when we left off last time, we had discussed the entire plan. We have some items of cleanup and language that has been modified to address some of your concerns and also noting some of staff s further review. We can go through those first, or we can go back into the document and discuss some of the larger items that we were discussing last time, whichever one you prefer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we start with the document and see where it leads us. MS. JENKINS: I'll go page by page. And what I have -- the changes you'll see red, double underline, double strikethrough, or just red, so -- when you look at the documents on the overhead. This first language -- thank you, Mike -- is just an introduction of the document. And I'm working off of the -- I think it's in your Attachment A in your book, or B. So its the revised humokalee Master Plan. This is just the introduction. And it was brought to our attention by the Airport Authority staff that -- and I highlighted their -- the U.S. port of entry. Collier County did not achieve that designation; so the Airport Authority asked us to make that change, clean that document up a little bit. Also, the runway links in the document weren't quite accurate, so we just tried to simplify that a little bit. So that's just all changes in the introduction having to do with the airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just while you're on that page, you changed the acreage reference. How did you come with up with the new acreage? MS. JENKINS: So at first it said that the Immokalee Area Master -- or the hnmokalee airport provided access to over 2,000 acres. The PUD for the airport is only 1,400 acres. So it's not over 2,000, but it is over 1,000. So if you would like us to be more specific at 1,400, we could do that, but I just tried to keep the changes simple. Page 62 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But previously it referred to the amount of acreage that was industrial zoned, and now it is aeronautical and industrial. That's another reason it's probably not -- MS. JENKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Different. MS. JENKINS: So we put aeronautical in there. You'll notice that, so... This is a change to Policy 2.1.2 where we were asked to make sure that we're including the neighborhood residence as part of the neighborhood improvement plan, so we just added that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on Page 10; that means you're not making any changes to Page 8; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the agricultural research, development facilities, agribusiness offices, headquarters, and facilities offices, headquarters, and apparatuses associated with alternative energy use can only be utilized in the LR -- the low residential district of Immokalee? MS. JENKINS: Mr. Strain, I thought that was kind of -- a more broader issue that was up for discussion. I didn't hear that specific direction from the full board. So if that's your direction today, we'll make that change, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about it. I just didn't know what your reaction to it was. Your reaction to it is not to change it, is that -- MS. JENKINS: Not yet. But if that's your recommendation today from the full board and it's part of your motion, yes, we will definitely do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: The next change is on Page 11. And we were asked just to remove the language "owned by an absentee landlord" under the housing code enforcement policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: The next one is on Page 18, and it is in the policy for mobile homes within the Immokalee urban area, and we have added to that language, more specifically, "or within existing mobile home lot or within the mobile home overlay." So that captures every situation in Immokalee that a mobile home may be utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Okay. MS. JENKINS: The next policy change --bring it down just a little bit more. We added a paragraph. Thanks. This is the consistent -by -policy language. So the zoning on the property for zonings and rezonings. We cleaned that language up to match the language as it exists in the Future Land Use Element. So now the language is the same for both. And if you have any questions or want further clarification, David worked with us on that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, I mean, I don't mean to interrupt the rest of you if you have something. I just -- David, so you're telling us that -- it's Section 6.1.9 of the FLUE, isn't it, that you're mirroring here; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning staff. This language comes from Policy 5.3 in the Future Land Use Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are a -- I went through the two plans. I could not get -- I couldn't find a way to get the existing Immokalee FLUE overlaid on the proposed, so I did it myself with an Apple program, and I was able to find a lot of discrepancies both up and down. And I talked to you about this at one point. And some of them are broad, such as Page 63 of 91 March 7, 2019 the industrial mixed-use area where it overrides the commercial center industrial subdistrict. There's some changes of uses there that are actually downzoning. There are other sections that overlap -- the CMU overlaps some C5 zoning. There's a lot of MR and HR interaction and changes. There are some CMU that's over the top of what's currently LR, which means that's actually upzoning. Some RSF-3 places are now CMU locations. The EAU also has a section three hundred and some odd acres that overrides the LR. There's a couple points where LR's been changed to MR, and substantial sections have been added as RT up along -- not even along Lake Trafford but on both sides of Lake Trafford Road. There's quite a bit -- I mean, I've got probably 20 or 24 different up- and downzonings. Is the language you're proposing here -- how would that address all of these? MR. WEEKS: It will address one of the two scenarios that you're identifying. And let me add that we -- we, staff, will create maps to go along with this policy. What this policy captures is where we are changing the future land -use designation such that the existing zone allows a greater density or intensity of use than the Future Land Use Map designation. An example, let's say there's a property that we're going to change the designation to MR, mixed residential; it doesn't allow for commercial development other than by a text provision, yet there's a piece of property zoned C3. Well, that zoning allows an intensity of use that the Future Land Use Map designation does not allow. We will map that property to correlate with this policy. And what this policy is saying is, number one, you get to keep that zoning; number two, you can make changes to that zoning so long as you don't increase the density or intensity. So you're allowed to maintain that level of Future Land Use Map in nonconformity. You can't increase it. You wanted to rezone, in my example, from C3 to C2, that will be allowed under this policy, or if you wanted to rezone from C3 to a PUD with C3 uses but different development standards, you'd be allowed to do that under this policy. What it does not capture is the case where we have changed the Future Land Use Map -- I got stuck. The second scenario that you identified, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The downzoning from, like, the RT going in front of the LR or the IMU taking the place of commercial. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: That's where we've changed the -- it's not a comparison of zoning to Future Land Use Map designation as the first scenario. That's where we're changing the Future Land Use Map designation to allow lesser intensity uses than the current Future Land Use Map designation. This policy does not capture that, because that's the scenario of what someone is eligible to request through a rezoning action versus the first -case scenario where the zoning already exists; that would not be consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation that we're proposing here. So we're taking away the eligibility to request a rezoning of the density or intensity that presently exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that if someone came in and they had a CMU -- not a CMU, a commercial industrial subdistrict that allowed major activity centers, industrial -- industrial, not light industrial; industrial -- Cl through C5, and now that's changed to industrial mixed-use, which is C4 through C5, RT parks, business parks, light manufacturing, ag uses, and targeted industry, it takes out the wholesale industrial component and the lighter C components but, of course, by C4 they may be in there just by Page 64 of 91 March 7, 2019 the hierarchy of the code. So we've actually taken out land -use rights on that property only because they weren't utilized to date. Well, they wouldn't be utilized to date if hmnokalee hasn't been built out necessarily, and it hasn't been. So how does someone react to that if they don't -- not everybody's going to -- lives in the town where all this is happening. They may not seen the notices. They may be living somewhere else. So how are they protected on their property rights for this kind of situation? MR. WEEKS: That's the vested -rights policy that is provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a one-year reaction. So now you're saying that folks have to know about this from one year from when it's enacted, and if they don't Tarnow about it, they lose it. I'm not sure that's an adequate protection of property rights, and that's what -- one of the concerns I have overall with the amount of changes being made in this plan. And is there a solution to that that you can suggest? MR. WEEKS: The only solution I would know of would be to not make the land -use designation change or to make some type of text change that has the same effect, and that is that if you had the ability to request this zoning today, then when we adopt this -- these plan amendments, you'll still have that right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we've done something like that, and I can't remember which one of the other overlays, which they can opt in or opt out. If they opt in, they join the new standards. If they opt out, they can develop under the old standards. Wasn't it some other CRA -- Bayshore CRA had something like that in it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, zoning overlays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So why -- when could -- how do we fit in that as a possible solution? I just don't like taking away property rights without notification to the property owners, and that's basically what we're doing. MS. JENKINS: Well, if we can look at some specific properties, it might help, of what's actually on there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can look at that purple area that's on the current FLUE that's called commercial center industrial subdistrict, and then now you'll see it's an EV U. MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how are we -- the IMU is a downzoning. MS. JENKINS: Well, it allows different land uses, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does it allow industrial? MS. JENKINS: It allows lighter industrial, but not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it doesn't allow all the land uses it currently has. MS. JENKINS: Right. So we have some industrial in there. And this is where all -- the majority of the packinghouses are, and we have an aerial to show you, it's pretty much built out in this area, but you can think about it either way. So the C5 still has the ability to have C5 and to go up to the lighter industrial, but that industrial also now has the ability to achieve the commercial uses that they didn't have before. So it's -- you know, it's a policy decision, but I think what the community was doing in their process is trying to make a transition from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What commercial uses? I mean, you'll say so much in an answer; I want to catch you before I forget what you said. You said it doesn't allow them -- it allows them to do some of the commercial uses they couldn't do before. They had Cl through C5 in that area, so what commercial use Page 65 of 91 March 7, 2019 couldn't they have done? MS. JENKINS: Well, the industrial -- the commercial is related only to -- it's accessory to the industrial uses. So you could do a restaurant or a daycare, something that is providing for the employees, but it's not necessarily providing for the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the whole area was zoned --was in the GMP as commercial/industrial. So they could have come in and asked for commercial uses under that category in the FLUE. So I'm just trying to -- they can't do that now. MS. JENKINS: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can do it in C4 and C5 and light manufacturing, which is light industrial, but we lost the heavy industrial, and I'm not sure they really had a limitation based on the language for the commercial but -- okay. Go on with what you were saying. MS. JENKINS: So it is. I can see it going either way. So the community said the preference is to have a transition from the heavier commercial uses. We want to do the mixed use of industrial and commercial in this location. But if it stays industrial, we can look at the aerial and see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you said the community, was this the property owners that were notified in the stakeholders meeting? MS. JENKINS: Well, when I say "the community," I think of the 10 years that the community went through this process with their own committee, Visioning and Growth Management Plan Committee, that facilitated their process out there. So that's who I mean when I say "the community" and all the workshops and neighborhood information meetings that were held. So this is the area, and it is substantially built out in that area with packinghouses. It also has an overlay in this area to describe it as the agribusiness overlay. So 1 think they've defined it in different terms of what the community believes is the best use for that location, but whether it goes back to industrial, just the "I" district, or if it stays industrial mixed-use is a policy decision for you -all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: The other one that you had a question on about that -- and I want to put this back up for just a minute -- is this pink area that's C5, and it went to the CMU. And it was -- prior to, it was the commerce industrial, and now it's in the CMU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there were two other parcels on there, too, so it wasn't just that one. MS. JENKINS: And let's just -- so we're talking about all of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got -- MS. JENKINS: These here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you pointed to has the property in the green square as CMU, and then the property above it, which is C5, went to CMU as well. Then the one below Main Street you've got the L-shaped piece that overlaps into the C5 in that location. MS. JENKINS: Right. And those are county properties on the corner there. But the other additional factors on those properties is those are within the downtown overlay, Main Street Overlay District, and so the community believes that it's more appropriate for those entry locations to be consistent with the Main Street program, and that is, in fact, part of the subdistrict, the zoning subdistrict that is on that property as well. And that zoning district was just amended in 2016. Some properties were removed in this location, but that one, again, remained. Page 66 of 91 March 7, 2019 So there's a lot of different overlapping factors on some of these properties to consider with these overlays and that they've been through the overlay, the zoning process, and participating in those as well. Now, that property is -- on the corner there is a half an acre, I believe, and so now with the C5 zoning that they have, they have that flexibility to do that. Being in the Mahn Street Overlay, they also have some guidance on where their entrance is and some conditional uses for that property as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They don't have C5 uses, though, anymore, right? MS. JENKINS: No. They're zoned C5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But I'm talking about, if they're in a CMU, will they retain those C5 uses? MS. JENKINS: Yes; yeah. You retain -- regardless of how the land use is changing, you retain the zoning that you have today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of puzzling. MS. JENKINS: Designations or zoning? MR. BOSI: Are you asking about the designation change? MS. JENKINS: Designations or zoning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR, BOSI: The designation changes would definitely -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah. The designation changes from the commerce industrial to the CMU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the commerce industrial allowed it up to C5 uses; the CMU does not. MS. JENKINS: But their zoning does. Their zoning is C5. So they can develop today under that C5 zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will they be nonconforming? MS. JENKINS: So they would be covered under the provisions, consistency by policy. C1 AIRMAN STRAIN: And, David, that's one of the properties you'll address. MR. WEEKS: Yes. So in that case, in nonconformities between the C5 zoning and the Future Land Use Map designation that is proposed, they are allowed to develop and redevelop under their existing C5 zoning. This does nothing to change those rights of the existing zoning. What it does is it precludes the ability to upzone to the industrial that today they could do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They could do now, but they can't do it under the CMU. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While you're there, David, there's another piece talking about the Main Street corridor. Could you put one of the maps on showing where the Main Street Overlay is? MS. JENKINS: Sure. There's a clearer one, or if you prefer the one I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, actually -- I'm sorry. How about the FLUE. That's just the -- that's the overlay I meant. MS. JENKINS: This FLUE? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the old FLUE, if you could. MS. JENKINS: The old FLUE? C14AIRMAN STRAIN: I might be able to find it on that one. Put that one on. I'll show it to you. Okay. See where the HVIU capital letters are right below New Market Road east? To the left of that is a yellow crosshatched area that's MR. That's above the CMU. That Page 67 of 91 March 7, 2019 yellow crosshatched area was commercial center mixed-use subdistrict in the current FLUE. Now it looks like it's going to the MR, residential district. Is that another -- something else you'll be addressing? MR. WEEKS: That whole rectangle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, at the end of your pen there. MR. WEEKS: Right. It is not addressed, but that is all owned by county government. It's -- there's -- the hnmokalee High School is on the wester portion of that. The eastern portion is the Immokalee community park and library and some other government facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are they taking advantage of any of the uses -- any of the use changes going to affect them? Let's put it that way, their operation probably -- because they're going from PF or public facility down to MR, is that going to be a problem? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Not for the governmental uses, because those are going to be allowed in the MR as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the other part of this whole issue is compatibility. We have a lot of uses that are going from what could be, in some cases, in the current FLUE, as HR to CMU, on the current FLUE is LR to MR, and on the -- there's quite a few MRs to HRs. So those are all higher in densities alongside existing properties. Has anybody researched how many of them are built out at the old density so that now, if they're expecting to buy in a low residential area, they're going to have a higher residential area next to them for compatibility? Has any of that been thought out? Now, that's an up -- that's a higher intensity, a higher density, so you're upgrading the property from that perspective. But if you were in the neighborhood expecting the neighborhood to be like you, you're actually hurting yourself. So I'm not sure -- I don't want to move into one project, find it developed low density, then a new project coming in under the new FLUE having a higher -density product. It might not be something I thought I'd be living next to. Has any thought gone into those instances in regards to this layout? MS. JENKINS: When the land -use designations were determined for this plan, zoning was taken into consideration. So the existing zoning or the density that was actually on the ground at the time within those neighborhoods was taken into consideration when these designations were defined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're referring back to the mid, what, 2010 or 2012 era when another company did this for the CRA? You weren't there, were you? MS. JENKINS: I was not there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't participate in this? MS. JENKINS: I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's just the best information you have today. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. And we did go through all the zoning maps with, you know, the FLUM overlay on it, as well, and had no objections to the changes in the residential designations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you aware of the population study done that that was based on? MS. JENKINS: I'm aware of it. Page 68 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you remember which one it was? Do you remember, was it the 2005 study according to the meeting? Do you remember what the population of Immokalee was said to be in that 2005 study? It was 104,000. MS. JENKINS: Built -out population, yeah, it was over 100,000 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hundred and four. And based on discussions with you, we're talking about, now, 47,000. MS. JENKINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that brings me to another question that I guess now is a good time to ask. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I can interject on that population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: That population projection goes back to 1991 when the Immokalee Master Plan was originally adopted. During the 2012 and years prior, that last effort to update the Immokalee Master Plan, there were no new calculations made for the existing Immokalee Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in 2005 the study showed 104,000. I've got a copy of the study. It's a thick book. MR. WEEKS: It just carried over from 1991 is all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now we're looking at 47,000. Do you know what the person per household is by the U.S. Census in 2015 adopted by BEBR for Collier County? MS. JENKINS: I'm sure David does. MR. WEEKS: Not off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.47. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. It's higher than the countywide average. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's for countywide average is 2.47, at least BEBR says it was Collier County. I've got the chart. But do you know what the 2017 — if you go to U.S. Census government right now, do you know what the number of persons per household the Census Bureau is now using for hnmokalee? It's 4.52. If you take 47,000, divide it by 2.47, you end up with about 19,000 units to meet that population. If you were to use the higher number for Immokalee, which is 4.52, you need even less. Currently, there's 24,000 bodies in humokalee, and it will change — it will be fluctuating a little bit, so I don't understand how we're going to get to buildout based on the -- I've previously asked for a number -- a chart I had provided based on the prior attempt at this master plan to get through the process, and it showed 137,747 units being built out with this new plan. And, Anita, you just recently confirmed that still seems to be accurate. Why do we need a plan providing 137,000 units when the buildout of Immokalee is only going to be about 19,000 units? MS. JENKINS: Well, Ithink its happening all in the lower residential which is already designated but active agriculture, and, you know, if -- we're just not changed the boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how hard it is to take away something due to property rights once it's issued? We struggle with it every single day up here, people coming in and asking more because they have vested rights. They base their rights on an old standard that then generates certain traffic intensities, and all they have to do is match intensity with a new mix or a new development scenario, and they argue that they should be approved. Page 69 of 91 March 7, 2019 Instead of just giving the density away, why don't we incentivize it where it's needed to come in and ask for it? I know that part of that is under the zoning category, but I think we're just -- we're looking at an area in Immokalee that's much greater as far as intensities go than what we started with in flexibility. I understand Main Street. I have no problem with the CMU in Main Street having the flexibility to do mixed-use. I think that would be a good thing, but I'm very worried about all the outlying areas and having the higher intensities dropped in where they weren't expected both under the compatibility for the people already living there and then under the ability for us to control it in the future. And that's one of the big issues I have with this plan now, and it's what I had with the plan five or eight or 10 years ago. It hasn't changed. I was -- I just don't see the need to go to a style that's going to create that much more units that we would have no hope of ever seeing built, or if -- so 30 years from now they may want to be built. Why don't we put that density on the table 30 years from now when we know how it's going to be used instead of today? Because we just did this plan. We're redoing the plan for the last time -- from the last time now, so... I'm just -- this whole thing is much bigger of a change than I think is warranted for what Immokalee needs, and I'm concerned about it. I asked questions like this back in 2012. I received answers from the people there at the time. I asked them things about if the density increases like it is, what's that going to do for the comparable pricing? Well, most likely it will lower the pricing. But we're going to be lowering it across the board, and I'm not sure every component of the urban area of Immokalee benefits from lower pricing. When somebody lives in Immokalee and they work their way up and wherever they are working there and they get to a middle management or upper management and they want to go to another level of home, will their homes be available at a higher price point so they've got more economic diversity in Immokalee? I don't know how that's going to fit into this plan because the plan is so across-the-board increases in intensity. I'm concerned about it. And that -- MS. JENKINS: The overall number of units did drop about 30,000 with this plan. (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, that whole program -- MS. JENKINS: The total number of units has dropped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but the whole program was based on what --as David had said, on 100 and -- over 100,000. Knowing we're not going to get there, or we're not supposed to now, why don't we design a master plan that's more in line with what the buildout's going to be, not so many more -- it's six times bigger than the buildout, or four -- what, it's four times, five times bigger. So I'm just -- don't know why we're rewriting a plan that's not going to take Immokalee to a newer level. It's really going to keep Immokalee in the level it's at. In fact, it may further decrease price points in Immokalee, decrease the tax base. I'm not sure how it's going to help things. MS. JENKINS: Well, it does give the landowners the ability to bring in a new housing product from what's there now and, again, a lot of these designations are based on the underlying zoning. You have zoning in these HRs that is RSF-16, for instance, and 12. So you have some very high-density areas, and I think those areas that were designated as high density, and backing off from that. Again, this is a walkable/bikeable community, and people need to live in closer proximity to one another than we do in the coastal area. So I think putting the land use in Page 70 of 91 March 7, 2019 place now gives them that opportunity to redevelop with some different product types that will work for the community and also work for the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I understand what you're saying, Anita. Thank you. Do you want to move on to the next part that you were working on? MS. JENKINS: This is just a very small change that we've added the effective date, the term "effective date" to this policy, and this goes back to -- actually, this is a continuation of the consistent -by -policy language. So we're just adding the effective date so we know when we're measuring that from. The next one was a change that was suggested on Goal 7 to add not only the exchange of information but also recognizing that we would like to always encourage cost sharing, so we did add that to the goal. And the next one we've continued -- the community has continued to work with our emergency management team, and this is a total striketbrough of the last policy, and the emergency management team has, again, worked closely with the community and the unmet needs to come up with this new policy. And if you don't mind, I think Mr. Summers would like to make a few comments to that policy, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. He's been patiently waiting here all day, so... We're looking forward to it, Dan. MR. SUMMERS: Good afternoon. Thank you very, very much for the opportunity to be with you. And, first of all, let me applaud the hnmokalee community for engaging in this. I wanted to take an opportunity to just provide a little bit of background on this discussion, because I think it was noteworthy, especially what we went through with Irma. So, again, this is a good -news item. But a couple of things just for clarity in the event after my discussion we need to tweak this just a little bit. First of all, I just want to make sure that everybody's aware that our framework that we operate under is Florida Statute 252, which is very clear about the roles and responsibilities of county emergency management. The second component of that is when the county -- when we do our Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, that is endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners, and that, too, is the macro view of our particular operations. FEMA requires that, State Division of Emergency Management, there's a lot of references in the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. So anything that we do for Immokalee in this particular case, I just wanted to make sure that it was on the record that you understood that we want to put that in the framework of the Florida Statute 252 in the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. That plan is up for its tri -annual update. Rick Zyvoloski on our staff has been around a long time; Rick manages that update. We're going to send a letter to all of these Immokalee non-profit or quasi -governmental agencies up there, and if they'd like to provide some input, written input to the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, we can do that. The reason this is a little unusual is that we might have other cormnunities that are looking for a site specific plan. My job is to address the whole community and do that in a fair and equitable manner, and I think we have certainly done that. Municipalities can act either in concert with the county Emergency Management Plan or they can do their own particular planning function. Page 71 of 91 March 7, 2019 The other component here is remember that a bulk of these unmet need organizations that are non-profit and the Unmet Needs Coalition, I believe, has formed their 501(c)3. It is important to understand that as they area private non-profit, we, in the local government, under emergency management, can do memorandums of agreement or memorandums of understanding with them. They're typically voluntary, nonbinding agreements. We have a standard form for that. But that agreement is helpful to them, particularly as we work through public and private opportunities during disaster relief. FEMA, with an MOA for an eligible non-profit in some cases, can get reimbursed. And so that's why, for one of the other reasons -- a primary reason that we can use some of the FEMA resources that are available to them. The other concept I wanted you to be aware of in this discussion is that it is essential that you have one primary EOC, you have one primary hub of operations. We fragment command or we break off command segments all the time in our operations, whether it's for a wildfire event, a tornado event, and we can do the same thing with Immokalee. So when we talk about a satellite emergency operations center, it needs to be crystal clear that that is a component, that is a spoke in the hub, if you will, with the county's EOC. We have quite an expensive and robust EOC, so I don't think we need to go down the road of building another EOC, because these are always event dependent. We have the technology we can bring to the site, whether it's a mobile command vehicle, whether it's a utility, whether we take a Parks and Recreation building and convert it to a temporary EOC immediately following landfall for recovery. So I just wanted to make sure that you are aware with that -- aware of that concept. And in terms of Immokalee, what we want to do is, basically, we're not going to write a new plan, but what I think is relevant here is to write a checklist of activities, goals, capabilities, and limitations with the non-profit groups. This is a large undertaking with no staff and no resources, additional resources to do this. So I just kind of wanted to share those concerns with you. If you think anything needs to be tweaked to that, I realize I'm a little late getting to the party. But, again, we applaud the effort. We think this is a good thing to do, but I just wanted to make sure you understood the framework and the ramifications behind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Dan, with respect to a satellite or a spoke EOC -- and I understand that if there were an earthquake or something that happened, the main one, that you would want to try to move your operations there. Are there other benefits, though, for having spokes than your main place is put out of commission? MR. SUMMERS: Well, it's a good point. And we do have what we refer to as a COOP plan, a Continuity of Operations Plan. And we have several alternate sites that we can go to. And part of what we do, we have a fair amount of redundant equipment and portable equipment. So, for example, if the primary EOC was taken out, one of our secondary locations would be the large training classroom at the South Florida -- I'm sorry, at the south water plant. Very robust, generator backed up. Sufficient IT resources there. North Collier Regional Park becomes a third component for us, and as we go back and complete the rebuilding at the ag extension building even out at Immokalee Road that's listed. So we feel like we've adequate COOP sites throughout the internal portions of the county that would meet our needs sufficiently. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So having one in Immokalee would be an overall significant benefit to the entire county? Page 72 of 91 March 7, 2019 MR. SUMMERS: Well, I don't see it as making that investment is -- to let you know is that it is event dependent, okay? So if -- depending on the magnitude of the event. We used the library in Immokalee, Lee Co -Op got -- that just happened to be a site where power came up fairly quickly. We dispatched an incident management team that was our forward command element for our primary EOC. The same thing would happen with another event tomorrow is that we have identified alternate locations that we can go to very quickly and set up. So I'm not really sure that it needs to be a hardened dedicated facility, but just know that we've got the capability to stand something up on short notice. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How about the new Naples EOC, city EOC? MR. SUMMERS: Well, the city EOC could be a COOP site for us. We've not entertained that discussion. I do worry about that site still being a little bit storm -surge vulnerable in terms of average hurricane event. But our working relationship with the city is very good, and that's the same case with the 911 public -safety answering points. City of Naples and Collier County Sheriff back each other up with those redundant piece app (sic). COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, just slightly off subject, but I think very important. The article in the newspaper yesterday about this terrible situation in Immokalee where, as a result of their not having a hook and ladder within their own Fire Department, a person bled to death using a chain saw up a tree; couldn't be rescued. It seems to me -- and, again, I know this is somewhat beyond the scope of a Future Land Use Element, but just from a practical standpoint, rather than looking at spending money on building an EOC spoke in Immokalee, I'd rather see the county contribute funds so that they have a hook and ladder. Just an observation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Dan. Anybody else? MR. SUMMERS: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your time. Thanks for waiting all day, too, Dan. MR. SUMMERS: My pleasure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anita. MS. JENKINS: Okay. The next change is one that we spoke with you about, just a change in the language to put in there the other nonresidential uses that are allowed in these different land -use designation areas and have been determined by staff to be consistent. So we just wanted to make sure that they're clearly all in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: This one -- we were asked to change "ancillary" to "accessory," and I think David wants to talk to you about that a little bit more with a different suggestion potentially. MR. WEEKS: I do. I would recommend that we strike the word "ancillary" and stop there. Don't insert the word "accessory." The reason is, accessory uses are something we usually don't even talk about at the level of the Comprehensive Plan. And accessory uses are in relationship usually to an individual site or building; a house, you have an accessory swimming pool or shed, perhaps. This is speaking about a subdistrict; big, broad land -use designation. I don't think there should be any discussion about accessory uses. So just leave the word -- leave the phrase "supporting uses," and that would refer back to the page Anita just had up, all those different types of nonresidential uses that are allowed, such as churches and cemeteries and childcare centers. Those institutional and social -type uses that generally support residential development or a community. Page 73 of 91 March 7, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is "supporting" a term of art in land use? MR. WEEKS: It certainly is in this case. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What in your view does it mean beyond the plain dictionary meaning? MR. WEEKS: Again, it's referring to those social and institutional type uses that are part of the fabric of the community. So it's supportive of the community at large. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I hope that helps. And that same change is made, I think, in MR, medium residential, and HR, high residential. All three places it occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. MS. JENKINS: David, you can stay right there, because this one is -- we were asked to clarify the density by right and the density bonus by right. MR. WEEKS: Oh, let's don't go there yet, Anita. Pull the page down some. Paragraph B, Commissioners, the discussion of accessory dwelling units and structures, dwelling units not counted as a unit for purposes of density calculation. We discussed this and then we internally -- this body discussed it, and then staff internally decided, well, let's just take the language from the Future Land Use Element and insert it there, and then we forgot to do it. So I've handwritten it here. The touch is so different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So saying that the density rating system is not applicable to accessory dwelling or accessory structures that are not intended for rental or other commercial uses? Such as accessory dwellings and structures include guest houses, mother-in-law quarters, cabanas, guest suites and the like. So if it's rented, it's a dwelling unit? If it's not rented -- MR. WEEKS: If it's rented, it's actually going to fall into a different category. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it will be considered a countable unit? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back up from there. MR. WEEKS: Now, first, let's keep the context. This is the density rating system. It's only applicable to residential dwelling units, which we're talking about here, and it's only applicable in the LR, MM, HR, the different designations that allow residential development because I think, for example, cabanas we would associate -- typically, at least, associate maybe with a commercial development, but there are some cases where a condominium might have guests that stay there; and by their large pool, they might have some cabanas. Typically those would not, in my experience, at least not be rented out, but I don't know if there's an exception to that. What we're trying to do is just make it clear that these are the types of accessory -- particularly the case of a guesthouse. I mean, it is a house. People can live in it year-round, conceivably, subject to the limitations in the Land Development Code which prevent you from renting it out. So let's say you have a relative, maybe an elderly parent and you want to move them in close to you, they could live in your guesthouse year-round, and it's not going to count as a second dwelling unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which I -- that's how I'm understanding it, but I'm -- I didn't get that from the reading of this. So it says, accessory dwelling units or accessory structures that are not intended for rental or other commercial uses. So that means if they are intended for rental or other commercial uses, they are considered part of the density rating system; is that true? MR. WEEKS: That's not, and I can see the confusion. Page 74 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it just me or -- MR. WEEKS: No, it's not, because similar -- same language in the Future Land Use Element. Commissioners, you see on the second line where I had a blue caret and I scribbled it out? I think we could put a period there and then pick it up in my red language, a new sentence, "Such accessory dwelling units and structures include." I think that will eliminate the confusion by making any reference to rental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. Yes. Much better. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Say that again, please. MR. WEEKS: Certainly. On the second line, the sentence -- this is Paragraph B. Second line, the sentence will stop at "structures," two words from the end of the line, and then the next sentence, the rest of that is removed, deleted, and then we pick up on the one, two, three, fourth line, my handwritten comment, "such accessory dwellings and structures include guesthouses, mother -in-laws' quarters, cabanas, guesthouse suites and the like." COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Okay. MR. WEEKS: This is about as fun as the maps you were discussing this morning. I hope that I've accomplished the objective of making this more clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By crossing it all out, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It eliminates the ambiguity. MR. WEEKS: This is under the density rating system, and the context is affordable housing density bonus by right. And we have -- the version in your packet was proposing this language here. So what we did is we put two things together but in separate tables. If you're coming in for an affordable housing bonus by right, that is there's no public -hearing process, then a certain density could be awarded by right, bonus density for the affordable housing and then, coincident with that, was that you would get your base density, your eligible base density by right. Ordinarily, you have to come in for a rezoning. And the base density may be four units per acre, but it's not by right; it's discretionary, just as with the density bonus. But in this scenario the density bonus for the affordable housing is by right and then, likewise, the base density is by right. So we've eliminated this separate table that's talking about the base density and on the next page, or maybe two pages over, combined that into a single table. COMMISSIONER SCIB4ITT: Oh, yeah, it's much easier to understand. MR. WEEKS: So in the third column from the left, that is outside the low residential area. The density cap for the affordable housing is eight units per acre. We're simply walking through the math of how you get the density. So the left-hand number, which is four, all the way down, and then 5, 6, 6, 7.26, that's all the density either based on the eligible base density of four units per acre; or when you get to the RSF-5, it's the density of your underlying zoning district, and then added to it in the second number, the 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, so on, that's the amount of bonus for the affordable housing that's added to it. So its a combination of zoning or eligible base density by right and then density bonus by right. And then the far right column is under the low residential, which is a little more complex, because the density allowance is your 50 percent on top of your underlying zoning district density. So if your property is zoned RSF-1, your zoning district allows you one unit per acre; 50 percent of that is a half unit; therefore, one -and -a -half units is viewed as your base density or your zoning density, and then, likewise, the affordable housing density bonus is the same. It is 50 percent of your underlying zoning. Page 75 of 91 March 7, 2019 So that's why you see these small numbers of .3 and .66, so forth, all the way up to, again, with the cap of six units per acre. Once you get above RSF-3, that is RSF-4, 5, 6, RMF -6, and VR, now we've done away with the 50 percent of your zoning district density and simply award whatever is necessary to add to the density bonus to get you to eight. It's complex, but I'm hoping this is a little bit clearer to show where the density is derived from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Strain, we were not provided a copy of this ahead of time to allow us sufficient time to review and digest it. I thought Scott had seen it, but not until an hour before the meeting. We'd like some opportunity to review and digest this particular section, because my understanding, from reviewing the plan, was that the maximum you could get in LR was four, and this is quite different, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the question I was just going to ask. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. And I'm trying to understand, if the low density, LR, in the old plan was four development units per acre or less, how do we start out in the LR with anything -- how does the RSF-6 and the other ones equivalent have eight by right on this chart? I think that's possibly where Heidi was going. That's -- (Commissioner Schmitt left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. WEEKS: The proposed master plan does identify under the LR subdistrict a cap of four -- well, a base density of four and applicable density bonuses up to a cap of eight. So this reflects that. But I think your question was about the existing master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, under your by -right provision, how do you get above four under the existing plan? You can't. I mean, that's why I'm -- in the bottom where it has the RF -6 and RMF -6 -- well, actually RSF-3 up, its got over four, but they could never build that much in the current plan. They can only go up to four. And I had understood from the last meeting that if they applied the affordable housing by right, they could get a little bit more depending on the zoning district, but I don't see how we could start out with more than four. Is that -- in the LR. I think that's where Heidi's coming from, too, if I'm not -- yeah, she's shaking her head yes. MR. WEEKS: Wet], Pll grant that it's a lot to digest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, do you need -- I -- you know, what part of this would we have to look at to figure this out as a -- what's going to dictate the answer here. MR. WEEKS: If you'll go -- let me -- this text -- let me pull the existing Immokalee Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on -- I've got the existing. It's on Page 9 of the existing plan under land -use designation description section. MR. WEEKS: Well, what I'm looking at is under the existing plan back in the resolution Exhibit A; it's Page 17 of 55. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm using a different -- MR. WEEKS: Okay. It's the -- again, existing master plan under the density rating system, density bonuses, No. 2C, affordable workforce housing bonus by right, and let me read a sentence here. It's such a long sentence: To encourage the provision of affordable workforce housing within that portion of the urban mixed-use district, properties zoned -- and it lists a bunch of districts, all of those that you see here on the visualizer -- for which an affordable workforce housing project is proposed in accordance with Section 2.06 of the LDC. A maximum of four residential units per gross acre shall be added to the base density of four Page 76 of 91 4 March 7, 2019 dwelling units per acre; therefore, the maximum density that may be achieved by right shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre, and that's what we're reflecting here: The cap of eight applies in all scenarios. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go up about four or five pages from where you're at and look under the low residential subdistrict, it says, the density less than or equal to four dwelling units per gross acre is permitted. So I always read that as you could have up to four units per acre, and the "by right," we previously understood was a proportionate share of the type of zoning they were applying to the property. But under the previous provision, I could never see the previous zoning getting above four units per acre, because that would limit them to below -- RSF-2 or below. Your table seems to indicate that was always allowed to do RSF-6, but you couldn't. MR. WEEKS: Right. Now, let's split the difference and go about halfway between our pages at the very begirming of the density rating system. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What page out of 55 are you on? MR. WEEKS: Sixteen. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thankyou. MR. WEEKS: And the second sentence, the density rating system is applicable to the low -residential subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of four dwelling units per acre is not exceeded except for the density bonus provisions for affordable workforce housings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's not based on the type of zoning that's actually built on site then; a percentage of that. You get four no matter what type -- if you do an RSF-1, you get four more units instead of RSF-1 as it would -- as a percentage of the -- see, the previous table seemed to say that the different types of zoning districts that you would produce in an LR would produce a different cap for the by -right affordable housing. That's kind of what's confusing me. That doesn't seem to be applying, because you're going to higher RSF categories than would have been allowed initially in the LR; is that correct? You could only -- if you could only have four, you couldn't -- you'd be limited to RSF-2 as a maximum zoning category, wouldn't you? MR. WEEKS: Well, the LR subdistrict says your maximum is four until you get to the density rating system, and it says, here's the exception: The affordable housing, and then we jump over to the density rating -- further into the density rating for the affordable housing provision, and then that's this somewhat complicated scenario that we're reading here where it says, you can have the base density by right and then add to that some base bonus units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think what that means — well, I shouldn't say you -- your person would be the one that knows it. I'm just trying to understand it. RSF-3 through VR would all read base at four, because you couldn't go above four in any of those categories based without a density bonus. So you'd be at four, and then you would add the other allowances based on the 50 percent of the bonus zoning density to get to your max. MR. WEEKS: But the reason that that RSF-5 and so forth down to VR don't stop at four is because your underlying zoning allows more than four. So the table in that case, once you get higher than RSF-4, which allows four units per acre, then the density identified is that which the zoning district allows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But even if you have -- if you have a cap of four units per Page 77 of 91 March 7, 2019 acre and you -- let's forget the affordable housing density bonus. That was -- that's the only place in the county that this gets confusing. So let's just start with the four units per acre. Can you do RSF-5 at four units per acre? Five means five units per acre, right? MR. WEEKS: The answer would be yes but -- well, hold on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: You could actually rezone a property to RSF-5 but the density would be limited to four units per acre. That would be that parenthetical cap of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I mean, I'm not playing games, I mean, because you rezone to VR because you want those uses, but you'd be capped at four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you thought mapping was complicated? So really what -- your base to start with on the right column for RSF-3 should be limited to 4.0, and all the ones below that should be 4.0, then you add the 3.5, the 2.0, and the .5 to that. You can't get to where you want to go on a per -acre basis in the column that's not highlighted in yellow on the right-hand side of this table. How do you get there? MR. WEEKS: You only get there with both numbers put together. If you're not doing -- if you're not doing an affordable housing project, we don't even look at this table. Then you'd be back under the LR subdistrict that says four units per acre is your cap, so it's RSF-1, 2, 3, 4, or higher density zoning districts with a parenthetical limit on density to four. This awarding of the base density or 50 percent of your -- an additional 50 percent of your underlying zoning district is only applicable when you're doing the affordable housing project where you're getting density awarded by right as opposed to the public -hearing process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then, in essence, you're getting more than the four units allowed by right. You're getting the four units plus -- MR. WEEKS: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- another mysterious up to, what, two or four, depending on how you look at the -- aye yai yai. MR. WEEKS: That's exactly it. You're getting a density bonus for the affordable housing, and then on top of that getting your base, if you want to call it that, as a bonus. If your zoning is only ag, you're only entitled to .2 units per acre, but you're being awarded the four units per acre of base density and then the affordable housing density of another four to get to your cap of eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I was one of the people sitting here when this whole thing came up, and Commissioner Midney was here at the time. I can assure you I doubt if anybody on this panel understood it the way its being explained today. MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chair, as Heidi alluded to, our office hasn't had a chance to review this yet. And just on looking at it on the surface, and even after all this discussion, I still have a couple questions which haven't even been addressed yet. It might be best if we discussed this internally and try to figure it out so we can prepare a more unified, coherent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest mapping it out so we can see it better. Well, let's go on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you want a map? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking for a map. MS. JENKINS: Alternatively, I don't think we're changing the language that's in the existing plan. We're just trying to make the chart. And if the chart is confusing Page 78 of 91 March 7, 2019 everyone, we can take the chart out and leave the language in so we don't change anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, but it doesn't make -- oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It doesn't make sense. If you look at the first row and your zoned maximum is .2, so now you're saying, just because you're in the LR, you automatically get upgraded to a base density of four. How are you doing that; through a rezone? MR. WEEKS: This is all by right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So they don't have to come in for a public hearing, and instead of .2, they can have -- well, you have -- MR. WEEKS: Four. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- eight, eight units an acre without doing a thing except for filling out a letter. This doesn't make sense to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that part of this whole program is what's bothersome, to be honest with you. MS. JENKINS: And, again, we're not changing that. That's existing language today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, nobody knew it to be existing language till today except David. I would doubt if anybody else understood it to this layout that we have here. I sure didn't back in whatever year it was. MR. WEEKS: Two more comments about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were here then. Yeah, Karen didn't either. So there's two of us. There. You're outvoted. MR. WEEKS: Back -- going all the way back to I think it was 2005, the County Commission had both an affordable housing workshop and a gap housing workshop out of which came -- just like they did about two years or so ago, out of which came direction for staff to pursue different options. Here's a menu of ways that we can try to provide more affordable housing in our community. One of those ways was to consider affordable housing density bonus by right. And when it came to the coastal urban area, it fell flat; nobody wanted anything to do with it. But the Immokalee community, to the extent that they were aware of it and involved, they were accepting of it, and so it got approved. And so it's been in the hnmokalee Master Plan for several years now. It has not been implemented; that is, there has been no implementing Land Development Code change, so it's just sitting there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, David -- MR. WEEKS: --waiting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's more part of the argument I tried to male earlier. All this density by right, no questions asked, has been sitting in Immokalee for how many years now since we last talked about this? And what it's been, six, eight years ago, and it hasn't been used once. RVARIFIFIffffMEN Re CHARUAAN STRAIN: And we're throwing all this more density at it for whatever reason. I'm -- this whole process is puzzling me, to be honest with you. MR. WEEKS: Well, I think it suggests that there's not an interest in this. If there was, I think we would be hearing from people saying, well, I want to use this provision. I'm ready. And we're saying, well, we can't. We don't have a Land Development Code to implement it yet, and they would say, well, let's do it. We haven't heard a peep. Page 79 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've been in the same loop you have been, and I haven't either, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, are we in agreement that moving forward no maps and no charts enter our meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless they have to do with LED lighting and lumens, then we'll ask for all kinds of charts. Why don't we try to move our way through this to the point we can today and see what's up. Now, as far as getting done with this today, if we eliminate the map, then the County Attorney's Office, do we still have a point of contention, or do you need time with this if the map was out of it? MR. SCOTT: You mean the chart? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I keep saying a map. It's as confusing as a map. Yes, the chart map. MR. SCOTT: Well, now that I've seen the chart, there is a seeming inconsistency in Subparagraph C where it says that a maximum of four residential units per acre shall be added to the base density of four. As you can see clearly, RSF-5, 6, RMF -6, and VR have a base density higher than four, so it seems to be an inconsistency in saying that they all have a base density of four and yet some of them have five or more. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what you were saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was saying, yeah. MR. SCOTT: But if you remove the chart, that inconsistency goes away, so... MS. JENKINS: And we will agree just to keep the language as it's existing in the plan today and not try to chart it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the only person that knows really what it means is standing here in front of us. And if he ever retires, we are going to be in a lot of hot water, so... MR. WEEKS: Well, I could be a consultant for a decent fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on. MS. JENKINS: This is affordable housing by public hearing, and we just removed the last sentence, and that was because of some projects located within or without. And that was a confusing point, so we just struck that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were waiting for me. MS. JENKINS: I thought you were reading it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I am reading it. I was just making sure I understood it. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: The next one is we added natural resource index at the suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: And that's to do with the density -blending provisions. And then, finally, two things: We wanted to make sure that we captured all of the uses under the Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict as permitted in the PUD that they currently have now. So rather than repeating all of the uses in the PUD into the Comp Plan, we reference the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works. MS. JENKINS: And I'm just going to throw this back up here just so you -all are aware of it and we're adopting the right master plan. This master plan only changed by adding the section lines. Prior, our master plan did not have a township section, so we added the section lines for clarity on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on what we've gone Page 80 of 91 March 7, 2019 through so far? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do we have left to go through, Anita? MS. JENKINS: Let me find my list, because you -all did have, you know, some of the overreaching discussions. That was all the changes that we've made to date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: A couple of them -- and starting on Policy 1.2.4, there was discussion about the renewable energy and, you know, making that first step to address that in Collier County. So we'll just go from there, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll bring it up in discussion. MS. JENKINS: Yes. Let's see. The other one -- now, Mr. Schmitt was adamant about the civic center and making that more of a priority of we're going to do that but, again, that's a substantial change that we need direction from the full board on. So those were the only two outstanding items. Oh, also one in the RT district; there was a concern with the average lot size that was included. So those are the three major items that needed further discussion and consensus from the Board of how you'd like to give us direction on those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's take the first one. What was the first one again? MS. JENKINS: The first one is the renewable energy policy, 1.2.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I brought up. MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see that as a use that's compatible in the urban area of Immokalee nor the LR district of Immokalee, but that was my concerns over it. I didn't know if anybody else had the same concern. Are you all familiar with the section that we're talking about? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is this on Page 31? MS. JENKINS: Yeah, and it's on the overhead as well. And, Commissioners, this was added in to provide an economic opportunity for the agriculture and agribusinesses that -- if you remember going back to the beginning of this master plan, their number -one goal is to diversify the economy in Immokalee, and so that's why you're seeing changes and additions to industrial land uses. And when we talk about agribusiness and thinking about different uses that could apply in those areas that are zoned agriculture, these uses were determined to be the upcoming industry for renewable energy and taking the first step to allow this. This would not be implemented until an LDC amendment was brought before you and you can consider all the compatibility items around that. If you'd like to consider allowing only one renewable energy of solar energy, the only thing that you would like to tackle at this point, we can roll it back, change the language, direct us in the LDC, whatever -- whatever you think is appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just curious. I think we had a conversation or started this conversation maybe when we were in Immokalee. But what is the purpose of the county imposing these deadlines on itself? Within two years after adoption this and -- MS. JENKINS: So the state statutes in the Comprehensive Planning, Chapter 163, directs us to have measurable, active policies, so that's why the timelines are in there. Many of the timelines in the plan that was prior to this restudy had that we would adopt things within two years. We changed that to "initiate" so it gives the Board and the staff time to put these Page 81 of 91 March 7, 2019 projects, these restudies into fruition. So you can initiate it with the first workshop and then take two years with the public to get these things to bring forward. So to initiate is the active, and putting a timeline on there makes it measurable. MR. KLATZKOW: Putting a timeline is a terrible idea from the County Attorney's standpoint, because they're not going to get met. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They're not going to get met. MR. KLATZKOW: They're not going to get met, and then what do you do? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember the watershed plan? How many decades -- or months and years -- years and years and years of that fall off, so... MS. JENKINS: Well, I think they get met when you use words like "initiate." We're not adopting. We're not saying that -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're assuming they're going to be initiated. I'm telling you, you're setting us up for failure here. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on the alternative? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, the Immokalee Area Master Plan was supposed to occur towards the tail end of the review of the RLSA with time for the two plans to overlap so the community of Immokalee could see how the final or the near -final policies of the RLSA might impact that community. Well, that didn't happen. The opposite's happening. hnmokalee's getting done first. And what Immokalee is not seeing is the nine proposed new town locations surrounding Immokalee: Four on the north side; five on the south side. Those proposed new town locations may have a huge benefit from an alternative energy source in that area that wouldn't have to be in an urban area of Immokalee. It could be in the agricultural area where it's not currently allowed. There's probably a good reason why it's not currently allowed, and there's probably an interesting reason why, well, let's just put it in the urban area of Immokalee. I don't think that such an alternative facility for electricity or whatever it would be used for would necessarily need to be limited to Immokalee, nor would it be necessarily as profitable if it was only limited to Immokalee if it could go to other towns more centrally located between Immokalee and some of those nine proposed or located -- potentially located other towns. So to put this and allow this right now in this plan in the Immokalee urban area, to me, is a huge mistake. It actually dis-incentivizes other areas to consider it, and I don't see how its going to improve Immokalee's abilities in their low residential area at all. So I'm real concerned about it, and that was from the beginning. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mine is related, and it jumps back to Policy 1.2.1, which calls for streamlining of the permitting process, the permitting and approval process. And my thought is, if it would be a good idea for Immokalee, why not the whole county? MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER FRYER: 1.2.1 on page -- MS. JENKINS: 1.2 -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thirty-one. MS. JENKINS: The precertified commercial areas? Is that the policy that we're looking at? Precertified -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Precertifiedcommercial-- MS. JENKINS: Yeah, that is a countywide initiative. Page 82 of 91 March 7, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: But they're not presently streamlined in Immokalee, but they are for the rest the county? MS. JENKINS: No. The whole program is in a -- is in development right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it's going to be for the entire comity? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the next item on your list? Civic stuff? The civic center. I don't remember what Joe's issue -- and he's not here. Does anybody know enough about it to move into it? MS. JENKINS: He just -- his comment was to stats it more of a priority, and we can put that policy, it's 7.1.4, Mike, as you're going through that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that what we're jumping to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Immolcalee civic center. It's on Page 22 of the document. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're already -- you're already suggesting within one year the county will coordinate with the Immokalee CRA to explore opportunities for an Immokalee civic center. What more -- how faster do you think it needs to be done? MS. JENKINS: I don't think that Mr. Schmitt's comment was to the speed of it. I think it was more of a, let's make a commitment, Collier County, to do that. So it would be more to the effect of Collier County shall establish a civic center within hnmokalee. I think the way that it's written today, to explore it, gives us more flexibility to identify the feasibility of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't see a need to change it at this point. What's your next point? MS. JENKINS: The next one was in the RT district, the concern with the average lot size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That was the same situation for me for the downzoning application. You're actually restricting the RT district far more than it was restricted before by those lot sizes. So I'm not sure that's a good thing to do. I don't know if David's going to cover that in his zoning reevaluation methodology that he talked about earlier or not. Is that something that would be covered, David, in the language in the RT district that would be more limiting than the language is today in regards to units -- or lot sizes and unit sizes? MR. WEEKS: It would not be, because that only deals with existing -- the consistent -by -policy provision only would deal with existing zoning that allows greater density or intensity than the Future Land Use Map designation. This doesn't change the density that is allowed -- first of all, these properties are zoned agricultural. They're going to have to go through a rezoning process to implement, to use this district but, secondly, this is not changing their density. It's not taking away the number of units they can develop. It, instead, is the design parameter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How necessary is it to have a design parameter in the Comprehensive Plan in this particular case? Isn't that -- I mean, normally we see those kind of standards in the LDC, I think. Is this something you would typically expect in our Comp Plan? MR. WEEKS: Usually not this level of detail. If a zoning overlay or some other Page 83 of 91 March 7, 2019 implementing provision in the LDC is going to be adopted, it could be addressed there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that might be a better idea when we see how it fits with compatibility standards and other things for the area. I mean, if it -- and does that wrap it up? MS. JENKINS: That does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe we have one member of the public here to speak. MS. JENKINS: Andrea, do you want to speak? MR. BOSL Yes, Chair. We have Andrea Halman. MS. HALMAN: My name is Andrea Hahnan, and that's H -a -1 -m -a -n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. HALMAN: And Pm here because I'm a resident of Immokalee. I've lived there for 10 years, and I am in hopes that we are able to get this master plan through. It's my understanding that the master plan is how residents plan for land use, future land use, and Immokalce would like to do that. We don't -- we would like to be able to plan how the land in hnmokalee is used with -- the residents would. People have been notified. People have participated. I just wonder why this won't happen. I think it should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we're on track for it to happen. MS. HALMAN: Then I appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I appreciate you waiting all day. Sorry -- I know it's a long drive, and sorry it took so long. MS. HALMAN: It's important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know where the panel wants to go. Does anybody have any other questions of staff? Have you guys got an idea in your minds what you'd like to see on this, or where are you at? I think some of the issues we've discussed that are relevant to some of the changes -- I mean, let me read them off here in just a second. I'm trying to find it. There it is. We're going to consider dropping -- that's something we've got to talk about. What do we want to do with the ag reference in the low -residential district? That would be one of the questions we need to talk about. As far as the downzoning or the process that David has talked about, I think, we've more or less agreed that should be implemented. I don't think anybody objected to it. We're going to move the density chart that was problematic from our first discussion and based on this latest discussion, we'd remove the density -- or the development standards in the RT district that are shown in front of us on the bullet. And in addition to that, we'd accept the changes made by staff through the walk-through that we took through on the document today with the exception, of course, is that chart won't be included. Those are a summary of what I think we've gotten to as far as all those bits and pieces. I don't know if you -all have any more you want to contribute to that or thoughts, but we're open for discussion right now, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, you expressed concern about the alternative energy uses. Page 84 of 91 March 7, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do any of those changes address your concerns? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that's the first thing to discuss. If this panel as a group feels that that's an acceptable use in the Immokalee urban area, that's fine. I still have a problem with it. I think it's a heavy industrial use, and I don't think it needs to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. If someone is that dead set on making that kind of an activity there, it's worthy of a more intense scrutiny. We're talking about alternative energy. That's not a light use. Whether its a solar farm or an ethanol farm, it's still going to be a big use of -- an intense use for an urban area. Why wouldn't they want to come through and do it through a study done that would be required by our Growth Management Plan change instead of just implementing it under the Land Development Code? So I'm -- I don't really -- I'm not really thinking it's the right idea for Immokalee. So that's my position on it, but you guys make up your own minds, and we'll move into a motion eventually. And that's either going to be part of it or not, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question that I overlooked when we went through before, so with apologies. And it's on Page 40 of 55, 40. Then Line 13 says, it says, mobile homes shall also be permitted on properties located at, and then it gives three addresses. Isn't that awfully specific for the GMP? MS. JENKINS: Itis. It's very specific and out of the ordinary, but that was part of a settlement agreement for the property owner. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Got it; got it. MS. JENKINS: So we want to make sure that we capture that so in the future when David's gone somebody can know it's there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's he going? MR. BOSI: I was going to try to get to that reference, but you guys have already passed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We're already done with it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Anita, you made mention, I believe, of LDC changes coming that would further clarify the alternative use, or alternative energy. Is it possible today to approve it as it is but yet be able to avoid those types of undesirable alternative energy uses down the road through the LDC or individual applications? MS. JENKINS: Sure. When you implement any policy in the Comp Plan through the LDC, that's when you get specific with it. And if this -- if this language that -- you know, the criteria and development standards shall be included in the proposed LDC -- and so it basically says that you can't implement this until you have a Land Development Code that allows that. And even though the language is broad with renewable or alternative energies, in the Land Development Code then you would decide which type of renewable energy are we comfortable with in Collier County. So if it only limits it to solar, you could only have the renewable energy of solar or wind or oranges? COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I mean, that would satisfy my concern, because I tend to take that concern seriously. The other concern you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was that because this is happening before the RLSA plan is nailed down, that he felt like Immokalee might receive uses -- more undesirable uses that the RLSA would push into hnmokalee. Is that -- is that addressed here? Is that a concern of staff or -- MS. JENKINS: So we see the renewable energy as a market that has been Page 85 of 91 March 7, 2019 knocking on our door and in this location as well. We see it as job creation for the people that live in Immokalee that pays -- you know, as a technician much better than some of the opportunities out there now. It doesn't preclude these types of uses from also going into the RLSA with that restudy. When that comes forward, if this is something that the Board wants to plan for in the future renewable energy, they can address it in that plan as well and implement it only through the LDC. So they could have the same process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this in their -- the community knows it's in there? MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And they wanted it in there? MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But final draffing point on -- and this happens in some of the narrative, but I think it's more important to be corrected in the ordinance itself on Page 41 of 55, in Uppercase B, in Line 18, and then again at Line 24, you have -- the two nouns are not in numerical agreement. Say any property owner who believes that they have. Any owner who believes that they have. I know you're trying to get away from he or she, but it just isn't grammatically correct. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on the fact we're taking out the controversial chart, and there's been a couple -- I think the bullet point in the RT issue's been resolved, it's coming out, that leaves us to the point where if someone wants to make a motion subject to the changes we've discussed, that's up to you -all. COMMISSIONER FRYER; I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what motion will that be, sir? COMMISSIONER FRYER: As you just stated, Mr. Chairman, with those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommended for approval subject to the items just discussed? energy? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK; Does that include leaving in the alternative CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. There was no discussion to take it out. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, just so the record's real clear about the vote, I'm going to vote against the motion for the following six reasons: Number one, the changes in density are not warranted based on the revised downward population projections for the buildout of hnmokalee urban area. No data has been provided justifying the increased intensities. Number two, allowing the LR areas for industrial uses, such as alternative energy and R&D facilities, unnecessarily consumes limited urban areas and is incompatible with not only the low-density residential areas but also the MR and the HR areas. Number three, adding industrial bands around the north and west side of Immokalee airport will exasperate the development of the existing Immokalee airport, and no data has been provided justifying this need. Page 86 of 91 March 7, 2019 Number four, the new plan downsizes some properties without due process to notify owners and adds densities next to existing properties that were not contemplated when owners originally purchased; thus creating incompatibilities. Homeowners in what they are -- that what they thought were low -residential neighborhoods could be facing substantial issues with higher -density neighbors. Number five, this plan does not take into consideration the changes that might occur during the surrounding RLSA replanning effort. The entire replanning effort was supposed to allow for a period of overlaps between the different abutting areas, so one plan could not be modified to reflect -- could be modified to reflect the needs of another. This has not happened. Number six, Immokalee needs to look at a long-term strategy for the future; however, the future with this plan continues the limitations of the past. The higher densities and intensities mixed closer with a dissimilar residential will limit economic diversity, and without the prospect of substantially improved property values, Immokalee will never be independent of Collier County. And those are my reasons for voting no on the requested motion. So with that in mind, all those in favor of -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: May we have more discussion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I asked you guys first. That's why I thought you were done. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I didn't know what you were coming up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is my opinions. I'm not asking anybody here to buy into it. I'm just telling you my thoughts. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'd like to have discussion over it, if we could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I am personally very concerned if we don't enable Immokalee to go forward with something. But the points that you have made, I believe, the ones at least that I understood, seemed to be well taken. Is there any possibility -- does staff believe that there's any reasonable possibility that the Chairman's concerns could be effectively addressed within a reasonable time so that we could get Immokalee going on this plan in a way that met most, if not all, of his concerns? MR. BOSI: If the Planning Commission would like to modify the Immokalee Area Master Plan as suggested by the Chair, it's within -- it's within your purview to do so. The community has expressed a preference for the arrangement as it's proposed. The Planning Commission most certainty could find a different perspective in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure how fast the Board wanted this processed. And I'don't care if we slow it down or speed it up, as long as we get it done within the time frame the Board wanted it done in. I disagree with the way it's moving forward because I have -- as I expressed to, I think, Mike or Anita earlier, the CMU district in the center core of Immokalee where the Main Street is, north to south, I think that's the right approach. You've got a mixed-use incentivization there, you've got higher densities, you've got the ability to do most of the commercial for most all the areas that were there. I don't have a problem with that. It's the widespread increases in intensities throughout Immokalee that I think are going to be the downfall of that community as the future goes on, because we're giving so much away at this stage of things. And 1-- you know, I didn't agree with the density by right that Commissioner Midney wanted for Immokalee back then. That's why -- I thought that was a mistake. But Page 87 of 91 March 7, 2019 I remember saying to him, well, if you're sure that's what your community wants, then we should go along with it. I just think if we're looking for a strategy for the future, this is not set up for that good --for a good strategy. It took the old plan and just brought it forward. It's not what this replanning effort was supposed to do. And that was -- I don't believe that was ever contemplated. And I remember talking to Commissioner Nance about it. So I'm -- you know, this is coming a bit abruptly and out of the sequence. If the panel as a majority wants it to go forward, I'm not going to object to that. I'm just not going to support it. I mean, that's just the way it goes forward, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there a way either to divide this document into some parts that you could support? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- well, you know what, I don't even know if it would be worth the effort, because if this goes to the Board -- this is transmittal, so it's going to come back on adoption. If the Board takes this input and says, you know, we ought to look at some of these points, and they want to make a change, it will happen before adoption. If they don't take the input, then I've already got a signal from them they're happy the way it is, and that would be more of a signal to me maybe they're -- maybe I better change my outlook on it because it's not going to change the next time around. So I just wanted to be able to express my concerns over it strong enough so the Board would know them, because not -- I don't even know if the board members are watching this meeting today. But I want them to know it, so if they feel it needs to be addressed as the people who are actually voting on this, the five of them, they can see it addressed before the adoption is completed. That was the intent of my dissertation today. MS. JENKINS: And I should probably remind you all, because it's a little different process, that this is, as Mr. Strain said, the transmittal. So then your transmittal goes to the Board of County Commissioners, it goes to the State, and then it comes back to you again with any further changes directed by the Board or the State. Then it goes back to the Board for adoption. So this is the beginning of the process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That reminder was helpful tome. And I think I see now how I want to vote, and I think I see a way that this can come out okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Well, let me just say this: We've been doing this for a while. You don't send a draft on transmittal. What you're sending up to the State is what you believe to be your final proposal. You're supposed to get comments back from the State, at least theoretically, and then when it comes back, you address the comments, and you're done. Simply saying, well, don't worry about this because it's just transmittal and we'll fix it on adoption, that's not really the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're doing that with the Golden Gate Master Plan. MR. KLATZKOW: And it's not really the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't even see that plan that's now going to Tallahassee, so I'm not sure this is any -- this is even as serious as that. MR. KLATZKOW: What's going up to Tallahassee you did see as simply breaking down what was one into three. Supposedly it's completely ministerial. To simply be told that, guys, don't worry about it, we'll fix it on adoption, no. If you're not comfortable with anything, fix it here. I mean, if you have to bring it back at your next meeting, bring it back. But don't kick the can down the road saying, well, you know, we'll fix it when it comes back. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think Chairman Strain has issued some pretty major Page 88 of 91 March 7, 2019 objections to it in terms of the zoning approach to it. So you've been involved with this process for a long time, correct? MS. JENKINS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRY: So being new to this commission, and I'm trying to make a responsible decision, at least for my vote here, he's saying that some of the zoning -- the increased densities may not be good for Immokalee moving forward, but yet you've been through a long process, and this is what's come out of it. So am I to assume that you feel like the people of Immokalee who gave input to this understand the ramifications and they actually wanted the increased densities in areas to support the number of units that Chairman Strain's made a pretty good case, really, won't necessarily be needed, right? If you only need a percentage of the units that initially were anticipated, do you believe that everybody's eyes are wide open in terns of the ramifications of these increased densities and possible impact on property values and that they still feel this is the best for their community? MS. JENKINS: I do. This community has worked on this plan for over 10 years and, you know, through dozens of public workshops and outreach in their own committee, many, many planning consultants, and all of Collier County staff practically have reviewed and provided input on this plan. So there has not been any objections from Collier County staff on this plan. And the ones that wanted to massage language did so with new language, as Mr. Summers was here today to improve that language. And the community has supported this plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: I also sense a lot of anticipation, impatience from that community after a 10 -year -plus process that we do something. I guess my concern is, I really feel his concerns sound very well founded, but it also sounds like kind of a major potential rewrite to a lot of the plan. So Pm trying to weigh voting for it so it goes to the County Commission with his concerns documented. So, yeah, I just -- I guess at this point I feel I know how I will vote at this point. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, then Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: In the words of Lloyd Bridges, I picked a hell of a week to give up barbiturates; Airplane. COMMISSIONER FRY: Wasn't it sniffing glue? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. That, too. I've been uncomfortable with being one of the people that's going to pick a direction for hnmokalee to go, because I don't know anybody out in Immokalee anymore. I'm just uncomfortable about it. I think staff probably knows a lot more about this than I do. I trust what they say the people out in Immokalee want. My personal preference would be if Immokalee had their own Planning Commission. I don't want to plan for Immokalee, but I don't know bow you would form a commission out there. Do you elect it? Does the Board -- there's only one board member that represents hnmokalee. Does he pick five people? How do we know that they're the ones going to be the best ones to pick a future for Immokalee? I'm -- I think staff probably is the best ones to have come up with this plan, and whatever they come up with, I trust them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Oh, Ned, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. I am very reluctant not to take some positive step on this for the people of Immokalee, but there's no easy answer here, because the Chairman has raised some very Page 89 of 91 March 7, 2019 good concerns, very important, and concerns that need to be addressed. And going back to my initial view of this and the comments that I made at the beginning about costs and the lack of an assessment of cost estimates remains of concern to me. I think we have devoted an enormous amount of hard work and thought on this to try to make this a better plan and there may, however, be more work that the County Commission wants us to do and, of course, I'm willing to do that. They could absolutely choose, after hearing the concerns that have been expressed very cogently by our chairman and others, to remand this to us with some direction what they might want us and staff to do to comply with the greater policy that they see should be pursued. So for that reason, and knowing that if the County Commission wants us to take further action on it, it knows very well how to remand it to us, I'm going to vote in favor of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed, same sign. Aye. Motion carries 4-1. Okay. That takes us to the end of our agenda. We have no new business, no old business. Any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Somoved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --by Karl. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're out of here. Page 90 of 91 March 7, 2019 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:08 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ,�,e�"i/C ekMARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on it y l R , as presented V/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 91 of 91