Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/08/2006 EAR March 8, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 8, 2006 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 8:29 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Tor Kolflat (at 9:39 a.m.) Donna Reed Caron Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) Lindy Adelstein (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Steve Griffin, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, we're going do start out where we left off on the CCME. Not where we left off actually, but the four or five elements or policies that we did not have completely answered from the CCME meeting on Wednesday. MR. COHEN: Correct. And Mr. Lorenz is here to address those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in the meantime, would you ask someone to locate emergency services people, to get them up here, so we aren't going to be delayed after this is over with? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Miss Caron, could you do the roll call, please? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, sir. Mr. Kolflat is absent. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Miss Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein is absent. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuffis absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have a quorum. And I'd like to ask everybody to remember that we have court reporter who is patiently trying to type as fast as we talk. So, we need Page 2 March 8, 2006 to talk a little slower. And as far as recognition goes, please be recognized before we speak so we don't trip over one another. Mr. Lorenz, I'd like to start -- first of all, you had a handout possibly for 6/11. That's not the one we'll start with, but I'd like to get the handout to everybody now as well as those in the audience who are interested in taking a look at it if you don't mind. Thank you. Commissioner Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Before we get started, I'd like to let you know I have to leave at 4:15. I didn't think it would make an issue, but now we're only five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Kolflat called me and indicated he'd be here at 9:30 or so. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. That will be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may be okay. I'd like to start in order with the few that -- we have five outstanding issues. One was Policy 5.1.2. And that was one that was Randy, do you remember the issues on that, that staff was going to get back to us because it was one of the policies that was just renumbered and wasn't put back in here. And you guys had put it up on there or someone had brought it to our attention. I just made a note that we need to discuss or finalize the discussion on that issue. Do you remember what the particulars were? COMMISSIONER CARON: It's needs -- MR. LORENZ: Five point one point -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to not be stricken. MR. LORENZ: For the record Bill Lorenz, Environmental Service Director. Page 3 March 8, 2006 5.1.2 is the order use plan and that's where are we're going to have Stan Chrzanowski discuss with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning. My name is Stan Chrzanowski. I'm an engineer with the Engineering Review Department of Community Development. The Water Management District issues two types of permits. They issue surface water management permits and water use permits. Water use permits are generally for drilling wells and using the water from the wells to irrigate or to send potable water to a municipality so that they can drink it. I don't know why anybody would put anything about water use permits in an excavation section because I'm not aware of any excavation in Collier County that's ever had to obtain a water use permit. I do know that he had -- some of them obtained dewatering permits because they -- they do pump the water down sometimes during part of their operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But could you put -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know why it's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The policy we're discussing is 5.1.2. Could you put that on the screen for us so that we -- because it's struck in -- it's stricken from our -- our document. Unless we want to open up a third three-ring binder, it might be just simpler to put it on. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: In red, Policy 5.1.2, right in the middle of the screen. A water use plan must be prepared by the applicant and approved by the county water management department for any mineral operations before new mineral operations are permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does your position stand that this should be remain stricken or that it should be remain active? Page 4 March 8, 2006 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sir, I don't know why it's there, so I would strike it. It's probably unnecessary. And the county water management department is part of the transportation department. They don't review these anyway. I think somebody probably realized that it -- it's unnecessary and they probably took it out. It wasn't me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Stan, we had an application where a guy was pumping water all over the site, building little dams to hold in stuff. Do you think that's what they have in mind. Because it's obviously in the mineral -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't think so. That's -- that's dewatering. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, there's no control on that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And water use, you take the water off the site and you use it to irrigate or you send it to another site for -- for treatment for potable water. The general dewatering permits, make sure you still have your water still onsite and percolated into the ground and ponds. That's why he was building berms and pumping into them because he wasn't allowed to discharge the water off the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But is there a review process for that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. South Florida Water Management district issues dewatering permits in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, do you think that's what they could be referencing here? Why don't we -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, they -- they issue water use permits. That's -- I've only heard them called that. They -- they have dewatering permits, they have water use permits, they have surface Page 5 March 8, 2006 water management permits. I don't know why it's there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, would it be prudent though in the comprehensive plan to make sure that they have that permit before they do mineral extraction? Because that's what-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I've never seen a mineral extraction operation with a water use permit. You -- you could put in there. I could make them apply. The Water Management District would say you don't need a water use permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have to tend to agree with Stan on that premise because I -- as you know, I have water use permits being issued constantly and would never need one for an excavation permit. So, it wouldn't make any sense to have one because you're not really using water. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note that in Policy 5.1.3 below, the item they were talking about, they speak at depth of excavation and dewatering, and I wonder if that person or persons were really intending in 5.1.2 to reference a dewatering plan as opposed to a water use plan, or -- or whether, if so, whether that's even relevant. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We've -- we've never had an excavation in Collier County yet where we've had any testing show ceiling water intrusion into the excavation that I know of. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And we've got -- I -- I tell people we have 950 excavation permits in the county. There were no natural lakes in Collier County other than Trafford and a few others, Deep Lake. Everything you look at that's out there is dug and an unnatural Page 6 March 8, 2006 lake. Some of them are 50 feet deep. We'd probably -- some of those permits are multiple, 20 -- over 20 excavations to a permit. And we -- we estimate we have three or 4,000 excavations in the county. I have no idea, no -- no recollection of anything having saline intrusion. The big concern we have is that you're going to penetrate some type of confining layer, an aquaclude or an aquatar. And if -- if you do that you could mix aquifers but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How was -- how was the penetration of a confining layer checked through an excavation permit process if you were to -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: They -- they give us soil borings before they do the excavation and the soil boring generally tells you if there's some type of confining layer down there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you finish your question? I'm sorry. I thought you had early but I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just to make sure that if there's absolutely no permit for how to manage the water on the site required, then it should be struck. I mean, if there's -- whether it's called a water use plan or something, that could just be bad terminology here. But -- but -- so, Bill, when you go to get an excavation permit, you have to -- there's no permit required for how you're going to dewater it, how you're going to manage water on your site. There's nothing to do with water. MR. LORENZ: I'll defer that specific question to Stan, but -- but let me just point out that in new Policy 5.1.5, it -- basically, that policy says that -- that you need to have all required federal and state permits. So, if, for instance, some type of water use permit would be needed by the agencies, this policy would hold up our final approval until all permits were required. Page 7 March 8, 2006 So, I think maybe that's the answer. We can delete the specific water use reference in the one policy and then allow this policy to be more the blanket in coverage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Randy, for those of the members of the public that are here, if you wish to speak on a particular policy or objective, please provide a slip to Randy so that we know it as we go forward and we can ask you to make your comments at each objective and not have to go back and forth on this document. Does anybody have any comments on this objective or this policy, rather? MR. COHEN: I don't have anybody that's listed to speak on this particular item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions from staff on this matter? As far as the commission's feelings go, leave it struck? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Leave it, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one that we have in order would be Mr. Lorenz' rewrite of 6.1.1, various elements of -- various sections of that particular policy. Thank you, Bill, for working so diligently and quickly on it. You were one day between us and got it altogether, so -- MR. LORENZ: Well, you're welcome, but I think Jean Jourdan deserves, I believe, the more credit since she was e-mailing around 9:00 o'clock last night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Jourdan, thank you. Okay. Is there any -- I have some questions on Bill's comments. Do any of you? Bill, on the -- Page 8 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that when you brought -- you raised the question about maybe there might be some other kind of program other than land acquisition, unless I'm in error, I have no objection to this language but -- but we're restricting it to land acquisition program. And as I said I have no objection, but I had a, I thought a recollection that you raised the issue on a broader basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My -- the broadness I was referring to was not limiting the land acquisition program to just Conservation Collier. For some reason if the voters didn't re-approve it or it didn't continue or if there are other programs that happen in the future, it would nice to know we could utilize other programs than just one, especially one that the voters voted in a certain manner and I'm not sure perpetuity was part of that referendum. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, this satisfies that, I certainly believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. B ill, my comment was in the very first additions to 6.1.1 (10), you went in and further defined how Conservation Collier could apply and if it no longer exists what could happen. The last sentence of that same section, you reference Conservation Collier program again, but you didn't put the same caveats that you did in the blue in the top part of the paragraph. Do you see what I'm talking about? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or other program. MR. LORENZ: Yes, I -- I see. We could -- in other words just bring that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just repeat. Page 9 March 8, 2006 MR. LORENZ: Repeat that, that language down to that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: -- that last sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was one suggestion I was -- I think. And then on the second page, Policy 6.1.1(13), about the middle of the larger paragraph on top on the right-hand side, you use the word "appropriate" review board, and I'm just wondering how is it determined which review board is appropriate. Is that going to be something that will be implemented through the LDC? Is that where you're thinking of clarifying the word "appropriate" ? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the line just below that, and it says, after a public hearing and for the granting of a deviation administratively. Should it be "or" instead of "and"? MR. LORENZ: Yes. We want -- just a second. Where -- where are you exactly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, after -- if you look at the word "appropriate" that I just referred to in about the middle of that paragraph on the right side -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just below the word "appropriate" is the word "and". I'm wondering if that "and" ought to be changed to an "or". I wouldn't want it to be read that you've got to do both. MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Chairman? Can I chime-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. GRIFFIN: -- in? Steve Griffin, Assistant County Attorney. I think the intent there was to say -- again, we need to get back to Page 10 March 8, 2006 our noun, which is regulations, so the regulations that we're going to develop shall allow for the granting of a deviation by the appropriate review board after public hearing and for the separate process that's going to be administrative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, that isn't a verb or an action, . , It s a -- MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand now. MR. GRIFFIN: We want to make sure the regulations are established for both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For both. MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I have no -- no problem with that. Are there any other comments from the panel? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one of your intentions was that if there's another board instead of Conservation Collier, that they could be also receiving the money. This doesn't really say that. That would only occur if Conservation Collier no longer exists, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's a good point. MR. LORENZ: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are mitigation banks out there that have been utilized and have proclaimed to be pretty useful. The way I read -- the way I read this whole paragraph originally, I thought the Cons -- by limiting it to the Conservation Collier program, we would be eliminating the ability to use those mitigation banks. Is that still the case or was that the case? MR. LORENZ: Yes. I -- I would -- the language that I have drafted, the intention would be to limit the payment to the Page 11 March 8, 2006 Conservation Collier program solely or if the Conservation Collier program goes away or is not there, then we would be able to use another public -- a public land acquisition program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, the mitigation bank, some of those are privately held, and I can tell you by the amount of money they pay for land, they may be considered more efficient than the way Collier -- Conservation Collier is being handled. In that regard, I don't know why we wouldn't want to use any available. Why would we be limiting the public to only use one? That's almost a monopoly by government. We're a chosen program. I'm not sure that that's the fairest thing to do, and I'm glad Mr. Schiffer pointed that out. That's -- that's where I was trying to get away from the beginning is let the variety of the good programs be utilized, not just one favored program by government. MR. LORENZ: One response -- one response would be is that the Conservation Collier program in terms of its obj ectives, we understand what those objectives are. And part of -- one of those objectives is public access, and so Conservation Collier lands would be available for the public for public access where a mitigation bank or some other program may not be, so that's -- that wouldn't want to be either. COMMISSIONER CARON: And they are lands in Collier County, which is important. MR. LORENZ: Right. Conservation Collier lands would be certainly be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we -- we could also add language that we would want to limit this use to lands in Collier County, some of which could be through the Conservation Collier program or other mitigation programs, land mitigation programs. I -- I don't see the reason that we should provide this monopoly to Page 12 March 8, 2006 this one program. And I think that would be unfair to the citizens to do that so-- , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a quick fix would be is that -- see the word where he starts in blue, keep the word "or" and scratch out "if' Conservation Collier no longer exists. And then I think you have it because what it says it goes to Conservation Collier or to another land acquisition program for purchase of land within Collier County, et cetera, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What that does, that's an easy fix, but it also -- the intent is it goes to Conservation Collier unless something else can be shown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like it. And you'd have to repeat on the last line as well to make sure that one read that it wold be to the Conservation land acquisition program or another government land acquisition program. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we could just wipe out to Conservation Collier program, and I think obviously what it's saying is that it's set up another methodology to establish -- can you hear me okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To establish the monitory value for payment and then you just stop there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the next thing that might be problematic is the fact that it's a government land acquisition program. I don't know much about this panther island mitigation, although I've seen brochures on it and didn't seem benefit possibly Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and places like that. I don't know if it did or not, but if it -- if it had a benefit, a positive benefit to the environment, why would the environmentalists or anybody care whether it went to a government program or a private Page 13 March 8, 2006 program as long as it accomplished the goal. MR. LORENZ: Typically, the mitigation banks are being used for satisfying wetland impacts for -- for other -- other projects, so when you begin to talk about putting money into a mitigation bank, it seems to -- there's a -- there's a -- a difference in objectives and a mitigation bank, again, is responding to a regulatory requirement by, whether it be the federal or state agencies, for wetland impacts. So, they're -- they're offsetting wetland impacts to a regulatory structure there. They're not purchasing land for purposes of -- of general environmental protection, but they're -- they're satisfying those -- those -- those -- those impacts. So, that's why we -- we were kind of keeping this -- this separate from our requirements for native vegetation retention requirements versus mitigation banks that are set up for wetland impacts as through -- through the federal and state permitting process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, those mitigation banks would still be functioning through the federal and state permit process to meet their needs. MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to meet Collier County's needs, we'd have to look at additional purchases through this type of program? MR. LORENZ: That's -- I think that's the -- that's the rationale that I would -- that I would use for limiting to either Conservation Collier or a separate type of land acquisition program within Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, if you call the feds out under the corps, you know, to delineate jurisdictional lines, you call South Florida out to do the same thing, then you call Collier County out to verify the preservation requirements, and they're going to be looking at jurisdictional lines as well because the jurisdictional areas have to be Page 14 March 8, 2006 gIven up anyway. So, now if a person that has to purchase the mitigation for the corps in South Florida, can purchase, say, from a land mitigation bank, but for Collier County that's not good enough, so now they've got to purchase additional lands through one of the Collier County programs as well, so they're actually paying twice for the same preservation. MR. LORENZ: Well, they're offsetting -- they're offsetting their wetland impacts of which Collier County is deferring to the agencies to offset those wetland impacts. To -- if they are -- if those wetland impacts, they -- they may well -- in a particular scenario, they may well have to do that right now, retain native vegetation onsite plus mitigate for their wetland impacts through a mitigation bank if they choose to use a mitigation bank. So, they're already -- they would already been doing that with an onsite preservation requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess I'm not understanding it. I just want to make sure that if someone has to meet the limits for corps in South Florida, and those are the same limits for Collier County, when they mitigate for the corps in South Florida by doing off-site, they don't have to do any more for Collier County. Basically it's all in one package, otherwise we'd be asking someone to pay twice. MR. LORENZ: When you say the same -- the same for Collier County, that's not necessarily the same because they are doing that for wetland impacts of which we are deferring to the agencies to establish what that mitigation requirement is. That does not necessarily meet our vegetation retention requirements for native vegetation, so that's -- that's where there is -- that's where there is definitely a -- a split in terms of purposes of the two programs. Sometimes they overlap; sometimes they don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's a little clearer for me. Thank Page 15 March 8, 2006 you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe what would be better is instead of the word "governmental" put "accepted" because I think your concern was that something else would come along and you want the ability to attach to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, actually, I think the way this is worded, it says to another government land acquisition program, that could legally be interpreted you have to buy government land. So, I think if you replace the word "government" with "accepted", then that gives the future, where the department could accept other things other than Conservation Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course, then we get into the ambiguity of the word "accepted". COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean obviously the commission would be the ultimate acceptors. MR. LORENZ: And that would be further flushed out in the Land Development Code, which it could, recognizing that that could go to a mitigation bank if -- if the board were to adopt a set of regulations along those lines. It gifts a -- a broader coverage and I guess then the policy discussion would occur at a later date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think again the way it's worded, if we're going to keep it government, we should say government run land acquisition program, so it doesn't -- the way it's worded, it means you got out and buy government land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can clear up the ambiguity of the word "accepted" in the Land Development Code, and that could include government land, private lands, any lands that meet the criteria Page 16 March 8, 2006 that would be implemented in the Land Development Code. And that might end up working out to a broader array of environmental abilities than specific government programs, so I like your -- your substitution for that, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it would be a good world if there's a whole bunch of programs fighting for that. That's a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, do we have any registered public speakers on this one? MR. COHEN: Wayne Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Wayne Arnold. I wanted to comment, I guess, at the moment on Paragraph 10 and if it's appropriate, I also had comments on Paragraph 13. But Paragraph lOin the discussion we just had on the public land acquisition program where we talked about Conservation Collier, I guess we all left the meeting the other day with -- with sort of different impressions, but it was sort of my thought that we could keep this very broad and not rule out the possibility that you could buy privately owned land, transfer it, to the deed to the county or to some other entity and get credit for that, although it wouldn't necessarily be part of the Conservation Collier program where you could purchase TDR credits and sending lands and deed that land over to Collier County or some other entity and get credit for that if it made sense. I'd hate to preclude that by simply saying we're going to donate money. I think money in lieu of or the ability to acquire land or TDR credits or something else may broaden it so that when we actually develop our land development regulations over the next year, it wouldn't preclude us from looking at the whole gamut of opportunities we may have to actually accomplish the obj ectives of, I think, this policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a good point. Before you move on to Page 1 7 March 8, 2006 your next one, let's thoroughly discuss it. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if we took away the word "monitory" in the two locations and then it's satisfied by a payment and then the code could come up with that payment, could be land, could be money. MR. GRIFFIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you're transferring land, that's not a payment. So, that's, I think-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What would be -- what would be a good wording then instead of monitory payment that would leave that option open? Maybe Bill -- MR. LORENZ: Contribution. I mean-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Contribution sounds, you know, like, you know, you can get into the movie if you donate five bucks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Would other methods work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think it's a good point because if the -- if you had the opportunity to acquire land or something like that in lieu of monitory payment, you actually might come out ahead based on the timing and the purchase abilities of -- of certain programs. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Just -- just to help with the language and then if I may make a comment? The language -- maybe monitory payment, comma, land acquisition or another, was the term acceptable but in other -- but in another -- another -- another type of method to be established in the land development regulations may -- may help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Monetary payment, comma, land acquisition, comma, or other established method as determined in the Land Development Code. MR. LORENZ: I would say land donation as opposed to -- Page 18 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe or donation of something. MR. LORENZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Land donation. Does that meet -- work, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: I think that certainly broadens it to the point where we wouldn't preclude coming back with some really solid ideas after working this over the next several months. Because I do think there are some property owners out there who may have absolutely great trades. If you're trying to impact an acre in the urban area and they can find a way to -- once we establish the value, you might end up netting, whether it's an acre because it's like a habitat or a hundred acres. Who knows. I would hate to preclude them from being able to donate that land -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a-- MR. ARNOLD: -- for a conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's a good point. And the word "monitory" occurs twice in this page here. Maybe it will look good. Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just -- I would only be concerned that land that was donated was not land that has any real value. I mean, some serious values have got to be established for that land in order to impact an urban area. I don't want somebody who has got land that's not developable and essentially worthless being able to trade that land to Collier County to impact the urban area. But somehow that is not going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't you work that language out though, the criteria in the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I think we have to be very careful about working out that language. Page 19 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guess who gets to review that? MR. LORENZ: Actually from a staff -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Always those stating it on the record is a good thing. MR. LORENZ: Just in terms of the thought process, I mean the staff initially began developing and flushing out an idea of this off-site alternatives, which would be a land donation or the ability to put land somewhere outside of the urban boundary and some conservation easement and that satisfies an off-site preservation requirement. What -- what we found, however, was that if -- if you don't limit it in terms of -- at that point then you have to determine what the acreage would be, the trade off for the type of habitat, the -- the locational criteria. F or instance if we're talking about, you know, ten acres, you know, in the middle of -- of no place, what we're trying to do with a payment to the Conservation Collier program is we can -- we can take those funds, we can use those to purchase land, larger acreage that makes -- that meets all the Conservation Collier requirements. So, rather than getting to a point where we have an off-site -- I'd sayan off-site compensation program where now you have a little postage stamp properties throughout the county, that -- that -- that has the same types of problems as little postage size stamp properties within the urban boundary as well. So, that's why we initially were going down that path and then -- then dropped back to a more single purpose program or the payment to the Conservation Collier program could be utilized to purchase large quantities of acreage that would meet the objectives of conservation of Collier. Now, in -- in the language that you're looking at, it makes it broader. We can establish those -- those more detailed requirements through the Land Development Code regulations but that would be -- Page 20 March 8, 2006 that was kind of the discussion that we had early on. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's -- that's really true because the long term management of these properties, it becomes very unwieldy if you have postage stamps all over the county that need to be managed then by -- by government. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But couldn't you as part of the criteria in the Land Development Code require that they be contiguous to improved preservation areas or something to that effect so we could limit it and it's not going to be all over the place? MR. LORENZ: That -- that's -- that's true. That was some of the language that we had -- the public probably didn't see it, but we -- actually it was drafting internally within the policy statement but, yes, that -- the cut can be done. MR. ARNOLD: And if I might just -- Mr. Anderson reminded that in conversations that he and I had had, that we were looking at some of the rural friends sending lands that we have TDR credit and such to help stimulate that program. This may be another absolutely good example of how you could get that going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that all can be flushed out in the LDC and I'm sure that would be a hot debate and we have a whole day time for that when it happens. You had a comment on 13, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: I did. Under item is it now 12, I guess? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's -- well, it's -- yeah. Yeah, it's twelve. MR. ARNOLD: I have a hard time reading in this light, but if you go down to the -- where it starts, the -- near the bottom, it says, the county may grant a deviation if and it's got Criteria A, B, C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ARNOLD: On Criteria A, it says county federal and state-- or state agencies require that site improvements be located in areas Page 21 March 8, 2006 which result in an ability to meet provisions of the policy. And I guess I could read that a couple different ways because, one, if I'm looking at an FDOT permit, they may mandate that I have an access point in a certain location. But if I go and I'm dealing with the Army Corps of Engineers and they've said either no permits required or the quality of these wetland areas are so poor that we rather you mitigate off-site, I think maybe instead of require, maybe there should be if the permits allow that certain site improvements be done on site. Something to that effect because I don't know that the permits are going to absolutely require it and then are we under the burden to go back and try to amend any permit that we may have sought in advance to then prove to the county that that permit requires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if a permit doesn't require something MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then why would you be forced to put it through the area that might be in conflict with this program? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I'm simply saying that in some examples I think maybe the Army Corps is one example where -- especially on urban parcels, you know, keep going back to Mircato, but Mircato was one of those examples where we had federal permits to impact everything on the site. Yet we ended up in a situation where we preserved uplands and wetlands to meet the local criteria. And that was fine. But that permit didn't necessarily require that our site improvements be located somewhere. It permitted them to be there in accordance with the permit that they issued. And I'm just simply saying that to -- that I think it's going to be difficult to find a permit that requires our site improvements to be exactly where they are outside of maybe some of the local Page 22 March 8, 2006 transportation permits or federal transportation permits that I'm aware of. Maybe Andy Woodruff or somebody else back there could cite some other examples where it would be absolutely required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, you got any comments on that? MR. LORENZ: Yes, we -- we -- we're looking at the word "require" because if -- if you've got -- if you have discretion, it's your choice as to where you want to locate your site improvements that the agencies will allow any place on that site. And your choice will -- will contravene one of these provisions in this policy, we don't want to -- we don't -- we don't consider that to be an appropriate grounds for the exception. The appropriate grounds for the exception is when you're put in a box by a federal or state agency or even a county approved -- like county's DOT that says your site improvements must be in this location. Transportation access is a good example. Perhaps there is a -- where the water management district is trying to build a regional flow way and make some connections with the flow way through a particular project site. That -- that particular location where they're really requiring you to -- to -- to -- to set aside as some type of conveyance or water management system, that -- that particular location may contravene some of our provisions of this policy, in which case that mandated requirement is grounds for the exception, but not simply -- grounds for exception would be the -- would be your dis -- the applicant's discretion as to how they would like to see their site flushed out. Unless -- unless another provision would kick in such as Item C. MR. ARNOLD: And I agree with Bill, and I -- I kind of had a feeling that's where he was going to go with the response. And I -- my next comment was on Item C. Before we talk about Page 23 March 8,2006 beneficial land uses, and I know that Bill and I discussed even this morning that some of those examples are, you know, whether it's to implement other policies in the plans would be smart growth principals or something else. I just don't know if we need another phrase other than beneficial land uses. It's a little ambiguous. And maybe that's okay for the purpose of the comp plan and we'll -- we'll flush that out as part of the land development regulations as well. But it's not phrased that we would normally see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- I think the Land Development Code can get into some of these definitions of the words, and one thing I would like to make sure is that the Mircato proj ect went through this panel as well as the BCC, and I personally thought that was a well done project. And it was one of a type that is an improvement, not a detriment when you're looking at what could be done in some locations. I would certainly want to make sure that none of these languages are being proposed and then run to stop something like that. MR. LORENZ: I -- I would say that -- that Item C would fit the Mircato situation. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, in this thing they use the plan a lot. Is that -- obviously, the plan, is that defined anywhere? I mean, I'm looking through some of the other text and we really don't use plan, capital plan, and your answer may be is that it's clear throughout this chapter, so don't worry about it, but I'm looking at stuff we did in this chapter and there's nothing that refers to the plan. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I'm not sure. Sometimes we may have the GMP, or I think I've seen the plan, but maybe David for Page 24 March 8, 2006 consistency sake would -- MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the comprehensive planning department. The future land use element comes to mind as one that occasionally uses the term plan. In the capital -- with the capital P, it is referring to the comprehensive plan or growth management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any public speakers on this particular item? MR. COHEN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill, are you comfortable with our understanding of what we've requested? And I -- I -- just to be safe, I think what we asked for basically refers to the policy -- the paren ten, and in that regard the word "monitory" payment is going to be added to using words like land acquisition, comma, or other land donation, and the word "government" is going to be struck to say accepted land acquisition program. And after the word "or", the words if the Conservation Collier program no longer exists is going to be struck in that sentence. And the second blue area, you're to -- the word "monitory" is going to be readdressed like we did -- like we talked about above, and after the word "payment", you're going to put a period and strike the words "to the Conservation Collier program" . Does that -- MR. LORENZ: Yes, I have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that meet with your notes? MR. LORENZ: Yeah, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody on the panel have any problems with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Bill. Let's move on to 10.3.12. Page 25 March 8, 2006 This was one concerning a question that was brought to us by someone in the public. I think Mr. Pires actually brought it up and indicated that we needed to see some legal argument why this should be removed. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Apply it to the book. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. There's case law that's been on the books for a number of years that where a local government cannot require somebody to do a PUD, the case is Porpoise Point versus St. John's County found at 3 -- excuse me -- 532 So.2d 727, Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, 1988. And you will have noted in other portions of the comprehensive plan we always use the term "encouraged" because of this case. I'm not sure how the absolute requirement got in there, but it is contrary to case law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that requirement has been in the GMP for how long, David? MR. WEEKS: Since about in 1989. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me do some quick math. Some 15 years and we're now discovering there might be a problem? Could I have a copy of that case law -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when you get time? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just a quick comment. I know Mr. Pires made mention of this yesterday -- Monday as well, about how -- how this has been in the plan for so long and how long come it just didn't get brought to anyone's attention sooner? And my response to him, and privately as well as to you now, is Page 26 March 8, 2006 that we have so little -- so few submittals of development requests on the coastal barrier islands that this just was under the radar. We just simply did not deal with this policy. We had no development proposals. It first came up, and best of my knowledge, two or three years ago when either was during the discussions of the Vanderbilt Beach overlay area, or it might have been during the Wiggins Pass Marina rezone that it came to light. It finally got on a radar screen and it's been on our -- on our staff list to -- to address this and here just seemed like the appropriate time to do something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would there be any reason why we couldn't take the word "require" and replace it with the word "encourage" and leave this policy in? Wouldn't -- wouldn't it be beneficial if we had the beauty process in place as a suggestion rather than not even have it at all as an opportunity? MR. WEEKS: That's -- that's acceptable. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seeing as how Mr. Pires isn't here to defend himself, I would think that the only legal opinion we can discuss right now is what the County Attorney is providing us with. And, so, at this point I would recommend we substitute the word "encourage" instead of "require" and reinstate the policy unless there's any objections from the panel? Are there any public speakers? MR. COHEN: Yeah. One speaker, Mr. Clay Brooker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your -- your timing was good. Tony is not here and you are, the two opposing parties. This is -- I'm sure you're going to agree with the County Attorney's office. Page 27 March 8, 2006 MR. BROOKER: We coordinated this, so he would appear at the first one and I appear at the second one. Clay Brooker for the record. I -- I have no objection to -- to replacing the word "require" with "encourage" . The only reason I am here today is because I do have a proj ect in the works where Mr. Pires is objecting to our project on the basis that we did not apply for a PUD rezone on Keewaydin Island and the reason for that is the DLC size limitation. Our proj ect is about four -- this side of four and a half acres on Keewaydin Island and that obviously does not meet the LDC size requirement. And Mr. Pires is trying to use that as a way to kill my project or the proj ect on Keewaydin Island. We coordinated with staff before. We even applied and pointed this inconsistency out to staff, and staff directed us to go the conditional use route rather than a PUD route. So, that's just -- again, I just want to give a little context as to most likely why this issue has been coming up and why Mr. Pires was here earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that being said, I think if the boards in agreement, we'll the -- we'll substitute the word "encourage" and reinstate the policy. Okay? Now, we're on to the last lingering item until we get to objective 12 and that is Policy 10.5.5. And I think the issue here was a consistency issue between that policy and the one on 10.4.10. And it -- I have it on my list as one we didn't resolve, which means somebody disagreed with -- or didn't agree or something. But 10.5.5, it's on Page 40. And it appears to conflict with the Page 28 March 8, 2006 vehicle statements on Page 39 and 10.4.10, because one is prohibiting basically everything except for emergency, environmental monitoring and environmental maintenance purposes, which is 10.5.5 and 10.4.10 seems to be broader in its ability to allow vehicles on the beach. And I just -- I think the question was, are we consistent with those two policies? I believe it was something staff was going to take a closer look at and get back to us? Is that a true statement? Okay. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Environment Services. The reason there's a difference in the language there is that one policy is for developed coastal-- coastal barrier or developed shorelines and the second, which is much more restrictive is language that's for undeveloped shorelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the way we would know that is the objective, which isn't shown on this particular document. MS. BURGESON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That resolves the Issue. Now, unless we hear further comments, anything else? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN: -- you have -- you have some other issues that we noted that are delineated in red as unresolved as well, too. And I believe the first one that was brought up was a Policy 5.1.5 on Page 13 of the revised item that you have before you. And Mr. Chrzanowski is here to address that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Hi, Stan Chrzanowski from Engineering Review unless you have no questions about that. Page 29 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what? If there's a question that staff had, that means something might still be lingering out there and we certainly don't want to make a mistake after spending all this time on it. Well, 5.1.2 we resolved, so it is -- this one was the resolution to 5.1.2. MS. JOURDAN: For the record, Jean Jourdan, Comprehensive Planning. The question on this was if there was LDC language which was the same as this policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is there? MS. JOURDAN: That was the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Which policy, Jean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5.1.5. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The excavation ordinance is not in the Land Development Code. It's in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. I -- I imagine that's a fine legal distinction that I'm still not totally familiar with. But it does say in -- in the excavation ordinance, the issuance of a permit in accordance of the provisions of this article is not intended to preclude the writer authority of any federal or state agency from requiring separate permits in accordance with the rules and regulations of that agency. In a case where multiple permits are required, the most stringent stipulations and requirements of each permit shall govern the work permitted under this article. And, also -- well, that was Section 10. And also in Section 4, Paragraph L, federal and state agency permits, period. Any excavation in an area containing SFWMD; that's South Florida Water Management District, comma, DEP, Department of Page 30 March 8, 2006 Environmental Protection, comma, or USACE, United States Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional vegetation must obtain a permit from the applicable agency prior to issuance of the excavation permit. Now, none of these say before obtaining a permit because a lot of these permits, like we talked about, the dewatering, or if someone wanted to use the water from one of these excavations that had to get a water use permit, that might happen after -- after the fact. One case that comes to mind is Jessie Hardy got his excavation permit and one of the permits you have to get from DEP is if you're processing materials on site. Well, at first they weren't. They were just digging and hauling. But after awhile they got in machinery to sort and separate and they consider that processing. And DEP in that case would -- would come into effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any downside to leaving this in the GMP? Do you see any conflict? Because that just might resolve it. If there's no -- I think I was -- my question was simply to find out if was duplicative and if it was automatic. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, it's not exactly a duplicate but I see no downside in leaving it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no problem with it then. Does anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the statement that first of part of that where -- you know, the state code you couldn't, you know, supersede anyway. That just goes without saying anyway. I mean, whatever is the most restrictive would always prevail. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Sometimes there's an argument about what's restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Stan. It looks like -- Mr. Passarella (phonetic), do you have a comment Page 31 March 8, 2006 on this particular policy? MR. WOODRUFF: Andy Woodruff for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- I'm sorry. MR. WOODRUFF: With Pass -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With Passarella and Associates. Sorry. MR. WOODRUFF: The item that we're discussing now, was that -- are we back to 5.1.5 again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're talking about 5.1.5. Yeah, five one five. MR. WOODRUFF: Okay. Just a comment with regard to what Stan was saying, that in some cases we do have operations that are mining operations that are just excavation operating underneath an excavation permit. And later at some point they may also go to a processing type of operation, in which case they would require separate permits from the DEP to be able to conduct that activity. So, I wouldn't want to see projects get held up in this because they don't have their processing permit, if that was their intent, because they could still be excavating material for quite some time before they actually require that processing permit for the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if -- Stan, the way this reads, it wouldn't indicate that. It just seems you've got to have the required permits to do the required work. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's the way I read it, that you don't have to have them ahead of time unless they're required ahead of time. MR. WOODRUFF: I mean, as long as -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A fine distinction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. Let Stan finish. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's a fine distinction. I mean, the next administration that comes through -- when I was in private sector, we started getting letters saying give us proof that you don't need permits Page 32 March 8,2006 from the district, the DEP and all that, and that -- that's -- you remember those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's the down side of it. Somebody could suddenly decide that they read this that way, and those agencies don't give you letters saying, no, you don't need our permit. They say, make an application and we'll tell you. And -- and a lot of times you don't need their permit, so, I -- I don't see any problem with this wording as long as the people that are enforcing it use common sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to stay with the county for a long time? Uh-oh. He's not answering that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Can I go now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Stan, you do bring up an interesting point with administration. It changes government like there typically has been or personnel changes. I would hate to see this misinterpreted. I know that you cannot go to the Corps of Engineers and ask them for a letter and expect any timely response in any manner whatsoever. Is there a way that we could insert language in here that would protect that interpretation. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't see a problem with that language. I really don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless you're not here. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Unless a whole lot of people aren't here because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- everybody's listening to this conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, the intent is as Stan has Page 33 March 8,2006 stated, and I would fully agree with you on that and I -- MR. WOODRUFF: If I could just make a comment. If we could just insert in there, perhaps, if they could require applicable permits? I don't know if the word "applicable" could help in that case. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I have no problem with that either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, or if it says if a petitioner for a mineral extraction permit is required -- if a petitioner obtains permits as required. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If it's required, it's required. It's redundant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The language seems -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't really think it's going to be that traumatic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Weird. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have Mr. Anderson going to provide us with some words of wisdom. MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson for the record. I was the one that had raised this question whether it was already covered in an existing ordinance, and it is new language that's proposed to be added to the plan and not something that we're being asked to retain. And I don't think it's the kind of thing that belongs in the comprehensive plan. We have trouble now with having enough fill to built roads and house pads. Why do we need to put another obstacle in the comprehensive plan? I think this language is better -- better in the Land Development Code or the excavation ordinance rather than putting it in the plan. Page 34 March 8, 2006 For example, the County Commission takes a two-month break during the summer. During that time nobody can get an excavation permit acted on in a public hearing because they're not meeting. And if this is in effect, then you're going to have to wait until after they get back to get your approval; whereas, if they could approve it subject to receipt of these permits, everything's protected. There's no hold on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I'm -- I'm trying to understand what you're -- if this is language that is similar to language that's already in existence in other codes and it's in this plan, how does that change the process? MR. ANDERSON: Putting it in the comprehensive plan gives it a whole, another legal dimension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is that bad? MR. ANDERSON: Why is it necessary? What -- what -- what problem are we solving? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who originated this language? Mr.-- MR. COHEN: Well, I just want -- I just want to point out that the language that's inserted is consistent with the EAR language and the policy direction that was provided by this body and also by the BCC when it was vented publicly earlier. So, that's -- that language is -- if you read the EAR, the language is consistent with that. Whether it was drafted by Mr. Heath or anybody else, it reads the way the EAR proposed it to be read. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why the EAR proposed it to be read this way? All of our laws have intent. And I'm just wondering now what the intent of this is. MR. COHEN: The intent behind it was to have a second tier of regulatory compliance standards in case the first -- the first tier didn't address them. Page 35 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't the GMP supposed to be the first tier and the LDC the second tier? MR. CO HEN: I think in this particular instance, I think they're looking at the state regulatory agencies as the first tier and this would be the second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question because I wrote a note to myself. Stan, I believe, said something about the so-called LDC language is really in the code of laws and ordinances and, therefore, you would have to go to that journal, that document, to find the particulars, would you not, and that would be a standard activity I would think? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. But I mean would we also then introduce it into the LDC? Would that make sense? It's already going to be another document. So maybe this has -- this -- this does serve a problem. I could see what Mr. Anderson is relating to subject to might -- might -- might help in some respect. I mean, if the county is looking to make sure the bag is completely tied up, then I could see the language's intent, but I could also see what Mr. Anderson is saying. That -- that makes sense to me that we don't want to encumber unnecessarily, a reasonable statement, how to -- how of qualify that because -- MR. ANDERSON: Every time we put something in the comprehensive plan, we provide an opening for the state to interject and tell us how to do things. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I -- I find some redundancy in any stipulation that says you must obtain all required permits. However, however many times you put that in the code, it's just redundant. I -- I don't have a problem with it. I -- I don't know what Page 36 March 8, 2006 Bruce's problem is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I -- I under -- my only concern is if -- if it is redundant, why do we need it? And we've got book after book after book of redundant language or we could have. And I have tried repeatedly to strike redundant language as I found it. Does anybody know if there -- well, maybe Marjorie or Steve could comment. Does the code of laws take precedent over the GMP? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: The code of laws or the Land Development Code implements the Growth Management Plan, and if you view the comp plan, it's more or less like a constitution with more general language than its implemented to the Land Development Code. However, over time our plan has taken on more specific requirements than it did originally because, again, it's to be implemented through the laws, through programs in the county and through the issuance of development orders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a legal perspective, Marjorie, is this policy needed, or if it's not here, can we function just fine without it? Or is it more specific than what you were thinking the intent of the GMP should be? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think probably it's a little more specific than what you would necessarily find in the GMP; however, it did find its way in the EAR report, and the law on that is that these amendments are to be based upon the EAR report. So, I think in some instances, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but it's up to the local government the degree of specificity they wish to put in the plan. But when you do, Bruce is correct, that it does open it up to scrutiny by the DCA and also to amend it rather than just doing a Land Development Code amendment because the land code, where the code of laws must be consistent with this, you'd also have to amend this, Page 37 March 8, 2006 too. And that's a cumbersome, lengthy process. So, I think my answer is, but for the fact -- I don't think it necessarily has to be in here, but for the fact that it is referenced in the EAR report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, is there a problem where the county's giving permits and they don't have the other permits and they go off running without them? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It happens occasionally, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's the only thing -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: People don't know they -- they have another permit to get, but they wouldn't know that if this wording were in there either. It's a required permit. You have to get it. When we find that you started work without it, we -- we shut you down, we make you get your permit. We've had people install sanitary sewers without the proper DEP permits. It's nothing to do with excavations or anything. They just do it. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, let me point out-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The laws are very complex. I'm glad I'm only an engineer. MR. COHEN: Let me point out with respect to -- to Mr. Anderson's point. Anything that's in the EAR report that you determine that you do not want to do a specific amendment for, if there's a rational basis for it; for example, it's already in the Code of Ordinances and it's implemented somewhere else, we can provide that explanation to DCA as the rationale as to why we did not adopt a particular amendment with respect to what was in the EAR. We have that option available to us as long as we have a Page 38 March 8, 2006 substantive reason to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Anderson, is there something else you had to say? MR. ANDERSON: Just -- just a general comment on -- on the reliance on -- on what happened with the EAR report. You may remember, Mr. Chairman, that at the time the EAR report was presented to this body and to the County Commission, members of the environmental community and the development community both spoke up at that time about the -- the -- the lack of public involvement and participation in the EAR process up till then. And when we spoke at the hearings and complained about that, we were told, well, we're going to have public hearings where you'll have the opportunity to be heard and change these things so, not to worry about it so much. And now I find that, you know, the fact that it's already in the EAR, somehow it's now become a hallowed document and has a presumption of correctness and had public participation and involvement in the drafting of it when that simply is not the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Randy, what number is it in the EAR? MR. COHEN: In the EAR, it's on Page 1.5.f.14. MR. WEEKS: That's under Tab F, as in Frank, fairly close of the front of the -- your document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What pages again? I mean, 1.5? MR. COHEN: It's 1.5.f.14 of that section. And it's the last policy on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who made the recommendations for that EAR amendment? Do you know? MR. COHEN: The EAR amendments with respect to this particular section was routed through not only our section but the Page 39 March 8, 2006 environmental, transportation, all other applicable departments it was based on, the Memorandum of Understanding that was entered into between DCA and the county prior to the drafting of the EAR. And it was to be consistent with that Memorandum of Understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one, the way it words in the -- and I'm glad Mr. Schiffer is just opening this up. It says, also a new policy should be created to ensure that a landowner or a mine operator has the proper required state and/or South Florida Water Management District permits if certain local permits are not required. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not saying the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- I was reading it. Do you believe that Policy 1.5 that's front of us today is responding to the EAR policy, 5.1.5, based on what I just read? MR. CO HEN: It does not read exactly as that policy recommendation in the EAR, no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think on -- yeah, I would certainly agree with you. On that basis, I am tending to agree that this is not needed at this point but I don't know when it's written. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why don't you read what the EAR was supposed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The EAR Policy 5.1.5, and I -- this is the book that was given to us, as I'm assuming, the approved EAR, requires that the mining operator be required to monitor all mining operations to ensure that they're in direct compliance with state water quality standards and that all mining activities must stop if water quality standards are violated as a result of mining operations. Collier County recommends that this policy have as a default a second tier regulatory compliance standards. Also, a new policy should be created to ensure that a land owner or mine operator has the proper required state and/or South Florida Page 40 March 8, 2006 Water Management District permits if certain local permits are not required. The policy -- there is nothing in this policy related to that EAR. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why can't we just state what was requested instead of making up a new policy here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's the reference to monitoring? This policy in the EAR says nothing about federal, yet you've got federal thrown in 5.1.5 policy here. Talking about monitoring and activities must stop if water quality standards are violated. There's not even the words "water quality" referenced in this amendment. I don't know who interpreted the EAR 5.1.5, but it certainly doesn't seem to be interpreted in the right manner in this document, Randy. MR. ANDERSON: It looks like it's covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, you have to wait until you get to the mic, maybe identify yourself for the young lady. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, Bruce Anderson for the record. Old Policy 5.1.5 did deal with water quality issues and it's now been renumbered as 5.1.4. Maybe that's where the confusion is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That could be. So, then where is the new Policy 5.1.5 in the EAR -- in the EAR report? MR. COHEN: Well, as Mr. Anderson indicated old Policy 5.1.5 is renumbered as 5.1.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. COHEN: The new policy, which is the 5.1.5 should have been the new policy that was referenced in the last sentence of that particular Policy 5.1.5 on the bottom of that particular page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then the last sentence is the Page 41 March 8, 2006 one I started reading and that doesn't reflect what you -- I think what you've got in this policy in front of us here. New policies should be created to ensure that a land owner or mine operator has the proper required state and/or South Florida Water Management District permits if certain local permits are not required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, what it sounds like is the concerns Stan had is you can't get a -- you don't need a permit from state and federal agencies, I think we need to set up a policy here that says you don't need a local permit which proves that you have the other permits. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sir, every excavation in Collier County gets an excavation permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, there's never-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We -- we define an excavation as being more than three feet deep, covering more than -- or covering more than 10,000 square feet. We have had some retention areas, large retention areas get excavation permits. I can't think of a single excavation that doesn't obtain an excavation permit, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, there's no need even for this as it's requested in the EAR. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I take that back. There are some federal and state and local agencies that do excavations without getting permits from us like DOT, but they always go to the district and get a district permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is in the section on, you know, mining. So, in other words, there's no mining that could happen in Collier County without a Collier County permit, thus to write a new law stating you have to somehow verify that you have the state permits -- if Page 42 March 8, 2006 you don't need a Collier County permit, it's useless. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: State DOT does mining in Collier County without a county permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do you -- is there any -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Like for the 1-75 construction, they -- they buy land along 1-75 and dig holes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do we need something in our GMP to make sure they get the right permits? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: They always get the right permits because they have to be permitted by the Water Management District anyway and the excavation, so on their permit application for water management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could they excavate without the right permits? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That would be harder than -- yeah. I don't think they could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Stan. Marjorie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, again, Marjorie Student-Stirling. I would say that if the EAR report contains a misnomer, then -- and it's not consistent with what we do, that we need to go forward with the appropriate policy and -- with an explanation of why, you know, through discrepancy and why and -- MR. COHEN: And, Mr. Chairman, I just consulted with Mr. Chrzanowski and he said that the policy could be stricken and he's comfortable relying on the existing codes and ordinances and we would address it in response to DCA accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a better idea because now we've looked at the original language, this doesn't appear to mirror what was intended in the original language, so unless Page 43 March 8, 2006 anybody on the panel objects, the recommendation will be to strike Policy 5.1.5. And also, let the record show that Mr. Kolflat has arrived at 9:39. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have one other items that you asked county staff to address, which is on Page 7 of the document that was provided to you, and it's identified in red. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 2.2.5? I didn't have that on my list, so let's go back and see what the issue is. The issue that I had mentioned there is that after the first sentence of the original language, one, I questioned staff on whether the intent was to review and identify the stormwater management systems and inspect those in effect -- pursuant to the policies and codes in effect at the time of approval of the project. Is that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I believe that the wording ended up being by December 31 st, 2008, Collier County shall identify stormwater management systems that are not meeting state water quality treatment standards. We have -- we took out "have initiated a process" because by 2008 we want it done is what was stated in that meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that is my recollection as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're right. I got a note to that effect but I didn't have the words crossed out. So, Randy, what was your intent of bringing it back here today? MR. COHEN: My understanding is from Miss Jourdan is she wasn't sure exactly what the direction was and that's why it was brought back. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We think Miss Caron's recollection is correct, just strike those few words and we'll be in good shape. Okay. Page 44 March 8,2006 MR. WEEKS: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, if I can comment? Here's the notes that I had on this and I -- I think this was -- was not reflected as well. I'll be reading the first sentence of Policy 2.2.5 as I understood the CCPC's direction on Monday. By December 31 of 2008, Collier County shall have identified stormwater management systems that are not meeting state water quality treatment standards in effect at time of project approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. I have the words "in effect at the time of project approval" also on mine. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, are we ready to move on to Objective 12 or, Bill, do you have something else? MR. LORENZ: One other. I need to go back to Policy 6.1.1(10). I've just talked with Rick Y ovanovich and -- and he had asked me a question and -- and I think that it was a -- worthy of discussion. Let me put it up on the visualizer here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to say, did he phone you but I see he's in the audience. MR. LORENZ: He was at a -- at a pre-op meeting. The -- and this was a comment that -- that he had in some of his draft language that he had provided to staff. And that is the Item D under that -- that list, the type of land use proposed taking the provision of affordable housing into account. I think the intent of staff was to -- was to look at a variety of different types of land uses, certainly with affordable housing being -- being somewhat of a priority or definitely it being addressed for affordable housing. But the way the language is -- is reading now, you could -- you could read it that it is only land use that deals with affordable housing. Page 45 March 8, 2006 And -- and that wasn't that the intent when we were working through with some of our work with the EAC. So, when we collapsed the language and made it a little bit simplified, I think we perhaps narrowed the idea of land use here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a suggestion? MR. LORENZ: We could -- we could simply say the type -- the type of land use proposed, period, and we recognize that affordable housing would be part of the discussion on land development regulations, or if you wanted to ensure that affordable housing was definitely taken into account with regard to this, you could say the type of -- of land use proposed, especially addressing credits for affordable housing. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Or including the provision of affordable housing? MR. WEEKS: I was going to suggest replace the word "taking" with "such as" and then deleting "into account" so it would read "the type of land use proposed such as the provision of affordable housing". MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm thinking say such as but not limited to, so, excuse me, it makes it very clear that there are other things beside affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I like that. Does anybody else have any problems with it? Thank you for the clarification, Bill. Okay. Now, surprise me. Are we on to Objective 12? I'm going to be surprised, I'm not having an answer. Randy, are we back on? MR. COHEN: We're back on track and I believe you wanted to deal with the EEOC items in hurricane preparedness. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we wanted to start with Objective 12 and work our way to the end and I think they're all EAC from what David Weeks said. He couldn't answer the question, so somebody has Page 46 March 8, 2006 to be able to answer them. Good morning, Dan. MR. SUMMERS: Good morning, Chairman and commissioners. Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services, Emergency Program Manager for Collier County. I hope that I have -- sir, excuse me. I hope I have the answers for you. What I may lag is a little bit about your process and corrections and additions, and if you will bear with me, I think I have -- I can address these, so I -- I have several items that I can address or if you would like to lead off, sir, and tell me the protocol here, I think I can help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been going through the document page by page in order of the policies and objectives, and when we get to -- when the panel asks questions or at that point staff, either a response to the questions or interjects their own concerns. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind, that might be the best way to get through this. MR. SUMMERS: That's fine. And I -- and I do start off with a section and I'm going to assume I have the most current write ups here. I start with 12.1: and shows revised text, Page 46. And the county will maintain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 42. Our draft is dated 2/24/06 up in the upper right-hand corner. This happens a lot so -- MR. SUMMERS: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a lot of drafts. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. Thank you for your help there and a -- and a quick glance here, I think we've got the same edits, different page number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: Would you like for me to come in on 12.1? Page 47 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. If I could, may I give a few moments of background? This placeholder is here regarding the hurricane evacuation study and it references the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's hurricane evacuation study. As you know, I provided a copy of that to you earlier this year. A couple of comments. This by design in 1999 or 2000, when this project was available, was really the only research tool that was available for a hurricane evacuation study. Since that time we have been waiting, as everyone else has, for FEMA, the State and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a new hurricane evacuation restudy. The hurricane events themselves have precluded the funding and the movement forward from the Corps of Engineers and FEMA for that restudy. I came from coastal North Carolina where we did that frequently and petitioned the board Of County Commissioners last year to actually do our own study. We just signed a contract with Dewberry and Davis, Consulting Engineers to basically do an update to that 1999/2000 Southwest Florida Regional Emergency Planning Council Evacuation Study and I don't expect to have that study completed at least for six months. So, what I want to tell you there is that there are a lot of dynamics in our industry and a lot of new practices changing with hurricane evacuation and would make a recommendation that we not necessarily quote the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council document, but we -- give me an opening there to refer to a designated or an approved to document from Emergency Management to serve as the engineering basis for your recommendations. And are you clear on that? In other words, we're -- Page 48 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think-- MR. SUMMERS: -- not locked into using the brand of Southwest Florida Planning Council, but we will provide an appropriate engineering study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How -- how will the public know which study you're using? MR. SUMMERS: It will be -- it will -- it will have a -- a placeholder, if you will, by the year in which it's issued; in other words, or the most current date. So, as I update from Southwest Florida to Dewberry and Davis, that study will have a completion date of December 2006 and we will reference the most current study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know how the Dewberry and Davis study may affect hurricane evacuation routes and times? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, we don't because our planning philosophy has changed significantly. My drive, number one, was just purely to get that done out of growth; secondly, we're going to review new arterials and new roadways. Our traffic management control system is now a new element that will be involved in that. And you will find, as has been the case in Collier County, this really is referencing county wide evacuation, and as you know it's my preference to do sector or geographical based evacuation where we may not evacuate the entire county but, for example, what we've done historically areas west of 41. So, while this was good planning philosophy with the tools that we had in '99 and 2000, we have improved our capability substantially, and I want to let you know that we'll move forward with that, but we need to leave that in general terms as I get new technology and science available to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 49 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, would -- would you say though then that the way this is written will maintain the hurricane evacuation time for Category 3 down -- it seems to be reduced to 18 hours. Is that part of your sector plan for category -- MR. SUMMERS: It -- it will be part of that planning but, again, until I run new numbers later this year and get some new recommendations and new research. I think we would do ourselves a disservice because we see so much fluctuation in hurricane scenarios, so please understand our planning is very fundamental as we see the storm approaching and all those things we work with the National Hurricane Center. I would afraid to lock us into a particular period of time because every scenario presents different challenges of daytime landfall or nighttime landfall. If you need to leave an hourly requirement in there where it had to -- and I'm not sure how the 2011 showed up in that sentence, but if -- if you needed to maintain that 2011 year, I would not feel comfortable at ten hours, but might feel more comfortable at 14 as a -- as a recommendation right now. But as you know, I'm balancing the issues of growth, roads, seasonal populations, warning times and those type of things, and -- and it is just that fluid. The fundamentals are there as have been mentioned in this document, but I need to maintain the ability to illustrate a dynamic environment dealing with mother nature. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, I don't know if I'm broaching something beyond what we can do, but would you -- I'm getting this suggestion, I think, from you that you might be even more comfortable if no number of hours were put in there. MR. SUMMERS: Sir, that's correct. And I think our technology has come to the point and our -- our Page 50 March 8, 2006 capability has gotten to the point that I -- I can -- I -- I automatically by virtue of those comprehensive emergency management plan, I automatically have trigger points of which to bring to the board, line up the dominos, if you will, for state of emergency declaration decision time, which is a behavior analysis that comes out of FEMA. What we typically know from surveys requires people to mobilize and get ready, and so then I have to juggle the daytime and nighttime. So, I -- I would prefer not to leave a number in there, but you please have comfort and know that that -- that decision-making process is very -- very well instituted in our -- in our operation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we often refer to LDC language, and I don't know that this kind of information would be in the LDC, but do you have a document that -- or does the county have a document that it could look at for more detail? Do you publish or will publish such a document? MR. SUMMERS: Well, and that's what we look forward to in the Dewberry and Davis study. You all have had -- brought a lot of those concerns to me in the LDC. And here's my challenge, if I can take just a moment of your time. The challenge is that while you have those density concern issues, I cannot scientifically prove to you in the terms of the queuing time for evacuation. You know, not everyone -- when we have given an evacuation order, if you can bear with me, it's not a race car start from the driveway. Everyone queues, makes decisions and leaves at different times, and as a result of voluntarily precautionary evacuation where we reduce census and encourage our tourists, unfortunately, to leave early, that we actually in some cases gain some roadway efficiency in that, because we're bringing the general traffic census down and we know that the media plays a big part in how much they advertise the warning Page 51 March 8, 2006 and the potential threat. So, I do -- I don't have the science to prove to you because it is behavioral in nature as when people move. What I hope to do with the Dewberry and Davis study, which was not with local money, and to be very honest with you, it's -- it's not a high price study, but I think what they'll do is validate what we have in the 2001 southwest regional -- Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. And look at those numbers and give me some issues to address either policy associated with that or to tell me that as long as I maintain certain evacuation windows, I should be able to manage that traffic flow okay. So, I haven't helped you much there but I have to be honest with you. I've got to have that planning flexibility in this -- in this situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you have helped. I'm trying to get to -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm frantically looking through 9(j)( 5), but it's my recollection that I thought we had to establish a time or reference one in our comp plan. And I'm trying to find it here, 9(j)( 5), so please bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's the crux of my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it? Okay. I was just going to ask you if you've finished yet or not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, because it would also -- if you're going to have sectors and you're going to have time conditioned issue, that it also relates to what category of storm it is, so you could actually set up a series of criteria associated with the storm. That would be your -- your -- your normal play, I would think. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. And if I can elaborate one other Page 52 March 8, 2006 option for the commission, and that is if -- if we need to put some thresholds in there, one of our planning -- key planning thresholds is to basically have the county secure and, again, that's based on storm surge and wind -- and wind fields and those type of things, but to have a secure posture for the county before the arrival of gale force winds. So, the -- the arrival of gale force winds itself by the planning hurricane model might be a better decision point than to throw an arbitrary ten or 14 hours. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I personally like your descriptions of how we should put this in here. I wish that we had some way of getting your structured statements -- MR. SUMMERS: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- brought back to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a suggestion on how to have gotten that done if -- once Mr. Schiffer-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We need -- according to 9(j(5), we need a specific objective that shows how we maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Schiffer? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And this says the county will maintain hurricane evacuation times and, you know, DCA always gets on us about, you know, being specific and measurable and things like that, so I have a -- I have a bit of concern about taking it out unless -- if you refer to another document, unless you refer to it specifically and by date, DCA has a problem that that becomes a self-amending plan, because as that reference document is amended, it automatically amends the comp plan without going through the process. MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, I have another option there that can succinctly bring that to you, and that is after -- on the third line where it says, the planning council's hurricane evacuation study update and will, and I would like to insert the word "attempt" to reduce the Page 5 3 March 8, 2006 time frame by 2011 to 14 hours. And -- and if that is acceptable, I -- I can live with that at this point until I get additional research data at a later date. MR. COHEN: And, Mr. Chairman, that would meet the intent of 9(j ( 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I --let's get done with the panel's questions before we go too far in saying yes or no. MR. COHEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you had a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just one thing is would it be okay if after the -- and -- and Marjorie would probably tell me this, but after you reference the planning council, could you put in there "or BCC accepted study"? In other words, that gives you the option to grab on to another study if -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you convince the commissioners that that's a better study? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. That would help me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a curiosity. When you give a time frame, what does that mean? Does that mean they're out of the house in their car or does mean they're across the county line? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, and that's one of the reasons that even kicking off this study is late. FEMA had initiated two behavior analysis studies related to the '03 hurricane season, and was so delayed from the '04-05 activity that the reason I withheld even activating this Collier County study was because I couldn't afford -- none of us could afford to get the behavior analysis data that we were waiting on from FEMA that was about two years behind. So, the answer to that question is we can leave 14 hours as a Page 54 March 8, 2006 clearance time. That 14 hour mark for me would be -- would be arrival of gale force winds minus 14 hours. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what's the ending? I mean, if I'm evacuating, when do I consider myself evacuated? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, would you restate the question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, when there was a -- we're given a time frame so, obviously, you can issue an order and then there's a point in which everybody has to be evacuated. What does evacuated mean? Does it mean out of your county, in a shelter, I guess, makes sense? MR. SUMMERS: When we -- when me make those recommendations, and -- and that's a good point. That's what is changed in some of the evacuation science, if you will. Number one is our building codes are better so we have more wind resistant construction. Number two, our philosophy is to run from the water and hide from the wind, so as we look at storm surge inundation, that's the area that we really want to have totally clear. The third part of that might be other shelter options and those include general public, family and friends, areas of last resort or refuge, other safe areas, hotels and motels well inland. So, the destination related to that 14 hours is totally up to the evacuee. The 14-hour clearance point for me is that I want the census as low as possible. I want the hatches battened down, if you will, from the point I give evacuation recommendation -- or evacuation order 14 hours, and I want to time that 14 hours -- that 14th hour is before the arrival of gale force winds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, the misnomer though is -- evacuation tends to give me the impression that I've got to leave. I'm going to move, but what you're really describing is and the phrase you Page 55 March 8, 2006 used during the storm you want everybody hunkered down by this hour. MR. SUMMERS: That is correct. And -- and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we maybe change the word "evacuation"? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. I'm very, very comfortable with evacuation because there could -- just because I could have any other magnitude of order. And I have -- you know, I have to tell you we're going to begin tsunami planning next year as a requirement. So, let's leave -- I'm comfortable with the evacuation terminology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Summers, the first paragraph we've attempted to get past, I'm finding out that most of it is not written appropriately to meet your needs. Why did you write this way in the first place? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I inherited this document. I'm not the editor of this as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why -- when you consulted with Randy and David in the writing of this language of the past few months, why did you let them put it in this way? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, it was our -- our request or my understanding through staff that we were requested to make general edits, not do a rewrite on this document. We were asked for general input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, see, I -- I have the utmost faith in you and your department and I think you're probably one of most efficient departments I've seen, and I was hoping that you had the lead in writing this language, because that's how it should have been done. It appears though that some of this -- and I'm not sure how many paragraphs we're going to get into that need a rewrite to this extent -- MR. SUMMERS: Right. Page 56 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so, maybe Randy or someone can tell me how we got here today with such -- MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, let me also mention that only three weeks ago did our EOC close operations for Wilma. We continue to be in recovery operations for almost several thousand people still working on displaced issues. The county looks quite back to normal. The emergency operation is not. And if we missed a deadline, then I'll take the -- I'll take the -- the strike against that for what they needed, but we thought we were looking at this in terms of general comment and not necessarily, at least at my direction, was not that they needed a rewrite, but were looking for input. And I know that you're -- have been frustrated by hurricane delays, but I have to tell you I've had to put the human service priority needs ahead of -- in the EOC of what these products would be. And I think this is important and this is very, very good. I don't know your time window for completing that and we would do our best to fine tune that at any point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get to the point where we know this document is done correctly. MR. SUMMERS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you didn't have time to provide your input, which I fully understand why you may not have, and I certainly don't blame you for that reason, then this document shouldn't have been presented until it had your input, because this is a -- one of the most vital elements of this whole document and hurricane evacuation is going to get worse and not better, so -- MR. SUMMERS: And -- and to be honest with you, I only have a few other minor comments with the document, so I wanted to take the opportunity to share with you the fact of some of the dynamics that Page 57 March 8, 2006 have just changed recently in the planning and the response, make some minor edits and I think that we're generally okay here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be meeting here most likely all day today and a half a day tomorrow. In this particular paragraph I would rather you went through this paragraph carefully and came back with better language to us that we could approve -- MR. SUMMERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- instead of trying to reinvent the wheel here at the podium today. MR. SUMMERS: I'm happy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that be okay for this paragraph? MR. SUMMERS: I'm happy to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I also have a question. Where did the hours come from? The EAR didn't require a change in timing, so where did that come from? MR. SUMMERS: The -- the hours, the evacuation hours? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That are in the -- that are in the proposed. MR. SUMMERS: There are general thresholds written in that 2001 hurricane evacuation -- I'm sorry. The 2001 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council hurricane evacuation study update. That's where the general hours, the general hours of recommendation takes place. And that's only one tool that I use in making that decision process, but that is the one that is our document of record to this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're suggesting hours different that are printed here. MR. SUMMERS: Yes. And it's only because of their -- again, the particular weather scenarios, our ability for the public to make Page 58 March 8, 2006 decisions, new behavior analysis that has come out or will be coming out from FEMA. So, while I do -- while we have quoted an hourly period here, I think we've given empirical knowledge that we know that we have to have some fluctuation in that based on our experience. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, if I may, a range of hours may be most appropriate. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If that should be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the best resolution is, and the most effective, is to let Mr. Summers come back with what language he would like to see here since this is going to set the pattern for the next seven years. I'm certain they would like to do it right and I'd you to have the time to do it right and if you feel you can clean this up. MR. SUMMERS: Oh, I can. I can. And -- and the edits I have here today, I don't know that they made it full circle in some of the time pressures that we had. But if you can grant us a few days, I'll be glad to submit to staff a new clean document for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm not sure a few days will work. Randy, I think we're going to be meeting here through tomorrow. MR. COHEN: Come back tomorrow morning and if we do not finish with the entirety of the amendments, then we're set to meet again on, I believe, March the 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Dan, just before -- I mean, the -- MR. SUMMERS: Just for Paragraph 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Actually, just the objective paragraph we're talking about now, you may not -- I've got questions Page 59 March 8, 2006 on the rest of this and I think we got to go through the rest of it. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if there's issues that flush out that are as troublesome as this one is for you, then I think we need to revisit that one because this has got to be written in a manner that's works for your department. I think that's absolutely critical. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Miss Jourdan, you've been standing there. Are you -- did you want to say something? MS. JOURDAN: Yes. I just wanted to speak to where these numbers came from. I've been working with the -- with Rick Zolaski -- I believe that's how you pronounce it -- for months regarding this document. All the data that's in here, all the changes were given by him and approved by him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And he's been with the Emergency Services Department as well, so most likely, he's been under the gun with the hurricane problems, and I fully expect that we'll get a better write of this if we'll just work on it a little bit more. Thank you. With that, the -- we can move on to -- there are policies then that are underneath this objective. Are there any comments from the panel on Page 43? Because ifnone, I -- Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question on 12.1.3 of the date changes. T ell me why -- why we're pushing those dates out. I mean, do we have 45,000 in place here in 2006? MR. SUMMERS: No, ma'am. Currently we have approximately 32,000 spaces, and based on that -- based on the -- and the way that's computed, is 20 square feet, is Page 60 March 8, 2006 mentioned in that -- now, we do have a number of new schools coming on line. We were already in close negotiation with the schools on those shelter spaces. Here's another challenge that FEMA and the state have thrown to us. The state elected immediately following Charlie to come back in and do a new inventory of sheltered space and sheltered space computation. That project, too, fell behind because of Wilma, so we have not initiated any new studies waiting on the state's consultant for that. So, our only issue -- real issue there is to tell you that we currently have 32,000 spaces that we can identify. We have more schools coming on line and we will probably reach that 45,000 person shelter space by 2010. So, if you would like to make that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But here it appears that-- MR. SUMMERS: -- read as 45,000 for 2006 and 60,000 by 2010, as I see in edits there, that's doable. COMMISSIONER CARON: In this plan it says that we are to have 60,000 by 2010, not 45,000. MR. SUMMERS: We're not going to make the 60,000 by 2010. Again, I'm somewhat of a -- I have to rely on what the school system's plans are and, as you know, that school construction project schedule is very fluid as well. I can't really mark that space until the building is complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, your suggestion for Policy 12.1.3 would be to change the 45,000 to 32,000 and the 60,000 to 45,000. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- I don't think. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. I -- I went the round about way to get there. Thank you. Page 61 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it's a matter of choice. It's just a matter of fact -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's what the reality is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so does anybody-- MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- does the panel have any other suggestions on this policy? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. What happened in the past? Was this totally ignored in the past? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't think the facility existed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why weren't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, we're supposed to be meeting the goals of the GMP . We've never -- we've reviewed applications. We've never looked at schools and stuff to add that, so -- even private schools. I mean we've ignored it, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we won't from now on. So, I think the recommendation from the panel is to correct the numbers as Mr. Summers has indicated, and we'll move on from Policy 12.1.3 after we take a 15-minute break for the court reporter and be back here -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Can I just say one thing real quick on this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at 10:25. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Summers, could we put something in the -- in the GMP that requires them to review applications so that they could see sites so that we could accelerate adding shelter space? MR. SUMMERS: When you talk about reviewing sites in terms of the school sites? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, PUDs, maybe some commercial buildings, maybe something -- Page 62 March 8, 2006 MR. SUMMERS: We already do review those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We asked that of -- I've asked that at a couple of the last PUD meetings and I was told by staff they already review them so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we've never, you know, had anybody say, hey, this clubhouse could be brought up to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get from our break, that is addressed in Policy in 12.1.4, and I had plenty questions about that very issue, so when we take our break, we'll be back here at 10:25. Thank you. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will go back to their positions, Mr. Schiffer wants to continue where he left off if we could go there. And I believe we're on Policy 12.1.3. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess my question, and actually in conversation during the break, it's kind of answered, is the use of private facilities for that and -- and there's a lot of reasons not to, so I'll move on from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Now, we're on Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a couple of comments. In the Policy 12.1.1, I think after public, it should say it's a public hurricane awareness program. It doesn't say -- you know, I mean obviously we're in that section but I think that would be just clearer. And then back onto -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you move onto that point, let's get that understood and clarified so we can do them in order. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Is your department in -- in developing Policy 12.1.1, is that intentioned to be strictly hurricane Page 63 March 8, 2006 awareness? MR. SUMMERS: We -- we do address -- we do a number of community seminars, Mr. Chairman, and we try to do as much media outreach, and we have a magazine that is a hurricane preparedness guide. However, FEMA guidance right now is that we not only do hurricane, but we do all hazard, including homeland security issues. So, we have met this as the intention of hurricane, but we do address it all hazard as a -- as a complementary effort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think we'll just leave the verbiage out. MR. SUMMERS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Just to follow up on -- on the figures, the 32,000 and the 42,000, is there some sort of level service that we are supposed to attain? Where did the 60,000 come from to begin with? MR. SUMMERS: There are -- and this is -- this goes -- this will be another to answer that question, we'll come back again out of this hurricane evacuation restudy pending the information that we get from FEMA's behavior analysis. What we are seeing, what we estimate typically is something that will -- we'll look at between seven to 15 percent, and of the general population will evacuate to a public shelter location. The remainder goes elsewhere. Those numbers even change by storm. So, when we're looking at state projections, the state -- the state division of emergency management puts these requests over -- or as a planning -- there's a planning standard, if you will, for anywhere between ten, 15 percent, the general population taking shelter in public evacuation shelters. That's where that number comes from. However, each storm Page 64 March 8, 2006 event, when FEMA comes back and looks at these census, they give new guidance to the state. This says, okay, well, maybe you need to bump that to 1 7 percent or maybe you need to jump that to 20 percent of the general population. So, we are taking the current state standard and applying that to the number of shelter spaces. Now, we still maintain a deficit, but that deficit is because we have to have those shelters out of the potential cap, four cap five storm surge zones. So, as we see more development inland in Collier County, we see more school buildings inland, that deficit will go away. Now, deficit doesn't mean that we ever turn anybody away. It's just that the conditions become more cramped and little more challenging. And we have a great -- in our Hurricane Protection Act, Preparedness and Protection Act with the -- that's legislative for the school buildings to build to that standard. We work with that group, with the Collier County District Schools, and they do a great job of working with us to address the hurricane protection issues in these buildings. We're on a very good course there for a reduction in deficit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron, did you have any others? Just out of curiosity, I just checked Mr. Weeks' population projections. Do you use weighted or permanent population in the calculation of space? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I knew you were going to ask me that and I've got to go back and research that one because we went through that on our EMS discussions, and I need to check with the state on that. I'm sure that they're not using a weighted average. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that -- would you get back to us on Page 65 March 8, 2006 that policy -- MR. SUMMERS: I'll-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- policy before we. MR. SUMMERS: I'll find out if I can get that answer timely from the state, I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm asking is weighted, according to David, is 721,000 people in the year 2010, permanent is 497,000 thousand. That sure would have a big bearing on the number of -- MR. SUMMERS: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- persons that you would need shelters for. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 12.14. I had a couple questions there. This is the one that may lend itself to some of Mr. Schiffer's questions concerning how we look for the hurricane refuge requirement. In the middle of, let's say the one, two, three -- fifth line down, right after the word that says, refuge space onsite or to provide funding to enhance one or more existing public shelters off-site. The criteria under which the decision will be made on whether someone leaves it onsite or provides it off-site. Is that currently written, that you know of? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, it is currently written, but we've not had any mobile home parks greater -- we've not had a scenario since my tenure where we've had a mobile home park where we are -- have required this shelter refuge requirement. It just hasn't materialized as needed at this point -- or it hasn't materialized as a project, I should say. Now, the reason we say onsite refuge or some other adjacency retrofit there, the goal in that mobile home scenario is really tornado Page 66 March 8,2006 protection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far in the mobile home scenario, this is not just mobile homes. This is every single subdivision in the county. They change the language in here to say mobile home parks or subdivisions. That's everything. So, maybe your answer ought to -- David? MR. WEEKS: Perhaps we need to change the language. The intent of that was to say mobile home parks or mobile home subdivisions. MR. SUMMERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. WEEKS: It's always in the context of mobile home-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that certainly will change the way the whole thing is read. MR. WEEKS: Well, on this point, I wanted to mention that in the -- in the future land use element, there is a prohibition on -- presently a prohibition on any new zonings for mobile home development in the urban coastal fringe, which through this process we're changing to stay within the coastal high hazard area. The short of it is that the only opportunity for a new mobile home development park or subdivision would be for any existing zoning that is not present -- presently developed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then maybe we can-- MR. SUMMERS: -- which is minimal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- short circuit this whole thing because if you're know -- if this is -- we just need to substitute -- put the words "mobile home subdivision" in front of the word "subdivisions", then I understand the paragraph, it makes sense, I've got no question on it. So, does anybody have an objection to adding that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I already interpolated that. Page 67 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't able to. I was -- MR. SUMMERS: And I thought I was going to need the defibrillator there for a minute. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just -- I have a question on this section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is -- in the EAR, there was a requirement to make these have the building standards of central facilities. That didn't show up in the mobile home park or was it covered in 12.1.5? I guess you covered it there. Does 12.1.5 only refer to these mobile home park shelters? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it does now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it does, yeah. Okay. And I guess the misleading to that, are we ready to go? Is there anybody else on four? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm ready to move to Page 44. Mr. Schiffer, if you're already there, why don't you start then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- I think we got a reference -- the standard building code actually doesn't exist. The last issue was '97, so I don't think you want to lock us there. So can we in there put the Florida building code? And, Marj orie, you said you can't reference an amending document. You have to reference a year? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it's better -- it has a table referenced and I think we should put the year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the table doesn't apply anymore. The standard building code is actually now the Florida building code. Page 68 March 8, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I didn't know if that table was carried forward or not in this part of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The table doesn't, so -- but, in other words, do we have to write -- put a year which the current Florida building code would be in 2004. Well, can't we just say -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think we could put the year and put parens after the 2004. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then every three years we have to update it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, it says right now, Marjorie, the latest standard building -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that okay? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. Well, we'll-- well, I think so. And we'll see if DCA -- can't we draw a comment on it from DCA. I understand the point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, Brad, let me understand your correction, so it's clear. The standard building code will be struck, substituted with the word, Florida Building Code, and the words Table 1205 will be struck. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and the concept of essential facilities is still how it's discussed in the building code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On that same paragraph, while we're there, you're going to change the references to mobile home parks or subdivisions to mobile home parks or mobile home subdivisions; correct? MR. WEEKS: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you look at the line just below Page 69 March 8, 2006 standard building code, the sentence begins refuges will -- shall be constructed with adequate emergency electrical power. I'm concerned about the ambiguity of the word "adequate". Over on 12.15, you actually got into what is adequate in one element of air conditioning, for example. So, is there a way that you could state what adequate is or define it somehow or is -- or is there a way that can be done? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I think when -- if you remove the word "adequate", at that point what you have is typical when an emergency generator goes in with guidance under -- under your central facilities, that issue goes away because those emergency lighting egress, communications, fire alarm and those type of things are adequately addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, we would strike the word "adequate" . COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you want to supplant it with typical? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. I think -- I think there's code reference that carries this through. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Emergency electrical power. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Miss Caron, reminded me that appears in the next sentence, too, just in front of them, and the sentence after that. So, anywhere where the word "adequate" appears in those -- in relationship to the standards we would basically remove it. MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My question on -- oh, is there any other questions on Page 44? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Sorry to do this. Could we go back to Policy Page 70 March 8, 2006 12.1.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Some offline discussion. I think we need to remove the phrase that complies with Red Cross standards. Is that correct, Dan? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, you can. And -- and the reason -- the Red -- first of all, when we go -- let's be real candid here. All of our evacuation shelters will continue to be publicly owned buildings, and because of -- we have the statutory authority or the working relationship with Collier County District Schools to address that issue. The Red Cross standards referenced in here are really somewhat elementary because we're using the 20- foot -- 20 square feet per person as guidance. And that is in fact what's in the Red Cross guidance. But the other thing associated with Red Cross does things like counts the number of water closets and counts the number of classrooms and those type of things. As a recommendation, our only concern for a baseline standard and computation is 20 square feet. So, it doesn't lock us in. If for some reason that the Red Cross can't perform, we -- and we still need a refuge versus a shelter operation, we've not barred ourselves from any other operation. So, I -- I like Jim's terms, kind of sophomoric in terms of using Red Cross and 20 square feet. Let's use 20 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll strike the word that complies with the Red Cross standard. Is there any objection? MR. SUMMERS: We'll do that anyway by a process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Now that we're back here on amount of people, you were going to try and -- try and find out what we're going to do with weighted or permanent population? Page 71 March 8, 2006 Now, hurricane season is off season. I know we like to use weighted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we don't. We don't. The county has used weighted as a determination of the AUIR. I simply was asking which -- I have no preference. I just want to know what their preference is and which one they're using just for the sake of understanding how the number got there. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the number they are using is based on the population statistics they use. I don't know which one they're using. I'm just curious. MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. And, sir, every event, time of day, day of week, season, has a bearing on our ultimate evacuation and our shelter population. The only thing I can measure, shelter population, and we think Wilma was an excellent baseline event, if you will, for fundamental planning with close to 8,000 -- 8500 or so in public shelters in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Randy. Randy, the -- in the EAR, the policy states that we do require the county to identify shelter space that complies with the Red Cross. Now, will we take that out now, is that something you have to note in -- MR. COHEN: We're still going to comply with the 20 square feet so we're okay. Twenty-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he stated other things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It just says Red Cross standards. It doesn't say the area requirement of Red Cross standards. Page 72 March 8, 2006 MR. COHEN: I don't know. I think we're capable of explaining if the -- if the issue arises that for the 20 -- the 20-square foot reference that's in there is the Red Cross standard and I think it will suffice with DCA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my concern is that some of the other things you said like toilets and stuff were some of the major complaints that New Orleans folks had in their shelters, so -- it -- it does say Red Cross standards, not the area standards of Red Cross. So, if -- do we want to abandon that or do we want to see where we are based on Red Cross standards? MR. SUMMERS: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Will that get us in a lot of trouble or -- MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. And, respectfully, I -- I hope we don't use New Orleans as our comparison and contrast here in Collier, but let me just tell you that remember our general population shelters have less census than what the school has on day-to-day operations. So, we put three or four or 500 people in the school building that's typically designed to manage seven or 800 people. So, in Collier County, at least for us, we don't run into that scenario where there's that kind of deficiency. MR. COHEN: I believe we're -- we're still consistent because if you read the first sentence, it says that we have to continue to identify shelter space that complies. And then in the second sentence, we basically say what that shelter space is. So, if we leave in the reference to the 20 square feet per person, I think we're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just -- you know, we've never had a Category 5, but it's in the target of either and that could send a lot of people, a lot more than 500, to the shelter. Page 73 March 8, 2006 But, anyway, we'll go, move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And on 12.1.6, it talks about your coordination on evacuation route needs and improvements with the transportation department? MR. SUMMERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They prioritize their -- their needs in the AUIR. Are you part of that prioritization. MR. SUMMERS: This -- we will become a part of that with this new hurricane evacuation restudy. So, there has not been an information capture that we have had with possible evacuation arterials and their design related to our evacuation timing. That's what I hoped this Dewberry and Davis study will help me bridge that and look at those timing elements, new -- new evacuation signs, alternate routes and those type of things, so I think suffice to say we will meet that as we begin this new study element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a Florida statute that comes into play when you have a failed level of service on evacuation routes, that number is 163.3180(6). And I would just like in the future when you have PUDs come through, if they do affect failed hurricane evacuation routes that have levels of service operating below their adopted standards, that language is very specific on emergency management is, I think, allowed to approve. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I certainly would like it to be aware of that when it's coming through. MR. SUMMERS: And, Mr. Chairman, if you can help us with that because we're not -- we don't necessarily have that road expertise. But if transportation during their review would highlight that to Page 74 March 8, 2006 us, that would give us an opportunity to better flag that a little bit because they would have that particular arterial data base they we don't have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think with the heightened issues on roads now, maybe this question will come up more often in our review as well. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I think we'll see that. MR. SUMMERS: If -- if we could get -- if we could get some expertise lent to us there, we could certainly provide some input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 45, are there any questions from the panel. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: On 12.1.10 right at the top, why are we lowering a standard? MR. SUMMERS: I can address that a little bit and -- and -- and might ask Mr. Schiffer to help me there a little bit. I think since the time this was written with the changes in the Florida Building Code, you have a change in the wind speed, but you actually have a change in the duration and the elevation of that wind speed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. SUMMERS: Sir, is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. There's a different system of doing it. That 155 would have major forces on the buildings, so the difference between that and 165 . You're up in helter-skelter region to begin with so -- MR. SUMMERS: Right. We're comfort -- we're very comfortable with that change because there were other engineering criteria applied to it. Page 75 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cost factors, things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same policy, you're using the word -- well, let me read the sentence. The new public safety facilities in Collier County, all new, will be flood proofed and designed to meet 155 mile per hour wind. Does that mean flood proof all the way to the top? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. And -- and let's be -- that -- again, that was what we used to think out -- think about in the olden days. Let's change that to flood resistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a definition of what flood resistent is somewhere? Will someone know what that means, the designers? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. And I think what -- what -- as we get in particularly, and let's use this reference. As we look at FEMA Fir maps and what we see might typically be a new flood -- flood map and then maybe one foot of free board before you get to the operational space. So, flood resistance and, again, if you need that reference, it would be the existing FEMA Fir maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So, I'm hearing no objection. We'll change the word from flood proof to flood resistent. Down at the bottom, 12.1.15, I would assume it would be better to strike the word "suitable" in the second to the last line in front of ventilation, and just leave capable of ventilation or air conditioning provided by backup generator. Suitable is another one of those ambiguous terms. MR. SUMMERS: That's correct, sir. I'm good with that. Page 76 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll strike the word "suitable". Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I have -- I don't know. 12.1.14, I have David Weeks' name right next to that one and I'm just trying to remember whether or not that was something we talked about David was going to look at. I apologize by not having a further note to qualify it, but just looking at it now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I'm just trying to understand if there's anything that David was supposed to be involved in there. MR. WEEKS: How-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have a recollection of anything associated with that? MR. WEEKS: The only thing I recall, it seemed like there was a question about the year, 2007 versus 2006, which would be the next AUIR. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe that's that, because I notated -- I didn't put enough note. I apologize. Okay. So, should that be 2000 -- how should that be? Prior to the adoption of the -- it should be 2006 then, should it not? MR. COHEN: The policy will not be in effect at the time of the A UIR review in 2006, so probably the correct reference is 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: The other thing that I think would be important in that policy when it was originally drafted, we had Category A and Category B, public facilities. Now, as part of the AUIR, we do Category A and Category B facilities. I think maybe it -- because it's not identified as an A or B maybe we ought to just basically put it in there that Collier County shall have -- whether to include hurricane shelters in the five-year Page 77 March 8, 2006 schedule of capital improvements and strike as a Category A public facility . That way we'll only just come in, you know, for your review as part of the AUIR. If it's determined to be something that is essential by -- by emergency services. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think the BOCC specifically disallowed the Category B to be part of the -- MR. COHEN: Part of the CIE. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. So, you want to make sure you don't get trapped on that. MR. COHEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problems with the panel striking that language? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 46. Any questions from the panel? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. And what we're dealing with is -- is policies within a coastal construction, coastal zone, you know, and we're talking about hurricanes, we're talking about hazard mitigation. I mean -- does that mean that these things don't apply outside that zone or -- and the question on hazard mitigation is -- is it hazards greater than hurricanes that we're talking about here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a specific policy or chapter you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, if you look at 12.2.1 has hazard mitigation and, remember, we're in the coastal-- the CCME, we're not -- you know, and there's a lot more county outside of Page 78 March 8, 2006 that. But I guess question number one is, is this hazard mitigation only referring to hurricanes as the hazard? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, it's not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, so -- MR. SUMMERS: And 12 --let me make sure I'm at the right paragraph. 12.2.1? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. SUMMERS: Yes. The -- and what it's referencing there is Collier County's hazard mitigation plan, and that hazard mitigation plan has a working group and is submitted to the state. That hazard mitigation plan basically through empirical knowledge as well as vulnerability ratings comes up with areas of concern for mitigation activities and recommendations. Primarily, that is the -- that goes to Tallahassee for grant funding. But it is -- although the bulk of the weight because of the bulk of our vulnerability is hurricane, it still takes on an all hazards approach. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, my question to Randy is that, Randy, why is hazard mitigation a subset of hurricanes and why are hurricanes a subset of the CCME? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, we're in the coastal management areas. And we're discussing hurricanes, so does this stuff, this statute here not apply outside that area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let -- I don't understand the question. Maybe Randy does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I could try it again. You know, base this on, you know, you know, VIN diagram. You know, we have -- we're in a section of -- that's the coastal -- the CCME within that section as a requirement on hurricanes. But it sounds like a lot of the code on the hurricane has to do with Page 79 March 8, 2006 stuff outside of the CCME. And then now under hurricanes, we have hazards that are not exclusive to hurricanes, and hazards that, you know, this applies to the whole county as a whole, not just the CCME. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you want to-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just going to say could there not be fire as a hazard, could there not be other -- other matters within the CCME that -- that this would relate to? MR. SUMMERS: Well, sir-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I understand your question, I think. MR. SUMMERS: I think I do, too, and if I may jump in, I think what ties this together here, and I what think is appropriate, at least to leave this as a placeholder, is that typically most of our flooding events will be tied to a storm surge event generated by the hurricane. So -- and, of course, you get into flood and then you do get into all hazard, which could address fire, could address hazardous materials and that type of thing. I think your point is valid. I don't know that I see any harm in bringing that linkage together, whether it be hurricane and flood or whether it has hurricane tied to all hazard. It just gives us a dual reference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Marjorie, can you save us? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm going to try. The scheme is that if -- for counties that are coastal, you have to have a coastal planning area. And in the coastal planning area, certain things are required. And among those have to deal with disaster recovery and preparation for disaster and so forth within that coastal planning area. And we also identify coastal high hazard areas that can be within Page 80 March 8, 2006 that area and -- and appropriate land uses and -- you know, and minimizing placing infrastructure there because of its vulnerability and things like that. So, those would apply in how the county's designated this as a coastal planning area, all those things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, for example, if I'm going to do a mobile home park outside of this area, do -- these requirements don't apply to me then. If I'm going to have a hazard outside the hazard mitigation, we certainly know that group works well outside this area, discussed this with fire, discussed this with a lot of things. MR. SUMMERS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out where this is going to end up going, Brad. Are you saying -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just wondering-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there an objective that you're trying to get to with all this or just an acknowledgment -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And maybe we pull this stuff out of the CCME and put it someplace where it applies county wide if we have provisions that apply solely to the CCME, maybe we could recommend it, but if it's going to get worse as we go to the other pages, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but before you go too far with that thought, why don't we see if it's even legally viable because if it's not, let's just not, let's just move on. Marjorie, Brad is suggesting that if this is misplaced in the GMP, he wants to remove it to another part of the GMP. Is that possible? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't believe it is misplaced because -- and I think because the location of our county, I think you could probably look at quite a bit of the populated part of the county as a coastal planning area. Page 81 March 8, 2006 So, I don't believe it's mis -- it's misplaced. It belongs in this element, that's for sure, because 9(j)( 5) requires it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that resolve some of the questions you have? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just ask it as a yes or no question, is that if I'm doing a mobile home park outside the CCME, do I have to meet the requirements that are within the CCME? MR. WEEKS: I don't understand the question. You're saying outside the CCME, but the CCME has county wide applicability. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. There's your answer. MR. WEEKS: The reason we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mobile home park provisions in here were referring to coastal high hazard area mobile home parks. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's different than the CCME. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If that makes it clear that there's a coastal planning area and within that coastal planning area, you have a coastal high hazard area. And, so, the way I understand it, the whole county's -- or the urbanized part of the county is the coastal planning area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And, further, the state statutes require a conservation element and they refer to it separately, conservation element and a coastal management element. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. MR. WEEKS: By virtue of the fact that we are a coastal county, we're required to have a coastal management element. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. MR. WEEKS: We've simply chosen to combine the two of those into one. Page 82 March 8, 2006 I think it comes down to the -- the terminology of what does coastal mean. And in the statutory sense, it's the entire county because we abut the coast. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, again, Collier County is totally within the CCME. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The coastal high hazard area is a subset of that. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I got it now. Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start up on top at 12.16. This requires a study to show that the evacuation routes can meet certain criteria for one way. This also ties into that starter statute that I spoke of earlier and it also ties into a question I asked of transportation probably now two years ago, is if we've done this yet. And at the time I was told we hadn't. Have we done this yet? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I attended a attended a workshop on counterflow of the interstates just the other day sponsored by Florida DOT. They have made it abundantly clear to local emergency management that the -- it will be a state man -- it will be a state program to identify, to act upon counterflow of the interstates at the request of the Governor, that the -- the local government involvement of counterflow of the interstate will be limited to coordination and decision making input for timing. But the actual activation of that will come solely from the Governor's office and state DOT. With that information, how you would like to reference that in here, I'm not sure, but I -- I have been told that it will not be a local Page 83 March 8, 2006 government decision to counterflow an interstate road. Any other county road, any other county owned roads for counterflow, I can address, and we have not -- to my knowledge, not made any plans for county roads for counterflow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm bringing it up is if you were to study, do a counterflow level of service during an evacuation time, you would then be able to establish whether or not you meet -- that it's Florida Statute in regards to evacuation routes, whether or not you're going to have a de minimous impact. MR. SUMMERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I think it would be imperative that that be done in order to know whether or not we are negatively impacting an adopted level of service on a road during a hurricane evacuation, so -- MR. SUMMERS: Well-- and I think we get down to the point, and -- and -- and let me just tell you what the flip side of that is, is that the counterflow environment on the current research, it does not make a substantial difference in the overall movement because of the bottlenecks that occur at the beginning of the counterflow and the bottlenecks that occur at the end, the bottlenecks that occur at the end as you try to get back to a regular pattern. So -- so, there are pros and cons with that, and as a matter of fact just even as threshold, for example, Florida DOT is saying that unless you have 30 miles of contiguous road, a counterflow is not warranted because of the queuing involved. How I compensate for that, however, is to add more evacuation time to the process to allow for safety, to allow for the regular traffic flow to queue and work itself out with the possibility of some timing elements that signaled intersections and that type of thing. So, in this particular neck of the woods, if I can say that, at least within urban Collier County, I don't see counterflow, although there Page 84 March 8, 2006 are statutory issues, as you've mentioned. As a emergency program manager, I would make sure that I added more time to the evacuation component rather than try to force the counterflow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What's going through my mind is the inevitable accident on the road that would tie up a road totally. Wouldn't a counterflow study or whatever you should relate to it, wouldn't that be beneficial in the sense of facilitating evacuation where roads have been encumbered by any number of issues? MR. SUMMERS: Right. Sir, there's a -- there's two issues there that make it very difficult for us to do that and that our planning is typically static planning and road conditions in Southwest Florida are dynamic every day with construction. That's my number one challenge. The second part of that is that part of our emergency plans during any evacuation scenario is that there is rapid deployment, if you will, of responders to clear that roadway. There are statute provisions for the minor fender-bender to legally move you off the road in order to open that roadway. I'd automatically bring additional law enforcement. I'd put additional wreckers in the area and I can clear that traffic impediment very, very quickly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You have that authority. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. I can do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That certainly helps a great deal. MR. SUMMERS: And -- and -- and I have that authority. I activate that from the EOC. My partner there obviously is Florida Highway Patrol and the Sheriffs Office. But we -- they -- they give me great presence on the roadways. Page 85 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes me feel better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, if we could move on to 12.1.17. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second line starts with of that study, further restriction on development in the coastal high hazard will be proposed. If you do this hurricane evacuation study and it warrants restrictions on any part of the county, wouldn't that be a good thing to have the ability to institute? MR. SUMMERS: Y es. Yes, sir, it would. But let me just tell you that I'm not sure I can fill that square with a scientific answer. I think those are going to have to be -- when this study comes about and I'll have to brief the County Commissioners and to say -- I'm not sure that I can you a break point in any density at this scenario with hurricane discussion again because we all don't leave the road, we don't enter into the traffic queue at the same time. So, it's -- it's fine if you'd like to leave the provision. We may learn some new science that addresses that. Right now I don't know to fill that in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to leave it because I think it's too limiting. What I would suggest is that we change after the word "development", strike in the coastal high hazard area will, and just say further restriction on development may be proposed. MR. SUMMERS: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that covers you for any part of the county you want to hit. MR. SUMMERS: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Objective 12.2. In the strict reading of that objective, and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to say it would eliminate, for example, any new bridge over the Page 86 March 8, 2006 Gordon River, new docks, new parks, new beach parking, new roads, the widening of951, anything in the coastal-- coastal high hazard area that would need something more than just maintenance. And I would want to make sure that that's not the case, so-- MR. SUMMERS: I'll need some help on that one. My notes indicate that this was -- this -- this comment was not an EM generated objective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, that means it was written by somebody else. Who's not here anymore? MR. COHEN: And I think the -- the -- the confusion starts in the -- in the first sentence when you look at publicly funded building and development activities and what constitutes publicly funded building and development. I don't think it was meant to include cast infrastructure projects such as bridges, roads and the like. If you'd like, we can clarify -- find some language to clarify that particular obj ective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to bring the language back when we rediscuss this issue that -- or Dan's bringing his issues back? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, 12.2, we'll come back with a possible rewrite. COMMISSIONER CARON: And -- and why was the last sentence stricken from -- MR. WEEKS: It simply doesn't make sense. What is an unimproved request? It's just nonsensical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll move on to Page 47. Is there any questions from the panel on Page 47? Brad, I thought you'd have one on the first one. Page 87 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Well, the top one is good. It just references -- it's got the right code, it's got -- it's just the year thing, if we want to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe got by with the -- are you referencing the latest addition before, couldn't we get by with the latest addition now? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, we're going to strike the date that was added and leave in the words that were taken out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only question is how could you not do this? In other words, I know it's a nice reminder, but how could somebody not build buildings according to the building code? But that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe by the words latest -- latest approved addition, you could be referring to additions that either we have not or have not approved or they're old versions, so this might just clarify that question if someone were to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, is this for new buildings and existing buildings? Well, the building code covers that, too, doesn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on Page 47? COMMISSIONER CARON: 12.2.5, I think you're going -- Dan's going to want to make the same changes there, not to just use the -- the Regional Planning Council. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, you'll bring back a new reference for that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. A new language? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- policy as well? Marjorie? Page 88 March 8, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have a comment on twelve three because very recently we've been looking at our disaster recovery task force ordinance. And the language -- the last sentence, it says, the board should also invite representatives from municipalities within Collier County that have received damage from the storm to be become members of the Recovery Task Force. One way you could read that would be in past storms, if those municipalities have suffered damage, and I'm sure that, you know, most all of them in the county have, that they would be included, or another way that doesn't make a lot of sense to read that is that, oh, you'll wait till it happens and then after a disaster event, we're going to have these people on there yet, but now we'll invite them. And in the chaos that could occur after an event, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to read it that way. So, I would suggest perhaps that we just include the folks from, you know, the municipalities within the county. I'm sure we consider Everglades City, Marco and the City of Naples in their location. It's a foregone conclusion that they will suffer some damage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, remember, this is that portion you guys voted me to sit on. It does have in the LDC requirements and it does include all those counties, and I know that the problem we're really having with it, it's not really the -- it's the mitigation committee that's kind of taken over for this. So, I think what we should look at is -- and, Roy, you would probably be the best one to answer this because you're the one at the meetings with us but -- in other words, is that the Disaster Recovery Task Force they're referencing here that meets? Page 89 March 8, 2006 MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. The intention of the Disaster Recovery Task Force is that if -- the hazard mitigation group is looking at the long term planning for, again, pure mitigation, pure prevention type activity. The goal of the Recovery Task Force to get together immediately following the storm might be to address immediate post event recovery items which could include things like as -- things such a moratoriums, there could be things such as waivers to codes or prohibitions, temporary allocations of resources to get us between the period of post storm and long-term recovery. And that's what the purpose of this task force is to do, so that they can work with the EOC in prioritizing short range and medium range recovery activities. And -- and -- and the hazard mitigation group is sort of the horse blanket that looks at all these things as prevention measures. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to clarify so that it -- one reading of it, it just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Marjorie, I'm trying to get back to your suggestion. So, Marjorie has suggested taking the word "invite" and substitute it with the word "include". Does staff or anybody see a problem with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have 12.2.7, I would like have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at that and trying to understand what its purpose is and what it intends to achieve. The county shall continue to assess all undeveloped property within the coastal high hazard area and make recommendations on appropriate Page 90 March 8, 2006 land use. Where does that lead us? What does it do? MR. WEEKS: Potentially, it results in the county amending the comprehensive plan and/or down zoning properties, potentially. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But this is -- MR. WEEKS: Lowering densities, eliminating allowable uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is the word "undeveloped" being substituted for "unimproved"? There's a difference in the meaning and I'm wondering what the meaning is. MR. WEEKS: I think we have definition of undeveloped, but we don't for unimproved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Definition, should it mean capitalized or bolded? I'm sorry. Bolded -- MR. WEEKS: That's done in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, the definition is not in the GMP. MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, is this -- MR. WEEKS: Unimproved -- I'm sorry. Unimproved, again, has no definition. The only definition I'm familiar with historically goes back to over -- about 15 years ago with the zoning reevaluation program and it defined that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not saying unimproved is better. I'm just trying to figure out either one. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Unimproved, I think, is too ambiguous of a term. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. Given that we use developed, I'm still struggling with its -- is anything occurring now? Does the county keep a record of these things right now? I mean, is there anything happening that makes this justifiable to Page 91 March 8, 2006 retain it? MR. WEEKS: I can tell you one way it was assessed, is it was during this process of drafting the EAR, in which ultimately the county commission in adopting the EAR has directed us to us limit residential density in the coastal high hazard area. You might recall from a past petitioner to rezone petition, that there was a comfortable amount of discussion about what density should be allowed in the coastal high hazard area and whether the future land use element did in fact allow certain density or it did not, whether this element and another one did or did not restrict development densities. So, at any rate, the Board of County Commissioners in adopting the EAR has directed that coastal high hazard area density be limited to a maximum of four units per acre -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that I know. MR. WEEKS: -- that also when we get the future land use settlement, we'll discuss also these amendments proposed to create a -- establish a density reduction factor of one unit per acre within the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. MR. WEEKS: And, again, the language about mobile home, new mobile home zoning being prohibitive within the coastal high hazard area. So, that's one example of how the county has done an assessment and, in fact, has -- is proposing changes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Now I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I think that paragraph does offer some protection to the county in regards to Bert Harris claims in the coastal high hazard, because everybody's clearly on notice that the -- you could have land use changes there that would affect their property. Page 92 March 8, 2006 And it's been stated in the GMP. If you were to take a hotel, for example, and convert it to a condominium along the beach, it might be a perfect case for Bert Harris might be defending. Anyway, on to Page 48. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 48? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you got a question, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. And this is the -- Dan, the task force again. Number one, this is the -- in the planning stages, I guess pre-storm. It says an advisory committee to county managers. Shouldn't also we add in there and the Board of County Commissioners like we do in number two? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. Please. Good catch. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a little bit earlier question on that one. Why is it even here? If this implements the task force and the task force policies probably will change from time to time or want to be, why lock yourselves into the GMP that takes an act of God to change it? Why don't we just put it the Land Development Code? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would agree with that because if we want -- exactly. If you wanted to change something, that's a cumbersome process to go through. MR. SUMMERS: And, sir, just to give you a little background on that, we -- this is our second activity here. This had been on the books as state guidance basically after Andrew, where Dade had no recovery council. Then we had one that was on there by ordinance but it required Page 93 March 8, 2006 that the group be appointed and meet and that -- and the associated committee maintenance. Well, that was not productive either and so the recovery task force that would be formed under the State of Emergency Declaration is most appropriate because that way you're really locked into the players to the magnitude of the event. So, where -- just understand that we have that mechanism in place as -- as immediate and medium range post disaster recovery activity. Where you would like to house it is totally up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy and David, do you see any reasons why this couldn't be better served in the LDC? MR. COHEN: I think that would be appropriate place. I think what we do need to do is have a policy here that basically would state the Collier County Recovery Task Force responsibilities shall identified in the Land Development Code. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I don't think -- if that's -- and if that ordinance goes in the Code of Laws because that's where our ordinances for advisory boards and things of that nature goes, so it wouldn't be in the land code. It would be in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's put it this way. It needs to come out of the GMP. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. MR. COHEN: No problem, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're going to substitute policy language in the nature that Randy just stated. Randy, could you just kind of restate that so the record's clear? MR. COHEN: The Collier County Recovery Task Force responsibilities shall be identified in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that will be the new Policy 12.3.4. Anybody have any objections to that? Okay. Page 94 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, as long as, you know, in the EAR, there is some wording as to what those are supposed to be. I think as long as you refer to that when you establish those in the LDC. I don't think it's exactly -- or the -- it's in the LDC now-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it's in the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if you'll pull it out. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- Collier County Code. If we start to put stuff in here though, if we want to change their responsibilities in any way and it's not in here, you have an issue, so -- and it's a cumbersome thing to try to change it, so I think that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree where it's going. Just take the year recommendations with it, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think Randy and David had already opined on us earlier that if we don't want to do something that's consistent with exactly our report, they've just got to state a reason why they're not doing it and then that's how they forward to DCA and that's acceptable, so I'm assuming -- MR. COHEN: As long as we have a rational basis for it and-- and we can justify that we're going to deal with the issue somewhere else, then we're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My assumption in all these changes are that you would be doing that where necessary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my concern isn't that. My concern isn't how you word it to the state. My concern is that there is some good stuff in the EAR that should go with it when you do write it in the Code of Laws, the responsibilities that are in there. MR. COHEN: And the direction -- the direction that we've gotten from you is to refer back to the EAR for that -- that particular language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've -- anybody got any questions on the last page, Page 49? Page 95 March 8, 2006 As it stands now then, through this policy, we're going -- you're going to rewrite Objective 12.1, clarify Policy 12.1.3, possibly rewrite Policy 12.2 and provide the new references in Policy 12.2.5. And those four items you'll try to get back to us within -- as soon as possible, but certainly before we end our discussions on the EAR. Is that clear? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think the -- thank you, Dan. I appreciate your time today. MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, thank you for your time. We all learn something in this planning process and -- and thank you for your patience. I appreciate it. I gained a lot from this activity today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We still are not done with the CCME. Mr. Lorenz, in reviewing a previous handout, I found some issues that need to be discussed that are important so we might as well go back and finish it right. What page are we on, Bill? MR. LORENZ: We'I1-- we'll use Page 28. This is Page 28 on the visualizer. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we pause for a moment while the court reporter changes paper? (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: This is the language that Brad Cornell had suggested at the Wednesday meeting in terms of tying the water -- watershed management plans with regard to some wetland issues. And the -- draw your attention to the bottom of the -- of the second under -- within parenthesis one. I'm having a little time reading Page 96 March 8, 2006 -- seeing it from -- from my viewpoint. We're at the last -- the last additional language that says, the county shall direct impacts away from such wetlands and also exotic clearing cannot be the principal means of mitigation. When I discussed this with Brad this -- this morning, he indicated that -- that not only within -- not only during the watershed management planning process where we will identify, let's say, certain key wetlands within a watershed management plan, and we will identify certain requirements that may either provide some additional protection or how they would be mitigated for, in which case the last sentence there, exotics clearing cannot be the principal means of mitigation. He also intended that this policy and it's -- and it shows up here under the -- the wetland -- the urban -- the wetlands protection policy within the urban designated area. He also intended that this policy for this language would constrain the use of exotic plant removal as a form of mitigation. This was an issue that came about several years ago with the final order, in which case the -- the county does have requirements for all proj ects to remove the basic exotics from their property. At the same time, the Water Management District will allow invasive exotics removal from -- from a wetland, for instance, a melaleuca from a wetland to be either all or a portion of the mitigation requirements for impacting a wetland. And the discussion was, should -- because the county already has invasive exotics removal, should that qualify for mitigation, wetland mitigation? As a result of going through the whole policy formulation procession and coming to the Board of County Commissioners in the final order amendments, the wetland permitting function is being deferred to the wetland agencies, especially in the urban area, in which Page 97 March 8, 2006 case county staff and the county does not evaluate wetland impacts except to ensure that those wetland impacts are mitigated for by the issuance of a federal or state permit. So, if the federal and state agencies grant a permit that -- that requires a certain form of mitigation, we do not review that form of mitigation at the county staff level, in the urban -- urban designated area. So, if that mitigation -- if -- if the agencies are allowing for either all or a portion of basic exotics removal as the form of mitigation, we accept that. Now, in the rural fringe mixed use district, the wetlands policies are somewhat different. There are three types of requirements that must be met for a rural fringe wetlands to be mitigated for. Compensation of storage is -- is one portion of the policy. Another portion of the policy states that you have to mitigate at least equal on an area per area basis. In other words, you can't mitigate onsite that has less acreage than what you're impacting. And a third provision of that policy speaks to a methodology, which is called the UMAM score, Unified Mitigation Assessment Methodology. That -- that has a scoring system of which case invasive exotics would be part of that scoring system. So, as long as you have a UMAM score of mitigation higher than what you're impacting, that would be acceptable. So, even in the rural fringe mixed use district invasive exotics removal could be part of mitigation for wetlands impacts. Now, this language here, certainly as Brad as intended, and I know Brad had to leave, so I'm trying to carry his -- his message here to you here as well to put the information out on the table for your Page 98 March 8, 2006 decision, is to -- is to constrain a wetland mitigation in Collier County using -- from -- from using invasive exotics removal. And -- and that is not our current policy. And as I noted before that was debated through the process of the final order amendments. So, I don't want -- I want to make sure that it's understood that the ramifications of this language would -- would -- would change the way we're currently reviewing agency permits for wetland -- for wetland impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I heard this discussed, I thought it would be applicable to those impacts above and beyond agency meeting. If the agency didn't have a preserve area involved, they didn't have any jurisdiction lines, but we had the required onsite reserves that we always do, that any clearing of exotics on those could not be a principal means of -- of mitigation. I didn't realize that he was trying to supersede federal and state jurisdictional line permitting. I mean, that's just adding another level of problems to what's -- I'm glad you pointed it out, Bill. MR. LORENZ: Unfortunately, Brad had to leave, so I need-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe-- MR. LORENZ: Probably we would want to like speak to it at -- at some later point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe Richard could speak in his behalf. He's good at understanding. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'd say it was a positive change. MR. LORENZ: Well, I mean, that was -- you know, as -- as the history -- the history of it, I mean, that was a -- that was a debatable point through the process. I can tell you that, you know, staffwould have preferred to have seen the exotics removal not be part of agency mitigation, but that's not where -- we end up with debate and direction Page 99 March 8, 2006 from the board in the final amendment, so I want to make sure -- make it clear that this would be the ramifications of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be clear in my mind, it starts out within the urban designated area and you referenced the rural fringes having other factors there, that they were components, as it were. MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, his -- is his intent -- if I understand this correctly, all exotic clearing cannot be the principal means of mitigation. Is he restricting that solely to the urban designated area? Is that what he's attempting to do or you're attempting to do? MR. LORENZ: The -- this particular language appears through a number of policies that -- that Brad had suggested, so it -- so, it -- it would -- it would apply to all of the wetlands permitting in urban Collier County. Probably not within the east -- the rural land stewardship area. But -- but except for that area, it would -- it would -- that's what his intention would be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, it would go into the rural fringe and that would then create a contradiction, if you will. MR. LORENZ: Well, it would -- it would create -- it would create a -- a -- a further restriction on what you can do with regard to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, it eliminates -- it eliminates that as a -- as a piece of the -- of the mitigation potential? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. And as -- and from a processing standpoint again, I mean the -- we -- in the urban area, we're accepting simply what the agency permits are. In the rural fringe, we have to do a little bit additional level of Page 100 March 8, 2006 review for those three items that I -- I'd mentioned earlier. Invasive exotics is not -- is not explicitly restricted. It's simply a matter of what that UMAM score would be as long as -- as long as that -- basic exotics is part of that scoring system, but is not the sole part of the scoring system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rural fringe has not been really a -- a real active area of development right now, but the urban area is. Do you have a cost understanding and a staff impact, and if you had to go back in to all the permits that -- not back. I mean, say, a permit comes in to you guys, it is a federal or state permit and meets other criteria, they mitigated, they used the exotics as part of that, but now you'd have to go one step further. You'd have to go back into that permit and understand how much of an impact the exotics was within that permit and then come up with a conclusion on your own as to how much that should be worth in an alternative forms of mitigation that you would accept. Is that what you're -- MR. LORENZ: That -- that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you prepared as staff -- you guys can't even -- MR. LORENZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- get stuff out of your department now as it is. MR. LORENZ: No. I'm -- I'm -- I'm raising this question from a -- from a standpoint of our current process and procedure and prior direction of the board when we debated the -- the issue in terms of -- of the whole wetlands permitting and -- and -- and where -- what Collier County's role is. I'm -- I'm -- I'm adhering to that prior policy direction and -- and would as a -- my level would not be supporting that broad coverage that Brad is intending. Page 101 March 8, 2006 I think it is important as a consideration of the watershed management planning exercise, that that that could result in -- in a restriction within a particular watershed management plan. But that's -- that's for -- that's -- that's a future recommendation and analysis to be brought back to -- to all the advisory boards and the board of county commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does principal mean though? Does that mean the largest, but does that mean 50 percent or does that mean -- MR. LORENZ: That's Brad's -- Brad's language. I would -- I would -- I would see that as being the majority, let's say the 50 -- I would -- I would interpret it as 50 percent plus one, more than 50 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Arnold, it looks like you're waiting to say something. MR. ARNOLD: Hi. Wayne Arnold for the record again. I -- I think followed Brad yesterday when -- or earlier in the week, I guess I should say Monday, when -- when we discussed this point. And I think inserting that language for these watershed management plans that have yet to be prepared seems a little premature. I agree with Bill. I think that that's probably going to be a function of certain watershed management plans, how we deal with wetlands within them. I don't know that it's appropriate to add to this policy. I think it really changes the -- the intent of the entire policy to do it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. My thoughts on this is if we struck the last sentence of the two add ons and just left the rest, we can deal with it when the watershed management plans are devised as a policy of those plans. Page 102 March 8, 2006 I think that would be cleaner, plus by then you'd have the staff and the funding assumably to go forward with those plans if they're approved. So, I certainly wouldn't think that we should leave the last sentence in on both of those blue areas that you've added here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I definitely agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else okay with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, that's what we'll do. Thank you for point all that out, Bill. It was important help. Okay. Is there anything else in the CCME? Okay. This is -- we are at 11 :30. We have a choice. We can move forward and open new territory in the lengthy FLUE or we can take lunch for the next hour and come back and attack a fresh -- refreshed with our bellies full of food. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody likes a belly full of food idea, huh? Okay. This commission will take a break. We'll be back here at 12:30. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're done with our lunch break. If we could all resume our positions so we can get this meeting back under way, I'd appreciate it. About 1:00 o'clock the court reporter will be changing and we'll pause while the new court reporter sets up for a very brief moment at that time. And, Randy, I don't know if someone -- how staff wants to move forward with the FLUE but it's yours. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm assuming that you might want Page 103 March 8, 2006 to go through the same as you have with the CCME, just go through page by page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: In that case I'll hold any introductory remarks and let's all get down to business here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good. Okay. Page one of the FLUE, if you've all gotten to that point in your books, mostly an index. I don't imagine there would be too many questions with that. Page 2. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What -- what is the meaning of utility? What does that include? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whereabout's on Page 2 are you referring to? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm sorry. It's down on Objective 3. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Objective 3. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It says utility's facilities. MR. WEEKS: Oh, that's water, sewer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Transportation, roads? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It excludes roads. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. That's not a utility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- I believe in the listing of the various municipalities or governmental agencies, you have East Naples Fire Department. I believe the -- and you at least check it. I may be wrong on this, but I believe it's East Naples Fire and Rescue District. MR. WEEKS: Whereabout's are you reading from? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking -- I'm on Page 2 and I wonder if I'm -- I'm in the introduction and that's probably -- Page 2. Page 104 March 8, 2006 And is a series of -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You're in the FLUE? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not even in the FLUE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're in ice. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hold on. I went to the wrong one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're an icebox. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. We'll get to that one. Sorry about that. MR. WEEKS: Well, thanks for the heads up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was a great lunch. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Be prepared. That question will be coming back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we're on Page 2 of the FLUE. Do we have any questions for the -- Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And this is the first time I think it's come up. What is that when you have the stars, three stars and a line? What is that representing? That you're missing text or -- MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That's to indicate skipping over text. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why are wiping out the wording on the CCEA and CCMA? MR. WEEKS: That correlates with changes to the density rating system that occur later. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's picked up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't pick it, but you'll point it out when we get there? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Remind me that that's the-- Page 105 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll be there before you know it. Page 3. Any questions from the commission on Page 3? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Under B, it says here through the implementation of various zoning districts and zoning overlays that restrict higher intensity land uses in the rural fringe mixed use district. Is that the only district that restricts its intensity? MR. WEEKS: Well, that -- that references to the rural fringe mixed use district. If your question is about zoning overlays that restrict higher intensity land uses, that -- that phrase is specifically referring to the rural fringe mixed use district. And within the rural fringe mixed use district in the future land use element, it is implemented through the Land Development Code through the rural fringe mixed use zoning overlay. And I think to further answer your question, I believe that is the zoning -- only zoning overlay that -- well, it's certainly the only zoning overlay applicable to and, therefore, that restricts any types of uses in the rural fringe mixed use district. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But is it the only district that restricts intensity? MR. WEEKS: No. No, there are other zoning overlays that included in there; Vanderbilt Beach for an example. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 3? Page 4. Are there any questions on Page 4? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just for my own clarification, under J there, it says that the -- it requires soundproofing for all new residential structures built. Is it appropriate that the government dictate how a house, a Page 106 March 8, 2006 private house, should be built to that point of design? MR. WEEKS: This is a pre-existing language and it goes back to the original plan adoption when the -- when we established the airport noise contours. And the only way I know to answer that is it was determined at that time that it was appropriate to -- to require that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just as an aside, it's been a long time since we did that, but I'm -- I think there may be even something in Florida state statutes that addresses when you're in a -- close proximity to an airport, there's certain things that need to be done. I have to double check because it's been so long, but-- MR. WEEKS: The whole -- whole intent there was recognizing that the airport's in existence, it's going to generate noise and within the certain noise contours, the amount of noise that is generated is generally considered not compatible with residential development unless you take some -- some certain steps to try to mitigate that. And that's what the requirement is -- is all about, is trying to ensure that the property owner takes steps to mitigate the noise. And I think it works kind of in the opposite direction of -- in the sense of a -- kind of a protection for the airport itself against noise complaints. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 4, because I have a couple? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. Is this where you moved the stuff I was wondering about on the second one or -- MR. WEEKS: No, sir. But I'll go ahead and answer that. Back on Page 2, the two areas that were deleted that correlate with the density rating system, both of those are making reference to the traffic congestion density reduction, which is being eliminated under the density rating system. Page 107 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the -- all right. MR. WEEKS : Not being relocated, just simply eliminated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But these referring to the checkbook system we have; right? So, my question is why is it under Objective 3 not under Objective 2? Just reading what the objectives cover. Objective 2, discuss this concurrency management. Objective 3 is natural restorative resources and stuff like that. MR. WEEKS: Well, we've added to Objective 3 the transportation concurrency management system implementation of it and, therefore, their policy then that you're referring to is -- is now appropriately under Objective 3. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, why wouldn't they have been? I mean, what -- you didn't change the Objective 2 though, right? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Objective 2 is, coordinates enough land uses, the availability of public facilities shall be accomplished through the concurrency management system, so to me -- and Objective 3 is land development regulation, which have been adopted into GMP, that in order to ensure the natural and historic resources, the availability of land for utility. In other words, I really think it would fall better under two, wouldn't it? MR. WEEKS: I can't disagree. I think -- I think that's a good suggestion that we move that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, you're moving Item G back under Policy 2 -- or Objective 2? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And some of the wording on Objective 3 should be moved into Objective 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might need to move your mike a Page 108 March 8, 2006 little closer, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, Objective 3, which I really don't think it's -- I mean, we have an objective that discusses concurrency. Why we don't put transportation concurrency in that as opposed to an objective that discusses natural historic resources. So, I would take whatever you worded in Objective 3, put it back in two and at least move G, and I can't find anything in the EAR that would guide you to do anything of this to begin but -- MR. WEEKS: I would agree that under Objective 3 the added phrase regarding implementing the transportation concurrency management system, we will move to under Objective 2, and then we will move Policy 3.1(g) under Objective 2 as well. I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got a question on Page 4. It's in Policy G. That may not be on Page 4 now, but it is from the copy I'm reading. This talks about management strategies that can reduce the -- that can reduce the TCMA's or completely eliminate the traffic impact mitigation measures that would otherwise be applied to such developments. I was reading this in conjunction with the transportation element, Page 10. I don't mean to bounce to another document, but they don't seem to be consistent. Maybe they are, maybe I'm reading it wrong. But if you look at the top of Page 10, David, and it actually begins on Page 9, these are the transportation strategies, the transportation to man management strategies that can be utilized in TCEAs. In each of them -- in fact there's be a language added to indicate that they expect to be able to reduce traffic, but it doesn't seem like they're saying they will reduce traffic. Page 109 March 8, 2006 I guess it's a hit and miss proposition for the future. And I didn't know how positive that this language on Page 4 was in regards to that, because I don't know -- from what I can read where they'll completely -- there's any indication they're going to completely eliminate traffic impacts. So, I was just concerned about that word, the idea of completely eliminating traffic impacts. I don't know if that's viable and I want to make sure that we don't -- someone doesn't come in here and say, well, I'm going to do all these, therefore, I've completely eliminated my traffic impacts when in reality they have not. I mean -- so, I'll leave -- I think if you drop the words "or completely eliminate" from that paragraph, you're okay. You're simply leaving it that they can reduce the traffic impact mitigation measures instead of including the words "completely eliminate". MR. WEEKS: I would agree with that and I think we should also change the word "can" to "may". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have that circled as well. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Anybody else have concerns? On to Page 5. Any questions on Page 5? There's an obvious one up on top. I thought it was interesting. Development review process has been evaluated and approved to focus on efficiency and effectiveness through unification of all review staff into a single organizational unit and through streamlining of the reVIew process. But this is concept, so I guess it's okay to say that. I just thought it was really interesting in today's world. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not happening. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's a goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a good goal. We should leave it. Page 110 March 8, 2006 Are there any other questions on Page 5. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. These -- these corridors, some of those appear to be within the city entirely; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- what policy are you referring to? We can't follow you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This is in 4.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.4? Okay. MR. WEEKS: Those corridors actually are shared between the city and the county. There may be portions that are completely within one jurisdiction, but a portions would be shared. For example, Goodlette-Frank Road, a portion of it is completely within the city and then another, the northerly portion, you have the city on the west side and the county on the east side, and then you go far enough north and both sides are within the county, so shared jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the county does abut all of these properties at some point; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 5? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In Policy 4.1, why was water management stricken? MR. WEEKS: There are no water management provisions within the Golden Gate area master plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Master plan? MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. WEEKS: It's that element of development is simply addressing the drainage sub element with county wide applicability. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Page 111 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6. Any questions on Page 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 4.6(a), the number of egress points. What we're really saying is -- I think this goes against a couple policies. One is the community character plan and one is safe fire department access to subdivisions. In other words, if we force projects to have one entrance, we kind of put ourselves somewhat at risk. And I think -- wasn't one of the major points of the community character plan is to help traffic by not allowing this kind of stuff? If you read the letters to the editor, it takes up half the pages as people complaining about what happens with this. But, in other words, I think, for example, emergency vehicles, this is really contrary to a safe neighborhood that have only one entrance and exit. So, what is the reason we're doing that? MR. WEEKS: Well, first of all, keep in mind that this is applicable to activity centers only. This is not a -- it's a very limited applicability . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but it's a very dense urban area. I mean, maybe that's the way it gets developed, but I think what we're causing is to combine these into one point. MR. WEEKS: One of the principal objectives is to eliminate multiple access points. We want to eliminate multiple movements of traffic in and out of -- of different proj ects, so as much as possible, combine them into a single access point. It simply makes -- helps to make the transportation network more efficient by having fewer access points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Mr. Scott, too, might help in meeting -- well, I notice we strive to try to eliminate more access Page 112 March 8, 2006 points on the road so -- MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation and planning. To make the roadways safer and work better, we'd like to have less access points. Now, when you're referring to large developments with only one access, that's true, but you don't necessarily want -- you want them to follow the access management standards and you don't want them on top of each other. Obviously only the intent is to follow the access management standards as we develop projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, you know, as this goes on to explain, you do have ways to control access points, so I don't think A causes the ability to violate the rest of the requirements. It's just -- what you're really saying is that you really want everybody to go in and out of one point. MR. SCOTT: Well, as a development, for instance, pick a -- pick a commercial center around an activity center, try to get to -- you're going to have a signal somewhere. Try to have an access to that signal and not multiple accesses in between. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. That would make sense, but I mean what this is saying is an ingress and egress shall be combined into a single. So, take a shopping center in North Naples, our area, the Pavilion Shopping Center, to build in that activity center according to this, you -- you're saying that everything should be combined into one point. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER CARON: But this is -- this isn't any activity center. This is for mixed use and interchange activity centers. So, it's not -- it would be, for example, Pavilion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me make sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in North Naples, right? Page 113 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it also says to the maximum extent possible. MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: It would be, for example, anything at 75. That's what we're talking about and/or things like Buckley which is on Airport. MR. WEEKS: Let -- let me correct that. This is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It says mixed -- oh, no, it's not -- not a mixed use. MR. WEEKS: Activity centers only, so think of the future land use map on those red square. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: That's the only places. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The Pavilion is activity -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pavilion is an activity center. Mr. Murray and then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if I'm not mistaken, the smart growth principals calls for interconnectivity within the activity center to allow full access of the various commercial enterprises. You're concerned -- you're concerned with people being able to get out at various locations. If we take one on Pine Ridge Road, is that a good candidate? You have several access, ingress and egress points, but it directs traffic through the signal, and I would think that we compound a problem if we had more points of ingress and egress. So, I -- MR. SCOTT: If I had my choice, I would close one or two of them, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: These are just activity centers, not interchange? Page 114 March 8, 2006 MR. WEEKS : Well, and that may have been in this particular case that three interchanges are activity centers. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. MR. WEEKS: So, what we have, mixed use activity centers and then we have three interchange activity centers. And this policy is applicable to all of those. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm going to -- I mean, I still don't think it's a good idea. I don't think it's a safe idea. I mean, what if there's an accident? That access point, there's fire in the building, what do you do then? There's no other way to get in. What if you're having a heart attack and traffic -- I mean, what you're -- if you said with your comment, let's close down the other ones, what you're saying is let me start building traffic jams inside the parking lot of these things instead of on the street. So, then you have a heart attack inside one of these, trying to get out and -- MR. SCOTT: But I'm talking -- let's --let's talk about Pine Ridge and Airport. You have the signal, then you have the bridge that's right up between, what is it, checking place there, Boston Market. That one with people trying to cut all the way across, that is not -- that is a safety problem. Is that something I want to see in the future? No. But it doesn't even meet standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why run the neighborhood up there by Einstein's or Michael's and everything is filtered into one crazy drive -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that's the real thrill and that's exactly what you're describing. MR. SCOTT: And -- and that's raised by what Bob Murray's Page 115 March 8, 2006 talking about. That should have some type of access to the back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That particular one, I drive all the time, and it's because of the configuration in that ridiculous parking lot and the fact we allowed not enough parking spaces for Michael's, the home -- the PetSmart and Home Depot in that shopping center next door. MR. SCOTT: Now, you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think it's because it combines into a single access point, that signalized location, is exactly the wording of this. The -- the community character plan, Bob, wasn't just they were having a problem with coming in and out connecting the things, which it did point at. It pointed at the gated communities and now we must have gated towns, so we evolved that, but we have gated communities were one way in and out where we don't have the ability to drive through communities to get to destinations. MR. SCOTT: And then we have other code that says that if you have over 4,000 AADT, that you should have other accesses, but I guess in some times in the past, that hasn't been followed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anybody -- has anybody from the fire department reviewed that? MR. SCOTT: Do you -- are you comfortable if we add in, you know, a reference to taking an account of safety for emergency response or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that's what the other exits would be used for as alternate ways to -- I mean, you know, we start funneling and funneling and funneling, that's the traffic jam. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mr. Murray, do you have a comment? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I did. I would -- to the extent possible, I would think that -- I think that's the intent of that, I Page 116 March 8, 2006 guess we could -- MR. SCOTT: It is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- get more speculative, but I think to the extent possible, and obviously within whatever code requirements we have to satisfy, say, the fire district. So, I don't know -- I understand where you're coming from and I appreciate where you want to go with it, but I -- having been in this smart growth thing, I -- I would think that's -- yeah, we're a little too late to make some of the major issues go forward that we'd like to see, but in this one I'm not sure that we're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we're not-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- covered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you think the smart growth committee would support that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To reduce everything to one access -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To where it's more safe where it's signalized because -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm saying it's less safe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- internally -- internally the traffic is calm, it's -- it's reduced, then if they have to queue and wait, so be it, but you want to see the flow of traffic on the outside and more safe. That's the way I -- MR. SCOTT: Now, obviously, your referencing some of the areas doesn't mean they were designed correctly internally -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. MR. SCOTT: -- to handle it, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. No. That's another factor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But for example -- I don't see Page 11 7 March 8, 2006 really where the -- for example, let's say that there's an outlet on the road that's a right turn only not at an intersection, wouldn't that lessen the burden of the intersection with the signalized in effect, if I can just go down the parking lot a little bit and come out and not have to view the traffic? MR. SCOTT: In a lot of areas when we raised that issue where, yeah, if you were just having someone take an right out and it's only a right out, not cutting across to an intersection -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCOTT: -- then, yeah, that -- that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this regulation would put me at the light and wait with everybody else. So, in other words, I don't think it's the way -- maybe it's the way it's worded or maybe -- I'm not sure what its intent is, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to bring this to a head because we could talk and debate the merits of each. I, myself, think Mr. Murray's right on this. It says maximum extent possible. That means it's up to our safety and codes to determine what that is, and I'm satisfied that works. Mr. Schiffer, if you're insisting on a language change, if you want to make a recommendation and see if it carries the day, then let's get past this one and go on to the rest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern is, is the new language they've added. And I -- let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the way it was written before, I really -- the way I like but I like the old language. I don't -- there's nothing in the EAR that -- I don't think there's anything in the EAR that's causing you to rewrite that, but the old language I think is -- what you're claiming is a minor types revisions were made for clarification, which I think the old code gave everybody the intent Page 118 March 8, 2006 of what to do, but didn't demand that they do it. And here's what happens. You've got a project, the -- you know, an SDP in and somebody's saying, hey, you got two roads, the growth management plan says you have to have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, do we have any public speakers on this? MR. COHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have three, starting with Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On just 4.6(a)? Holy cow! You're going to address 4.6(a). MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. ANDERSON: I want -- my name is Bruce Anderson and I want to agree with Mr. Schiffer on this. This is -- it's always possible to combine the accesses into one. That's not the question. I mean, you can go ahead and cut off everybody and force them into one and that's maximum extent possible. Whether that's always a good idea is quite another matter. Here, there's no discretion left. I think the old language provided staff with the hammer they needed when they wanted to use it, when it was appropriate. But here, you're -- you're elevating access to a comprehensive plan issue, and I don't think it belongs there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere is next? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere for the record. I -- I tend to agree. I don't think it's -- it's the intent of -- of this language, at least not in terms of what I heard Don say to necessarily limit at a particular location access to one singular point where it's signalized. Page 119 March 8, 2006 At the same time, transportation staff would like to see things like, you know, perimeter roads, frontage roads or other things that minimize the need for access to the arterial system, and I understand that. You may have multiple points of ingress in and out of a -- of a particular activity center or mixed use or commercial development that, as I think Mr. Schiffer indicated, might be limited to a right in, right out. And as long as they're spaced properly, those actually diffuse the congestion that will occur at a signalized intersection. So, I would suggest perhaps it -- either the -- from my perspective, either the language prior to the amendment or adding perhaps another sentence that says at the end, however, multiple access points may be appropriate if adequately spaced or otherwise restricted. I mean, I don't think that -- and, Don, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe -- I don't think the intent is to necessarily limit access to -- to one singular point. But that's the way it reads. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's exactly what it says, shall. MR. MULHERE: That's the way it reads. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, here's the problem. You've got a plan in for review and you've got -- remember the people that are going to be reviewing it are not necessarily in this room, and they're going to say, shall, that means you can't have these other roads. You shall put everything together. MR. MULHERE: I don't even know if that's consistent with the access management plan, which -- you know, which allows right in and right out if spaced appropriately. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: On-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. Page 120 March 8, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Sorry. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. That's do -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But as I was going to say, nor will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After Marjorie says something, do you have something else to add to it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nor would it allow what Bob's saying, is somebody by reading this strictly would not allow me to connect to my neighboring problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I wanted to put in this in a little bit of perspective because it says, the intent of the access management plan provisions is defined by the following guidelines and principals. So, I think what this is an attempt to do is to explain the intent of an existing access management plan. But the points are well taken about this, because if it means something different than what we have in a current access management plan or could be taken that way, it might, you know, trigger an amendment that gets to where you all are talking about. So, I just wanted to kind of put it a little bit in perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Maybe -- let's see what this sounds like to you. The number of ingress -- ingress and egress points shall be minimized with preference at signalized locations to the maximum extent possible. Does that do anything for it? Does that help in any way? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure what was wrong in the old thing. I mean, in the EAR you're claiming you're either buying Page 121 March 8, 2006 our text revisions for clarification, but they do change the meaning of what it says. And the old one was -- what was the problem with that? Or Don will tell us the problem with that. Let's fix that. MR. SUMMERS: I was telling Randy, I don't even remember when this changed or who changed it so -- and it says, you know, single access points. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SUMMERS: I don't -- you know, if old language or what -- what Bob Murray said, I'm fine. You mean from the aspect of following the access management standards, that's what we're trying to get. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: I was just going to comment that the EAR itself calls for changing the policy for clarity purposes. I disagree that the language here makes a substantive change. The way the language reads right now is the number of ingress and egress points shall be minimized and shall be combined and signalized to the maximum extent possible. So, the existing language is already telling us to try to minimize the number of access points and to put them at signalized intersections. I don't read it as significantly different. My last comment would be if you want to leave it the old language, okay. To me it just doesn't make a substantive difference but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I -- I think the only thing that here, in this current language it says it has to go into a single access point. And the old language doesn't say that. MR. WEEKS: Agreed. COMMISSIONER CARON: So, the old -- the old language Page 122 March 8, 2006 would seem to be actually clearer and more flexible. MR. SUMMERS: I'm with the old language. COMMISSIONER CARON: And have you ever -- did you have any problem with -- MR. SUMMERS: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the old language, then I don't. MR. SUMMERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, why don't we revert back to the old language? Is that agreeable with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm happy. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I was going to make motion to that respect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We -- they can't make motions. We're not doing motions at this point. We're going to make a motion at the end of the elements. We're looking for consensus on language during the elements and then at the end. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I would be for retaining the previous language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, I'll go along with it. I think that anything we can do to make the people in shopping centers wait longer than the people on the road, we're better off. So, you got time to go shopping, you got time to wait. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except when one of those people in the back of an emergency vehicle is having a heart attack -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll clear for emergency vehicles. Okay. Is there anything else on Page 6? Page 123 March 8, 2006 We go to C on the same policy. I just got a -- you entered the word or include the word "existing" as new? Would that also apply to planned? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, we should insert existing implant interchanges in intersections? MR. SCOTT: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's real good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Add that. Page 7. Any questions on Page 7 from the commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just out of curiosity, why is the Bay Shore CRA highlighted? Just -- I mean, it's not important but -- MR. WEEKS: We were simply acknowledging its existence. We don't have to do that but as you can see we've eliminated from below as -- as one of the areas that might be appropriate for redevelopment because in fact the county hadn't already enacted and established it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you're pointing out that this exists already, not -- MR. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- not be a future one. Okay. Good. MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 4.8. You have encouraged recognition of identifiable communities within Collier County. Page 124 March 8, 2006 I would just want to know that that's not encouraging incorporation by the words "encouraging recognition". There are some communicates, although I'd like to see them out of Collier County. They might be homeless right now and I hate to see them having their own municipality. No telling what will come out of that. Is -- is encourage recognition, would that potentially provide fuel to the fire for -- MR. WEEKS: I certainly hope not. That's not the intent of the language. And if you see the second sentence clarifies as to one example, the 12 planning communities are unincorporated county. There's one example of how we recognized identifiable communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you say encourage recognition of identifiable planning communities? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was -- that was what I was going to suggest, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that have any problems for you, David? MR. WEEKS : Well, then that connotes those specific 12 planning communities. And we do want it to have broader applicability than that. You can see the second sentence that we've added, aside from mentioning those 12 planning communities, also concludes with and commonly recognized neighborhoods. F or example, if we have readily available data for the Pelican Bay community, that happens to be a census designated place. So we have some census data that we can readily produce for that geographic area. Golden Gate City's another example of a CDP, and we have readily available data. That's the type of thing we're simply trying to identify in a generic sense. I would suggest not adding the planning community to the first sentence. Page 125 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't have any -- you aren't concerned then that this is going to lead to individual incorporations throughout the county? MR. WEEKS: No, sir, I really don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a further question. Many people recognize East Naples as being an area considerably larger than what the county has related it. How then would I square that with this identifiable communities thing? Weare -- in order to know where you are in East Naples today, you need to see what the planning community says. And suddenly you find out you're in someplace else. So does that impact in any way? I mean identifiable communities, satisfaction of what government purpose? To create planning communities, to enhance them, to expand them? MR. WEEKS: No. It's only to -- to recognize those areas where people from -- might request information. We get data requests all the time. Sometimes they're very site specific. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Functionality? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. COHEN: Let me give you an example. We did the Vanderbilt Beach zoning overlay . We had a request from that particular area or community. We had a Naples Park Community Plan, and we had our request from that particular community. I think that's what Dave is trying to say. There's varying levels of communities, and that's what -- when we identify them, they may be at a very small level or larger level. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In fact, they're subsets. MR. COHEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. I can appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? Page 126 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Just a housecleaning item. On policy 4.7, item B, I think that and at the end there should be deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, what is it? Could you repeat that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 4.7, subheading B, as in baker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: After-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you pull your cord -- nobody can hear what you're saying without your speaker there. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Policy 4.7, item B, sub heading B, US 41 north to Naples Park, then it says and. I think the and should be dropped. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : You still have C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You still have an item C it's referring. Then you would go and, C, Bonita Beach Road between Vanderbilt Beach Drive and the west end of Little Hickory Shores number one subdivision. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would you then still retain the C marking if you continued it on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's part of a series. MR. WEEKS: I agree, Mr. Chairman, that it's providing a list and that's typical that as you're concluding the list, you have that connecting term such as and. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Part of a series. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: It won't make a substantive difference if we take it out. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, it won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. On 4.8, down at the bottom, Page 127 March 8, 2006 when it talks about BEBR high range -- and I'm probably not remembering this correctly, but in the AUIR didn't we look at BEBR high and then after the five years look at an average of BEBR high and BEBR medium and not BEBR 95 percent of high? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We did with respect to the water. To the -- to Mr. Deloney's organization. MR. CO HEN: Water and sewer was different than the rest of the AUIR. MR. WEEKS: I sub-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Everything else was 95 percent? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean I said I -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Water-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, you -- court reporters are pretty slick. You slid in here, I didn't even see you change. Pretty good. Page eight. Any questions from the commission on page eight? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do too. Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll go. 5.1. Talk to me about the need for this new language. Are-- MR. WEEKS: This coincides with the changes to the density rating system. Most particularly where the county commissioners directed in the EAR to restrict residential density in the coastal high hazard area to four units per acre. The density rating system is applicable for properties coming in and requesting a rezoning and typically an up zoning, typically from your agricultural zoning district. Policy 5.1 you can think of as applying to nonconformities. It's the exception to the rule. If there's a property out there today in the coastal high hazard area that is zoned commercial, they really have -- Page 128 March 8, 2006 you can view it as them having a choice. They could use the density rating system for the conversion of commercial zoning, but if that property is in the urban coastal fringe subdistrict, which is totally within the coastal high hazard area, they would be limited to four units per acre, period. Because there's a cap in the urban coastal fringe of four, with exception of affordable housing. But if they were to utilize policy 5.1, what it says is that we will do in -- a comparison of the public facility impacts, compatibility considerations, and environmental impacts -- it doesn't say this is how it's applied -- for that property. The result is that potentially a property in the coastal high hazard area could be rezoned from commercial to residential at a density in excess of four units per acre. If you -- one way of looking at it would be to say, well, gee, that's a loophole. And this language -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Precisely. MR. WEEKS: This language is intended to close that loophole. So that if you have that commercial property and you want to rezone to residential, if you're in the coastal high hazard area you're capped at four units per acre, no different than under the density system. So we have a level playing field. No matter which provision you use, four is the cap. That's the biggest change, I would say. The other is -- is changes to policy 5.1 -- because you can see a lot of additions here -- is to have a similar type provision for industrially zoned property, allowing it to be rezoned so long as you do not increase the density or the intensity of the development. So that if you have an industrial property and you wanted to rezone to commercial, that you -- you would still be able to do that, as long as you don't increase the intensity of that development. Subsection D, under policy 5.1, is recognizing the whole category of properties that you can think of as nonconforming. Those that if you looked at the future land use map designation you'd say, well, that Page 129 March 8, 2006 property shouldn't -- shouldn't be zoned that way. It's not consistent with the map. Yet we have certain policies that recognize that that property -- those properties are exceptions to the rule. They are consistent with the plan for a different reason. That includes those properties that when we went through a zoning reevaluation program in the early '90s had zoning inconsistent with the future land use map, yet through certain application procedures they were able to keep their rezoning -- the zoning on their property. Properties that were already improved. That essentially meant developed or might have infrastructure in place. Those properties were protected and allowed to keep their zoning. We've made changes over the years to the future land use element removing provisions, but some properties were rezoned under those provisions. So policies recognize that those properties are nonetheless consistent with the future land use element. So as a whole, there's properties out there that have zoning that are not consistent with the future land use map but are covered by policy. And that's what this policy 5.1 addresses in part, is allowing those properties to still be considered consistently zoned and that they could also go through a zoning change, so long as they do not increase the density or intensity. The opposite approach in the way policy 5.1 at one time dealt with these properties was an all or nothing approach. Your zoning is not consistent with the future land use map, if you want to come in and rezone the property, you must drop all the way down to whatever density or intensity is consistent with the future land use map, which generally speaking for residential you had to drop down to three or four units per acre. This allows properties to rezone at the same level of intensity or move closer towards consistency with the future land use map. COMMISSIONER CARON: I see this policy, especially A, as Page 130 March 8, 2006 allowing people to get around maximum density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, in your discussion in your first explanation you referenced the coastal high hazard as a limiting factor. Can you tell us how that is pulled into item A, for example? MR. WEEKS: That would be what I was discussing earlier. If you had a property, say, zoned C3 and the future land use map designation is simply urban coastal fringe and it doesn't qualify under any of our text base provisions for commercial zoning, yet there it is and it's allowed to remain by some existing policy. If that property owner wanted to come in and rezone their property to residential, they would be limited to no more than four units per acre, period. There is no exception. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? Because it's in the coastal high hazard, correct? MR. WEEKS: Right. When we get over to the density rating system, you will see that we've added -- no. Actually, I think it's under the overlays and special features. So later in the future land use element, we've added a provision for coastal high hazard area where we stated four is the maximum density and we also state something else about mobile home zoning not being allowed, new rezonings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. WEEKS: You put the pieces together, you have that cap of four units per acre. I would view it as closing -- I don't want to call it a loophole but closing a door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I was trying to go was slowly indicate that maybe if you referenced the coastal hazard area as being a limiting factor in the density in the conversion -- because in the last part of A, the last sentence -- first of all, you say you cannot exceed the intensity in the new zoning -- the intensity of the new zoning district, then you say the foregoing notwithstanding, such commercial properties may be approved for the addition of residential units in Page 131 March 8, 2006 accordance with the commercial mixed use subdistrict through an increase an overall intensity may result. And I think that's where the issue is. You're actually saying now that you can't have the increase, but this language reads as though you could have the increase. And I'm wondering if there's a better way to state it. MR. WEEKS: Let me explaining the rationale. Let me jump to the last sentence, and then I'll come back to your point, if I may, Mr. Chairman. The last sentence says the zoning change of such commercially zoned properties to a residential zoning district is allowed as provided for in the density rating system of the future land use element. That's where it's -- it's taking this ability to rezone from commercial to residential, it's referring you back over to the density rating system, which it did not used to do, and there you will see that that density is capped at four units per acre. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So-- MR. WEEKS: Back to your-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Then go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go back to the buyers then. MR. WEEKS: Back to the question that Mr. Strain asked about. What this is recognizing is the -- or providing for is the ability to do mixed use development. So you have your commercial zoning in existence in the coastal high hazard area in our example, and you want to do a mixed use development. You want to put some residential units on top of the commercial. This would allow that to occur. It would allow you to do that mixed use development. So in that sense you could be adding intensity because you've still got the commercial development that's allowed, plus you've now got these residential units on top. Page 132 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: So you have intensity changes but not density changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: Well, then I guess you could say you have both because you're adding density that didn't previously exist. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yes. MR. WEEKS: But it goes hand in hand -- I mean it's a policy decision, certainly. Do we want to allow this to occur? This fits in with one of those smart growth principles of allowing mixed use development, but there's potential trade off here of saying, well, yeah, we want to do that, but do we want to do that in the coastal high hazard area? That's the real policy decision here. Staff is suggesting it's an appropriate thing to do, but ultimately the policy makers will-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, does 9J5 allows us to rise -- to raise intensity in the coastal high hazard? For example, item 3 B of9J5 says direct population concentrations away from known and predicted coastal high hazard areas. And if you're allowing intensity increases, I don't think you're doing it. Item seven says designating coastal high hazard areas and limiting development in these areas. I'm not sure that by allowing an increase -- I don't care for what smart growth principle you have -- in a coastal high hazard, you're meeting the intent of those conditions in 9J5. MR. WEEKS: Well, one way to look at it would be if the property were rezoning from commercial to residential, we would allow them to do so at a density -- maximum density of four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you'd eliminate the commercial. MR. WEEKS: Correct. So -- but to the point of residential, by allowing for the mixed use development, on the one hand, yes, you're adding residential development but at no greater density than you Page 133 March 8, 2006 would allow if they converted to commercial. And commercial itself has no density. There are no residential units associated with it. So we're allowing two things to occur. We're allowing the commercial development and the residential, but we're not increasing the residential beyond what they could otherwise have. From the perspective of hurricane evacuation, a commercial development is generally not a consideration. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we've played this game, and I think we need to make it very clear that -- that in the coastal high hazard area you are not going to accept anything more than four. And CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the problem is -- he's saying it's four, the problem is it's a new four. If you have commercial on the books right now and you've calculated your overall coastal high hazard area, you don't have four for the commercial that's there. You've got commercial. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by allowing the commercial to add four as a mixed use, you're increasing the intensity in the coastal high hazard, which seems to contradict 9J5. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, what does intensity mean in 9J5? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have the definitions with me. I didn't plan on going that far with it. We have a county attorney here, maybe she knows. MS. STUDENT: Intensity, the way I understand it -- and I'm going to ask the planning staff to say if I'm correct, but I've always understood intensity to mean for such things as square footages for commercial and industrial uses and density as related to residential development. That's the way I've always understood it. MR. WEEKS: I agree. Page 134 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not that I -- maybe I'll add some clouds to this instead of some clarity. When we in smart growth dealt with the issues of mixed use, we didn't particularly get involved with the coastal high hazard because I think we -- we agree that putting more people there in excess is not a useful thing. However, if we were to take the base density in the simple conversion, I don't think smart growth principals apply there. However, I know that that -- that's acceptable. But if we add a commercial piece, we would be helping a community, that's the intent to smart growth, by having some commercial enterprises that would serve that local community. And it doesn't impact in terms of evacuation or issues associated with hurricane because your evacuation from commercial is immediate. And your density then is the only thing left, and that's within the zoned acceptance, right? MR. WEEKS: (Nodding head.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that a reasonable statement, what I've just made? MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that -- I think in that context mixed use does not give it a bonus, if you will, but in fact helps the community. MS. STUDENT: I'm going to defer to -- if I may -- Mr. Weeks again. But I turned over to the commercial mixed use subdistrict, because that's what this seems to relate to, and in reading paragraph three on page 23, under 14, commission -- commercial mixed use subdistrict, it seems to limit the density in the CHHA to four. Am I -- so I don't think when you take these two things together you're increasing the density in a CHHA, unless I'm wrong. Page 135 March 8, 2006 MR. WEEKS: You're correct. And similarly there's language in the activity centers, as well, where it provides for mixed use development here within the coastal high hazard, four units per acre is the cap. That's a consistent theme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, since you're worried, the intensity really is square footage. There's nothing that says that when you add residential that you don't have to decrease the size of the commercial. In other words, the commercial is unregulated in size, other than building mass and setback and architectural standard. It's not a -- there's no floor area ratio. So conceptually within the same building mass that could be potentially all commercial, you're now going to add residential units. So one could draw the logic that you're going to be decreasing appropriate -- you know, the same size of commercial build out. So there's -- you know, while he called it an additional, it's really an additional use that's allowed, it's not additional area that's allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there limitation on the maximum amount of residential you could have versus commercial, or could you just put a boutique on the piece of the first floor and convert the rest of the building to residential? MR. WEEKS: You could subject to that four unit breaker cap. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In fact, if I may add to that, the mixed use smart growth principle that will be coming to this board at some point call for commercial, then some office, and then some residential. And it can be configured to be adjacent at an elevation half the level of the building. Whatever way architects can find a way to make it most suitable. But it never changes the density overall, whatever is -- the underlying zoning is the acceptance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, my point wasn't that. My point was that someone could use this commercial zoning really by Page 136 March 8, 2006 putting a very small piece of commercial and utilizing this change or this increase in density, in residential density, and build out a residential product, basically. MR. WEEKS: That-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Call it mixed use but you have no limitation on it. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. But I would again remind you that -- that if the property owner chose to rezone it from commercial to residential entirely, the end result is the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: No more than four units per acre. So if you have a one acre property, they could have four units, whether it's rezoned to residential or whether it remains commercial, and they add those four units to however much commercial development they can get on that site at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody discussed this one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I just add one more piece to it, that in the mixed use information that's going to be brought forward, it talks about distance from activity centers and it talks about maximum and minimum acreage. So that it -- some of the constraints are in there against a willy-nilly type of piecemeal building of commercial and residential. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure I'll have plenty of comments when that comes forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back on page eight, I haven't asked the question I had on page -- policy 5.1. The first sentence, why is that being related? MR. WEEKS: One argument would be that that's a given, but really what we've done is incorporated it into policy 5.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You say in 5.2 all applications and Page 137 March 8, 2006 petitions for proposed development shall be reviewed for consistency with the Growth Management Plan. This one is more positive. It says all rezones must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. I like the more positive approach in this county with everything we've seen come forward, rather than the ambiguous approach in 5.2. I don't see a need why that should be deleted. It doesn't hurt to leave it there. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just reemphasizes the need for consistency. Because that's a good policy to have that in. Anybody have a problem with leaving that in? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: In 5.2 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we had a speaker. Did you have a speaker on 5.1 ? MR. COHEN: Mr. Anderson wanted to speak on 5.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: While he's approaching, if you'll all permit me, policy 5.1, that first statement, not the same as but very similar to the existing policy 5.2. Staff viewed them as being somewhat redundant. So the idea was delete that first sentence from policy 5.1 and modify policy 5.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I think you did is you diluted it by putting it the way you did in 5.2. 5.1 is very direct -- directional. It says all rezonings must be consistent with the GMP. 5.2 it's going to be they're going to be reviewed for consistency, and then those found to be inconsistent shall not be approved. I like the more positive approach, that they shall -- that they must be consistent with the GMP. That seems to be more forceful. And that's an issue we've Page 138 March 8, 2006 seen challenged many times in front of this planning commission. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you can probably change it to be more positive in 5.2 by just saying that the -- all applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with the Growth Management -- with this Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is what it says in 5.1. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: If you want it in a separate-- MR. WEEKS: That's probably better. Because the policy 5.1 sentence only applies to rezoning. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. And I like 5.2 better for that. MR. WEEKS: But we also wanted to be clear in policy 5.2, continue to say as reviewed by the -- determined by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So that -- that keeps it in the public hearing realm, as opposed to telling staff, for example, you're reviewing a site development plan, you have to make sure it's consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Well, there are certain provisions of the Growth Management Plan that we don't have purview to make that -- that call on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we get to policy 5.2, maybe we can strengthen that language and still meet the goal. Before we go there, though, Mr. Anderson, you had something to say on 5.l. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yes. In your -- in your recommendations that you're going to make to shut the door on anything more than four units per acre in the coastal high hazard area, I would ask you to leave the door open for any Page 139 March 8, 2006 project that contains an affordable workforce or gap housing component. Because with the situation we have here, we need to take advantage of it wherever you have a property owner who's willing to try it. And I would just ask you to consider that general exception to this. And I'm not saying the affordable housing density bonus. I am saying a project that has an affordable component. Because a project can have one without going through, taking advantage of the density bonus provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd have to ask, Bruce, is everything I can find in 9J5 when it talks about coastal high hazard areas talks about limiting density. Do you have any reference that would indicate where or how we could be increasing density for any particular purpose -- and this particular purpose being a social good in some sense, but where does it allow that? MR. ANDERSON : Well, it allows it because it's already allowed today under our comprehensive plan. So it's already been determined to be consistent. I'm just asking you not to take something away that already exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the idea that it exists today, I think that's that debatable idea that -- where we've had discrepancies in this code over the density in the coastal high hazard area where some sections say four, no more than four, shall be four, and others have bonus provisions. MR. ANDERSON: Well, there are -- there are areas in the coastal high hazard area that are not in the urban coastal fringe. The urban coastal fringe it is, I believe, clearly limited to four units per acre. But in coastal high hazard areas outside that, the density rating system otherwise applies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. ANDERSON: The -- and on D and E, I -- I was on the smart Page 140 March 8, 2006 growth committee with Mr. Murray for awhile, and I wanted to urge you to add to the last sentence of D for residential and mixed use development only. And then at the end of that sentence, after the density rating system, put or the commercial mixed use subdistrict. I don't know if those were intentional omissions or not, but those are other areas where we do provide for mixed use. And then on E, paragraph -- well, I'll wait until -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's -- yeah. Let's digest D first. David, are you understanding his suggestions there, and are they consistent with what staffs intent was for that paragraph? MR. WEEKS: I need a moment to digest that, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any comments from the panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like it clear in my own mind what Bruce is relating. It says for residential development only. Okay. In the mixed use that will come before this board later, we speak of a mixed use with a commercial component, commercial with a residential component, and residential with a -- with a commercial component. So, Bruce, this says for residential development only, and then you said add for residential and mixed use or commercial? Do you want the modifier -- MR. ANDERSON: I wanted to add -- after the residential, put and mixed use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For residential and mixed use development, is that what you're saying? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You can -- well, if it's a mixed use and the -- and the -- and we speak of intensity for commercial, the density -- the only thing that we count is the residential, right? Page 141 March 8, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: But it's not residential development only, it's mixed use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Okay. Sowe're introducing -- what we want to introduce is the potential for it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now I understand it more clearly, what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to support it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I do too. Any problems? Okay. F or that one -- MR. ANDERSON: And at the end of that sentence, adding the reference to the commercial mixed use subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was in your previous statement. I'm assuming everybody understood that. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David seemed to indicate that so-- MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. And on E we're introducing some new standards to determining whether there is an increase in the intensity of development. When this provision was originally adopted, it was limited to public facilities impacts because that was the whole basis for doing the down zoning, was to limit public expenditures, and so you wanted to keep the same level of public facilities impacts. And that was the standard of measurement. That is an obj ective standard that can be either determined either Page 142 March 8, 2006 you meet it or you don't. The environmental impacts and compatibility considerations are quite subjective. And I think you ought to leave it as it is and not introduce subjective standards into determining whether the overall intensity is being increased or not. Let's -- let's keep it an objective measurement. And the impacts to public facilities, does it generate more traffic? Is it going to use more water capacity? Those are things that either -- are either yes or no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't feel that the environmental impacts or compatibility considerations are part of something that should be weighed in regards to the intensity in these areas? MR. ANDERSON: No. Because they're too subjective. Those are appropriate considerations for reasonings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't this about rezonings? MR. WEEKS: (Nodding head.) MR. ANDERSON: Yes. But consider them as part of the rezone criteria, not whether there is an increase in the intensity of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the increased intensity and development triggers the rezone, why wouldn't you want to consider the environmental impacts and compatibility considerations of that? MR. ANDERSON: You're going to consider those anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then what difference does it make? MR. ANDERSON: Because one of the criteria -- overall intensity of development and whether it's increased or not is on a level of criteria the same as environmental impacts and the same as compatibility. And here we're making -- we're also making them subsets of determining whether the intensity has been increased. I'm saying leave them as their stand-alone considerations, don't lump them in with intensity that -- that otherwise objective intensity determination. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Did you have any Page 143 March 8, 2006 comments on that, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. The first comment is that there's a certain amount of subjectivity involved with public facility impacts in the sense that there are numerous public facilities to be measured. Some might show an increase and some might show a decrease, comparing the existing and the proposed development. So there's a certain balancing act that the decision makers will have to make as it is, potentially. Because, again, you could have impacts increased or decreased, depending upon the different public facility. Excuse me. I do think that consideration of environmental impacts and compatibility considerations are appropriate in measuring the intensity of a proposed development versus what is allowed presently. Further, I can tell you that staff -- at the staff level when people have inquired about this policy, 5.1 as it exists today, our response has been to tell them these are the three considerations that staff would utilize in reviewing the application. We don't get a lot. We probably had half a dozen or less to review, rezone requests under policy 5.1. But that is the response that we would provide to -- to the inquirer as to how we would be reviewing it. We've had at least two. I said half a dozen or less, I can think of at least two rezonings that have gone through the public hearing process. And they had the -- the analysis prepared, most particularly public facilities. But if not prepared by the applicant, staff would also look at the -- the compatibility considerations, as well as the environmental impacts for a given piece of property. And I think its appropriate as a measurement of intensity. Bruce may be correct that at one time, you know, back in the earlier days of the comprehensive plan that the public facility impact was the single consideration, but that's not how staff would recommend you view it today. And has not been the case, again, for a Page 144 March 8, 2006 number of years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So remember when Mark asked the question adding four units, would that increase the intensity of use on a property. This would be the format of which you would decide that. In other words, you would review a commercial project and then review a commercial proj ect with this residential, but of course no -- I mean somebody -- I could design a maxed out commercial proj ect that they wouldn't even build to prove that. Is that what this would be used for? Because-- MR. WEEKS: Well, actually, an exception is provided under paragraph A that would allow for the mixed use development to occur, even though it might result in an increase in intensity. So it's actually carving out an exception. Because if you're allowed to do the same amount of commercial development today as under your proposed development with mixed use and you're going to add some residential units, we would assume that the impact is going to increase because you're going to -- number one, we would assume you're going to generate more traffic. Because if -- you're allowed to have the same amount of commercial development, plus you've got these residential units. So, again, that's why we're carving out an exception to this impact analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's where I understand, I think, where Mr. Anderson's coming from. Is that -- to do this you'd have to have a hypothetical-- because it's existing zoning. Zoning doesn't have impact, the use on the zoning does. So it's hypothetical against proposed. So obviously you would assume somebody smart enough to always make their hypothetical. So it winds up being he's right, a subjective kind of contest, may be wasting everybody's time. I mean we've had some zoning hearings here where, you know, people have proposed massive hypothetical, and we end up focussing, Page 145 March 8, 2006 arguing whether that's a realistic hypothetical. So it's -- again, it's almost the definition of what subj ective is, just playing with it. So I kind of agree that it is something that could be a dangerous thing. It's never going to be something that protects because anybody with a lick of sense would always be able to make the hypothetical pretty nasty in intensity. MR. WEEKS: I would agree with you that -- that -- just as this body may and hopefully the Board of County Commissioners staff as well would look at the hypotheticals and if -- if someone's got a C3 or C4 zoning which allows retail uses, personal service, and office, and they walk in the doors saying, well, our comparison is C4 zoning with office only, I would tell you that staff would say that's unacceptable. Because you -- you allowed a much greater intensity of development as in -- intensity as in the -- the traffic generation that you could have for retail versus most office uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But see what we're doing now is giving hypothetical hypotheticals. So it's really -- it is a subjective -- MR. WEEKS: And I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying even if we did not include the environmental and the -- the compatibility considerations, just public facility impact alone is not going to be a black and white comparison-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- because of the potential array of choices and what we could say is -- is the hypothetical use in the before scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, watch the paint dry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'd like to get a -- I'd like to see if we could remove E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm trying to go forward with a consensus. That's where I was trying to head. Before we can move to 5.2, let's figure out where we're going to go with E. Staff would like to see it remain as is. What does this commission like? Page 146 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: I would like to see it remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thumbs down. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. What Mr. Anderson said was that it already exists. And I think what he meant by that is these criteria of qualification already exist in another location, as it were. So I -- if they already exist, I'm not sure -- this is in the GMP so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes or no, do you want -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to come to it, and I may be thinking aloud and maybe I should apologize for that. COMMISSIONER CARON: It doesn't exist elsewhere. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I misunderstood. I thought he said it did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys gotta -- we've gotta keep up with the court reporter. Mr. Murray wants to continue with his dialogue, then Miss Caron if -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I can -- because that's where I'm hinged on, if you don't mind MR. ANDERSON: My name is Bruce Anderson. I did make that statement. Where I believe it already exists is under the rezone criteria, which would -- you would have to look at if you were bringing in a petition to change the zoning on the proj ect anyway. You'd get to look at these things. I'm saying it's already -- already encumbered by the criteria in the Land Development Code, and it's on an equal basis with the intensity measurement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess for me, Mr. Anderson, is the question of -- if it already exists and it is, therefore, part of the consideration by staff of whatever rezone is being desired, how does leaving E in intact further or reduce somehow the viability of the effort? Page 147 March 8, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I'll give you an example. I -- let's say I'm bringing in a hypothetical project, and it has some environmental impacts which may be somewhat undesirable. And in order to try to get that project approved, if I am lowering my impacts on public facilities, I'm going to argue that, you know, you need to consider that equally, that that's important, as well. And perhaps in the minds of the decision makers, that will offset the negatives associated with the environmental impacts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to -- I'm going to take the position then -- I've made a decision. I'm going to agree with Mr. Anderson's view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you had something else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I just wanted to say we're -- Bruce has pointed out something, too, that it says here that this is how it is determined. What you really are leaving us in a weak spot -- because, again, you're going to be up against some bizarre hypothetical and this -- the new project comes in less, this is almost saying you have to determine that it's less intense. Unless you want to argue the hypothetical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still trying to get a pole of the commission. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Delete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Delete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Delete. Brad is delete, Donna and I are keeping it, Mr. Murray is delete it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll keep it brief and just delete it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So one, two, three, four delete, two to keep. Miss Student, I understand then as an LP A discussing Page 148 March 8, 2006 amendments to the GMP, do we need a super majority? I mean do we need a majority of the entire commission? MS. STUDENT: Not at the transmittal stage, at the adoption stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we-- MS. STUDENT: We are transmittal of these amendments right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it only needs a minor, just a majority of those presents. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it looks like the deletion is the -- Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: I just wanted to give a response to Bruce's comment. I agree that rezone criteria do call for reviewing public facility impacts, but it's not a comparison between the existing versus the proposed. It's the -- in the nature of is there adequate -- are there adequate public facilities, is there adequate capacity, not compare the before and after scenario. It's really a different kind of comparison or reVIew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The second thing I would say is that, again, whether you limit this to public facility impacts or if you add these additional that staff is proposing, there's still going to be a balancing act. You're still going to have to consider -- you're still going to have to give weight to each of the individual public facility impacts. If you're generating more traffic or if you're generating less traffic, how do you weigh that with a greater or lesser amount of water consumption? So there's going to be a balancing act. And you may find that -- that in every way the public facility impacts are decreased but traffic is increased, and that might carry the day. Because ultimately the Board of County Commissioners will have to weigh the Page 149 March 8, 2006 decision of each public facility impact and the weight they give to each of those. And then of course if you throw in environmental impacts and compatibility considerations, I would suggest to you that the same type of activity would occur. You have to give weight to those. So in his example, if there's an environmental derogation, that mayor may not tilt the scale when compared to the other considerations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does Mr. Weeks' comments change anybody's mind? Okay. Mr. Anderson, I don't think we need to hear from you, unless you want to try to defeat your purpose. MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess then the majority of this commission has recommended E be deleted, David. MR. WEEKS: In its entirety, therefore no public facility impact consideration, as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since I'm in the consenting vote, I can't tell you that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As someone -- you know, I'll give Dave another chance to rewrite this. I think maybe it's the way it's rewritten that -- that it turns out that it looks like a hypothetical war. So if you want to rewrite this and take another shot at it and bring it back before us, I'll accept that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I thought the deletion, if it were to occur, would be the environmental and the compatibility consideration. That's what I thought we were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, let's ask David. David, would it be a waste of time to ask you to rewrite this? MR. WEEKS: The sense -- the sense that I get from the commission is that it would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked. Page 150 March 8, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the four people that intended to see this deleted, did you mean the entire section E or just the references to environmental impacts and compatibility considerations? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just the two references, environmental and compatibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just those two references. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to 5.2. This is the one that we just started talking about the consistency language. I know Miss Caron already commented on it. I started to. David, this one when it references -- it says it's going to be reviewed for consistency whereas the policy that you recommended that this policy replace previously said they will -- they should -- they must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. That's much more positive language. Is there a reason why we would've diluted the language like we did in this paragraph? MR. WEEKS: I guess I just don't see it that way. The proposed language says they'll be reviewed for consistency and those found to be inconsistent shall not be approved. MS. STUDENT: If that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Student? MS. STUDENT: To me that's sort of is a different way of saying the same thing. Page 151 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if your legal opinion is that then you'll have to defend it in -- MS. STUDENT: Well, when you say that those found to be inconsistent with the plan by the board shall not be approved, I think that's like saying they must be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting thing is that I've -- we very rarely ever see a project that's inconsistent. But -- okay. Is there any comments? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: When -- if they mean the same thing, why wouldn't we use the shortest one, which is the first one? It's more direct and to the point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, do you have a response to that? MR. WEEKS: I just prefer the wording in the second one. It just explains more the process. We're going to review the application and if the conclusion is it's not consistent, then we will deny it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But if you want to really flag it and let the person know you're serious about it, the way to do it is shortest possible stop, you can't go on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The only comment I would make is that I believe that 5.2 is now broader because it's all applications and petitions, as opposed to just rezonings. And I believe that that's -- that's really where the strength of 5.2 is. And I think that we solve it all if we just do all applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, period, you know. Or they won't be approved, if you want to say that, that's fine, you know. MR. WEEKS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the recommended language is all applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Is that acceptable to Page 152 March 8, 2006 everybody on the panel? Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? MR. WEEKS: Could I ask that you consider leaving in the language from 5.2 something to the effect of as determined by the Board of County Commissioners? Let me give you a specific example. Policy 5.4 provides that all new development must be compatible with surrounding -- compatible with and complimentary to surrounding developments. That is a very subjective determination which I will tell you is appropriate for public hearing bodies to make the decision on. If you take it to its extreme, someone could charge staff with not implementing policy 5.4 of the future land use element by approving a site development plan which that person believes is not compatible with surrounding development. The purpose of the staff proposed change is to make sure that we're talking about petitions that are reviewed in public hearing and acted upon by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have any problem adding-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as I said, and those found to be inconsistent with this plan with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David -- David could you repeat that part you wanted to leave on? MR. WEEKS: Okay. First of all, you -- motion so far. All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with the Growth Management Plan as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, okay. Everybody okay with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. Page 153 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Let's move on then. Policy 5.4. Okay. Any questions there? I think I have the same concern as I did with 5.2. You're striking out subject to meet the compatibility criteria of the Land Development Code, and you're simply saying that it includes compatibility criteria. I think subject to meeting compatibility criteria is much stronger. COMMISSIONER CARON: Otherwise I see sort ofa slow erosion of the whole compatibility criteria being sort of taken out one by one in future places. MR. WEEKS: Did you-all have suggested language? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you could leave in the language you've got struck on that first page, on page nine. And then the new language you put in, I'm not sure what good that does on page nine. Unless you want to put in a parenthetical after the original language. New development shall be compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding land uses subject to meeting the compatibility criteria of the Land Development Code. Then you could, after that, leave in the references to the code that you have and drop the rest of the new language. MR. WEEKS: Let me ask the attorney. Marjorie, do you think that's acceptable language? Part of our consideration was wanting to make sure that we took into account just what types of petitions have compatibility criteria, because it's stated very broadly right now. And the rezoning and conditional use -- MS. STUDENT: Those are the two that come to my mind. MR. WEEKS: Right. And that's what we wanted to make sure that was covered. MS. STUDENT: And, I'm sorry, Dave, what -- would you repeat what you wanted to ask me? I mean those are the two, rezones and Page 154 March 8, 2006 conditional uses. MR. WEEKS: So do -- would you -- do you think that the existing language, the way policy 5.4 reads now, but with the addition of the LDC references? MS. STUDENT: I think that's fine. I actually -- I agree with the planning commission. I think that's a bit stronger, subject to compatibility, other than saying -- instead of saying which includes. And I have no problem with it the way it was worded, subject to meeting that with the reference to the land code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay? Staffs-- MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- understanding that? MR. CO HEN: One question. Marj orie, do you think with the wording new developments that that would include rezonings and conditional uses, as well, just for the record? MS. STUDENT: Yeah. Because I think it means anything that isn't out of the ground -- you know, out of the ground. It's something that's new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any problems with the commission? Go on to page ten. Page ten. Does anybody have any questions on page ten? COMMISSIONER CARON: 5.7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 5.7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron first, then Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- 5.7, my note simply says insane. I don't know what you-all want to do to our population here, but this is -- MR. WEEKS: Some explanation perhaps. Page 155 March 8,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, there would be a good starting place. MR. WEEKS: And I may need Cormac's help on this. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or just striking it might be a-- MR. WEEKS: That may be the result at the end. At the affordable housing workshop and also the gap housing workshop held last year, the Board of County Commissioners gave general direction to staff, probably a half a dozen items. One of those was to allow affordable workforce housing by right. One of the ways -_ and we'll get to that more a little bit later in the FLUE under the density rating system. But one of the ways to do that would be to allow guest houses to be rented out. But it is based upon an assumption that a rental unit of a guest house, which has limitations on the size of the unit, can be no larger than 40 percent the size of the principal structure. So with the exception of very large houses, the guest house is going to be, in my opinion, equivalent to a moderately sized apartment. There's a presumption that due to the size of the unit, that it would be rented at an, quote, unquote, affordable rate. There is no proposed rent control of any type, be it here or when we get to Golden Gate master plan where you'll see similar text. No rent control of any type. So, again, it's an assumption that just by the nature of the type of the unit and the size of the unit that it's going to be affordable. And so just generally speaking this is one, albeit rather drastic, change to the current regulatory framework. One means of potentially providing for additional affordable housing units in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the record -- I know Mr. Schiffer's next, but I want to tell you I was chairman of the first group you spoke of. I attended the workshop. I participated in the second workshop. The issue of renting guest houses came up one time with the first group, and it was soundly recommended that would be a silly Page 156 March 8, 2006 thing to do. We didn't bring it forward. So I don't know how it got into this text. And it is throughout this text. So being at both meetings, being chairman of one of the groups, I don't know where you got this from. So with that said, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm going back to the EAR. I'm not sure you stretched the EAR to get it in there either. What this says you're going to do is you're going to -- obviously the section prior to that recognized identifiable communities in the western urban area, and you were going to encourage this recognition. So I guess what you've done is recognize communities in people's backyards or something. MR. WEEKS: This is not a replacement for that existing policy 5.7. That was merged into policy 4.8 that we discussed earlier about recognition of neighborhoods. This is -- so this is brand-new policy language, and it -- not intended in any way to be a replacement of what was there. It's not a substitution for what's there. It's simply brand-new language, brand-new policy, totally different intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Following that up. Guest houses now can be leased, they just have a limitation on the time. So-- MR. WEEKS: That is not true in Collier County, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can't lease them at all? MR. WEEKS: No. The City of Naples has different rules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm going to reiterate I guess what everybody else is concerned about. I know that if we were to go to certain locations in east Naples and some other locations throughout the county and looked at those small places, we'd find three and four families squeezed in there. And that's of course construed as affordable, okay? Only because the rents are incredibly high. Page 157 March 8, 2006 I'm not sure by allowing a guest house we achieve the purpose that we intend. So I certainly don't find this language satisfactory to me in here. I'm not happy with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't think it serves any purpose to anyone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean actually I support it. So even though as a wise crack there -- I really think it's -- could be a good idea. Because first of all the intent is that the person has to -- one of the people that own the property have to live on the site, whether they live in the guest house or live in the main house. So essentially they're the ones taking care of the property. That may be a good way. I mean the neighborhood I live in, there's a lot of guest houses. They're big houses, there's big guest houses, but I'm still not against this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not reading it right, Brad. MR. WEEKS: I was just going to say actually the way we structured the language is not to require the principal dwelling to be inhabited by the owner so both could be leased or rented out. This is a significant departure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not uncommon in my neighborhood with the -- the owner actually lives in the guest house and rents the big house. So that's now even available. So what you're saying is that you're going to be building two units on a property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But only counting one. MR. WEEKS: That's what would be allowed, yes, sir. Presently, again -- let me go over it again. Presently a guest house is not allowed to be rented out in unincorporated Collier County. And furthermore, the existing language in the LDC provides that -- tries to close the opposite door, saying you can't have the property owner living in the guest house and renting out the principal dwelling. So it's making sure Page 158 March 8, 2006 that neither is rented out. This takes a 180-degree approach saying you can rent out both if you so choose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, community development and environmental services division administrator. Just so the planning commission understands, staff did take -- I guess push the envelope on this based on guidance that the Board of County Commissioners gave staff in regards to the afford -- dealing with the affordable housing issue. And this was -- well, quite frankly it's my understanding that some of this was even going to be proposed at the state level. I have not seen any legislation, but one of our local representatives was exploring this similar idea. I have not seen it in that legislation. So it was written in and certainly we will take your guidance. I -- I know it's -- it is stretching what I would call the envelope in regards to the EAR based amendments. I do not argue that, Mr. Schiffer. But it's -- it's -- was staffs attempt to try and at least bring something back to the board in dealing with certainly an issue that is facing all over the county. Is this the right approach? I don't know. It mayor may not be. But this was an attempt to try and provide what could be affordable rentals for -- for singles or somebody else who were coming to Collier County or coming into Collier County looking for someplace to live at what could be, as David said, an affordable. We had no intent of defining any type of rent control or any other type of activity. COMMISSIONER CARON: If you do this, though-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you are success -- almost going to double our population in a great many areas. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: All of Golden Gate Estates? Page 159 March 8, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. Well, statistically we went back and looked. I -- I ran some numbers. Now you just -- I believe of all the homes that were built over the last five years, we looked in the estates and it was some -- some number of only like 12 percent of the homes that have been built in the estates in the last five years included a guest house. COMMISSIONER CARON: But they haven't been able to rent it before. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. That was only a stab at looking at -- it does -- you're right, this does open the door. And it opens the door -- Don will tell you it opens the door for concurrency issues, it opens the door for all the other type of things. But -- but as -- as each proposal to deal with the affordable housing issue is presented, you've got second and third order effects of the impacts. We agree with that. I don't argue that. I would say you as a -- you as a panel, as the local planning authority, we -- we will -- we will take your position. And -- and if you want to eliminate this, eliminate it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I would like to make a suggestion as the local planning authority that we delete -- MR. SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- this policy. MR. SCHMITT: Please understand, that's how this got here. So I mean we can explore all the reasons why, but it was strictly in looking at some ideas that had been passed to us by other folks within the __ within the community in dealing with this. And Mr. Strain is exactly correct. When you get to the next element, the Golden Gate area master plan, he is exactly correct. There was clear guidance from the master plan committee that they would not allow for rentals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the workshop committee did not Page 160 March 8, 2006 recommend it. I was chairman of that group. MR. SCHMITT: You're correct, they did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And -- and it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Joe, it would do is close the door on code enforcement. But anyway -- MR. SCHMITT: Well -- please, this is not -- this is not an amendment to legitimize -- to say now code enforcement doesn't have to do this. You-all know the city went through this, what, six, seven years ago and finally threw up their hands and said I guess we give up and allowed guest houses. Yes, we do -- I have a considerable problem in regards to enforcing this, but -- but I have to enforce it. As David said, there are no rentals authorized in -- and as such, we -- we attempt to enforce this as best we can. If it's approved, then I get into the rental registration business and all the other things associated with the rental registration and rental property inspections and all the other type of things that are associated with that. So either way, it doesn't reduce my workload. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would it -- for the people that really are against it, would it be more palatable if we made a requirement that the person who owned the property lived in one of the two houses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, this will double the density. It has nothing to do with -- if there's more bodies living on a piece of property, you've got more concurrency issues to deal with, you've got -- right across the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think eyes wide open, people are living in these guest houses now. I mean so you're not doing anything other than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Page 161 March 8,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- helping create a housing -- I think if the person lives on the property, that's a really good looking house, he's not going to let it go out. I think he's going to monitor it. I mean obviously I -- my neighborhood may not be the one that would abuse it the most, but I mean to me it's really an acceptable way. It's the classic apartment above the garage, which is an excellent way to bring affordable housing, where the people monitor their own backyard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you leave it like it is, it's not encouraged. You allow rentals, it will be encouraged. Everybody will do it. You might as well shut the road system down and declare a moratorium because we're not going to have concurrency anymore because we're going to double the density on the road system and the water and the sewer and the police and the fire and every element out there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Your concern is this will cause the construction of a ton of guest houses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the guest houses that exist today are not empty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at least they're not existing freely like they would be if this were to occur. MR. SCHMITT: One of the guidance that was discussed -- of course in the implementation guidance in the LDC you would try and establish a line saying you -- you cannot go back and create it or some other -- I don't know how they would do that. That was discussed with one -- one commissioner I had a discussion with over this issue, would we establish a point in time that it would be allowed. That is something that would have to be vetted through -- legally and otherwise. I don't even want to go down that road. But -- but -- but the -- Mr. Schiffer, you're correct. I could -- right Page 162 March 8, 2006 now I can build a house in the Estates, 40 percent of the square footage can be applied of the principal structure, I can build a guest house and I can -- you know, it could be a mother-in-law suite or the in-laws. That -- there's no prohibition against that. But if it becomes a rental on the market and you're looking for a flat or a place to live, then that's legal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean where would Fonzi live in this town? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you had some comments? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I -- aside from the obvious disastrous effects that have been related here, economics also becomes an important part of this. Because now real estate salespeople will advocate the purchase and acceleration of building in order to induce people to rent their property, which in turn will drive the prices of homes up, not down, and create a new median that is -- so we -- it's actually a punishment. So that's my -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, I -- I understand there's-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- genteel way -- MR. SCHMITT: For every argument for there's probably three arguments against it. If we could just get your, I think, overall opinion and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. One at a time. You can't talk over one another. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think Joe's agreeing with us. And I think pretty much most of us are agreeing, so why don't we just move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to. MR. SCHMITT: I'm not agreeing, I'm just -- I just -- we just threw that in there as -- and exactly what it is -- food for thought and-- David? MR. WEEKS: I just want to get one comment to put it in a little bit of context. It's obvious the direction you're going, and I don't want Page 163 March 8, 2006 to belabor your -- your action on this. One more fact about guest houses that's mentioned in the staff report. For a property to qualify, it has to be a minimum of one acre in size and have a minimum lot width of a hundred five feet. Now in the urban area that's going to eliminate most properties, but in the Golden Gate Estates, when we get there and of course in the rural fringe and RLSA, tremendous opportunity -- potential at least for these to be used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Consensus of the board, all those that would like to see this deleted? Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody like to see this stay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Me. Because this is real smart growth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is real silly -- bad planning, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the growth is coming. This is just a smart place to put it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Growth is only coming if they let it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think if it were smart growth we would allow for several stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The boutiques on the first floor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on with page ten. Are there any other issues on page ten? 5.8 is one I had a question with. You're taking group housing, providing it as a -- allowed in the urban area and may be allowed in other future land use designations. What does that mean? MR. WEEKS: That's just opening -- Page 164 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The door. MR. WEEKS: Opening the door wider. They're in fact already allowed within the agricultural rural designation and the conservation designation and the estates designation. So it's just recognizing what's already allowed. I mean the existing language says only in the urban area. And that's inconsistent with what our Land Development Code allows, as well as the future land use designation descriptions section of this element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're already allowed in all the areas. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just didn't say it as clearly as you're saying it here. MR. WEEKS: (Nodding head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on page 11? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, maybe the word may needs to come out of there because if they are already allowed in all the designations, it's not a question of permission, is it? MR. WEEKS: Well, I'd prefer not to mandate it, though. I don't want to say shall be allowed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, just say allowed. MR. WEEKS: Allowed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In all other -- in other future land -- no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Student? MS. STUDENT: Thank you. Certain of these facilities can be in the district by right by either state or federal law. In others it's okay to have there be a conditional use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. STUDENT: So I think I prefer may because of that situation. Page 165 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Wait for the court reporter. We're going to try to break around 2:30 since you got here at 1:00. If that's okay. COURT REPORTER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the difference between exemption and exception? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Exemption or exception, what are the differences? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I couldn't hear you. David, did you hear that? Could you reference the policy you're talking about? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This is policy 5.10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: About -- in the middle there, on the left-hand side, it says exemption or exception. What is the distinction between those two words? MR. WEEKS: Those were two different application procedures provided for in the zoning reevaluation ordinance that the county adopted in 1990. Exemptions included -- exemptions were not subjective. They had -- I'm not sure of the right term, but a black and white criteria. If you abutted a property with the same lot dimensions, side yard is yours, or if you had an approved site development plan or building permit, very black and white yes or no type of consideration. Compatibility exceptions were very subjective. We had -- county had to do an analysis to determine is the existing zoning compatible with the surrounding properties. So it's a -- simply put, it was two different application procedures under that ordinance. That ordinance Page 166 March 8, 2006 is no longer applicable. We completed that program in the mid '90's. So it's a historical reference. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 12. Any -- oh, I'm sorry. Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had one question on 5.12, 5.12. What is industrial under criteria? MR. WEEKS: That was a former provision that allowed a property, if I remember correctly, if you were a -- I forget the specifics now because it's a former provision. If -- but if -- there was certain tech. space criteria, and if you qualified then you could rezone a piece of property to industrial. But it's since -- it was eliminated I think in the 1997 year based amendments. But because certain properties were rezoned under that provision, this policy is recognizing that those are nonetheless viewed as consistent with the future land use element. So it's one of those exceptions. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's called the industrial under criteria? MR. WEEKS: That was the term, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. I just had never heard that before and hadn't run across it anywhere. MR. WEEKS: We also used to have a commercial under criteria provision, as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 12. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I just had another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What do you mean here on policy 6.3 where you say link specific concurrency? I'm not familiar with that. MR. WEEKS: I'll give it a try. That would be as opposed to looking at the -- I guess the road network as a whole. Page 167 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I see. MR. WEEKS: So you would just be looking at one segment ofa roadway. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, on 5.14 it talks about density bonuses on properties that were rezoned in certain areas in the last sentence, the coastal high hazard area. You're -- it seems like we're -- you're deeming things consistent that have already occurred under former policy 5.1. If you didn't do this, what would be the effect? MR. WEEKS: We would -- if nothing else, we would at least have to scratch our heads when someone comes in with a piece of property wanting to rezone it. The question would be, well, is this property consistently zoned at present? Now, this is linked to the changes to the density rating system. So if those don't occur, then this policy will be eliminated. So this is recognizing that those properties that are rezoned under present density rating system provisions that are proposed to be eliminated would be recognized as being consistent. If we don't have the policy and we do eliminate those density rating system provisions, we would have to interpret that they're consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. Thank you. Page 13. Do you have any questions on page 13? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. On policy 7.5 you say that residential dwelling units over and! or abutting commercial development. I'm not familiar with any illustration, but what about the reverse where the commercial would be over the residential, is that excluded for any reason from this definition? MR. WEEKS: Simply type of development we -- we simply never heard of. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I haven't seen it either, but this would foreclose it if it ever came up. Page 168 March 8, 2006 MR. WEEKS: I would agree with you, but it's just not a development pattern that we've ever heard of or seen. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You see no advantage to add that to it -- MR. WEEKS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- that variation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean -- I can give an example. Let's say you have a mixed use. You could have a restaurant on the roof or something with people living below it. Four story, restaurant's on the fourth. You'd get a nice view down the waterway. Or maybe you don't want that. MR. WEEKS: I would have no objection to including that. Again, it was simply not contemplated, that's the reason it's not there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would read residential dwelling units over and under abutting commercial development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't -- the old wording actually is kind of good. Adjacent to or connected or within or something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a speaker on this, Mr. Cohen. MR. COHEN: Two speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this 5.7.5? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One word change. Okay. Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Again, for the record, Bob Mulhere. I'm familiar with a number of jurisdictions throughout the state that encourage mixed use -- and this is not my comment, it's just a further commentary, I suppose, of over under, under over -- that actually do prohibit or limit residential to being required to be above the commercial or above the office. They either limit it to the third floor or the second floor. So there -- I mean I think your example's a Page 169 March 8, 2006 good one of an exception, but for the most part that is limited. Residential generally over -- or commercial generally over residential doesn't work very well. So -- you have a lot of complaints and things like that. My comments are -- and actually making these comments on behalf of Mr. Anderson who had to step out for a moment. The language reads the county shall encourage mixed use development within the same buildings by allowing residential, yadda, yadda. The last sentence says this policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific subdistricts. Two points. One, the question is when we say subdistricts I assume and just would like to have it clarified that we're talking about subdistricts set forth in the plan, with a capital P, as opposed to necessarily the LDC. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. MR. MULHERE: And then the second point is might it also -- might it read -- potentially read better if it included the following language. This policy shall be implemented through provisions in PUDs, comma, in specific subdistricts, comma, and in the various commercial zoning districts, period. MR. WEEKS: I think the existing language is suffice -- is sufficient. The -- the way that mixed use development is allowed in the future land use element is in various subdistricts, including the provision that would allow it to be within a PUD. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: As well as existing commercial zoning that is allowed to have mixed use, which is also provided for in the Land Development Code. The real purpose for that last sentence saying that it will be implemented through subdistricts, we did not want to leave this wide open and have someone come in and say, well, I want to rezone X piece of property to allow a mixed use development and Page 1 70 March 8, 2006 point to this policy and say, well, you're encouraging mixed use, I want it approved. And we're looking over here on the land use designation descriptions section at the various districts and subdistricts, and they don't qualify for mixed use but yet they're saying what your policy says, you're encouraging it, I want it, you need to approve my rezonIng. MR. MULHERE: I think I'm satisfied -- and I would assume that Mr. Anderson would be as well -- as long as there was no situation where the plan allowed mixed use in some way, you know outside of subdistrict. And I think you're saying that's not the case, so I think that satisfactory . MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Mark, the word building is what I'm -- in building code land you could have a structure that has broken up multiple buildings by fire walls. That would never be a misinterpretation here, would it? MR. WEEKS: I don't see it being interpreted that strictly, no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments? I don't think there's any language changes needed to this particular one, unless the board feels otherwise. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, what was he -- was Mr. Mulhere suggesting that the introduction in the plan with a capital P be put in there to make it happen? Is it -- is it understood? MR. WEEKS: Well, perhaps we should add the phrase at the end of that last sentence in specific subdistricts within the future land use element. Because one of his questions was is it future land use element, or are we talking about land development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Yeah. I think that makes it a clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's a language change. Page 171 March 8, 2006 Anybody object? Okay. Let's move on to page 14. Any issues with page 14? Page 15, any issues with page 15? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd just like to point out something that's mentioned in the staff report. And I think this is the first time we've seen this. Where you see the term affordable housing in bold and italics, as we noted in the staff report there's a Land Development Code amendment that the county commissioners, I believe, are about to finally act on adopting different definitions of affordable workforce housing and gap housing. And we're just not quite sure of the correct terminology, so this was -- all the text within the future land use element and the Immokalee and Golden Gate Master Plans, where you see the phrase affordable housing or workforce housing, it is simply bolded and italicized to draw it to your attention. Staffs intention is to go back and modify the -- the terms to -- as appropriate based upon the Land Development Code amendment that the board is about to adopt. We wanted to bring it to your attention. We didn't want it to be a situation where we're making changes to the text that you weren't aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My comment on that is I know that gap housing has been, I think, preliminarily -- it's going to be subject -- March 28th I think a decision is going to be made by the BCC. MR. WEEKS: I think you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But discussions that left this group, gap housing had a separate definition. And I notice -- and as we're going to get into this FLUE, some areas you specifically define affordable housing and!or workforce housing, you use that term. But then you went into the percentages of median income against those amounts in those other languages. So what I'm -- what that could lead to is if we have the definition Page 1 72 March 8, 2006 of gap as it appears may be headed, you're going to have to change the -- not only the way this reads, it would be affordable housing, comma, whatever gap, but you're also going to have to possibly look at the percentages. And we'll probably point those out as we get to them, but I just want to be sure that's where you're thinking of going. MR. SCHMITT: The definition has been resolved. That ordinance has been signed. The only issue remaining with the board in that amendment are the bonuses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The matrix. MR. SCHMITT: The matrix. But the definition is resolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the definition did end up as being separately defined as gap? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it is gap housing. And gap now was approved by the board to be anything 80 -- 81 percent to 150 of the median income is termed gap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. MR. SCHMITT: Anything below is -- it's all affordable per se, but there are different criteria associated with those affordability, being that gap is defined specifically as affordable housing at 81 percent, 150 of the median income. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if you'll find it acceptable, given the pace that we're going, fully expect to be back in front of you on March 16th. That would give staff adequate time to go through and makes all of those text changes regarding those terms, affordable and workforce housing, so that you could see exactly how we applied it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a really good idea. Thank you. Any other questions on page 15? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just on number 15, near the top Page 173 March 8, 2006 -- well, first third of the page. Hotels, motels. Just -- maybe you can help me quicken my memory. On the mixed use we precluded that, small hotels, motels? Do you have a recollection? MR. WEEKS : Yes. Because mixed use is limited to C 1, 2, and 3 zonIng -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: C3. MR. WEEKS: -- district. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: C4 would be the -- MR. WEEKS: Hotels are -- begin at C4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We need to talk about maybe making an exception. All right. Thank you. Now we'll move on to page 16. Questions from the panel on page 16? I have some questions. I'm trying to format them here so that -- now that we've got some new information about affordable housing, I want to make sure they're still relevant. David, we have a base density referenced at four units per acre. And on top of that, to encourage development of affordable or gap, we add bonuses in a lot of cases. Have we ever considered including in the four units gap and affordable in the base density as part of the base density? MR. WEEKS: As -- as a requirement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a requirement. MR. WEEKS: I would say the only time I can think of that that -- I don't even know if it was contemplated in the context of the future land use element or only in zoning regulations, but a few years ago Commissioner Fiala brought up the idea of inclusionary zoning. And I would see that -- that would be comparable to that. That was I think in the context of the zoning. N ow we're talking about the future land use element. But I see those as almost the same because you're talking about a zoning action to implement it and making it mandatory. So that-- Page 174 March 8, 2006 that's the only time I'm familiar that that idea was broached, and it was soundly shot down. I dare say that with the prices right now with affordable housing, we may see that subject broached again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This -- these -- the paragraph two kind of brought it to my mind when I was reading that the -- the four units per acre maximum. Up on the top of the page, under C, it talks about property eligible for affordable housing density bonus. And in the language -- it's not new language, it's existing. It talks about units required to be sold to buyers earning 80 percent or less of the county's median income. Now, that's -- is that reference there because Shimburg or the SHIP funds only apply to 80 percent or less? MR. WEEKS: I think that's the genesis of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: What this provision is applicable to is a specific property in the urban residential fringe subdistrict that was added via a privately initiated plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That explains it then. In the rural fringe, when we get to that, and it goes back to this affordable housing as part of the base density, we have a requirement in the rural fringe that affordable housing is part of their base density. Or it's being proposed in that language, if I'm not mistaken. Point two or .1. MR. WEEKS: It's being proposed in the future land use element to be consistent with what the Land Development Code says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Future land use element provides for it as a bonus, the LDC says you must do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's kind of where you could go with the basic four. I mean you've already set the precedent by doing it in rural fringe. Page 175 March 8, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Conceivably. The difference, of course, is in the rural fringe that's only applicable to a rural village, and we will have no more than a maximum of four rural villages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Whereas here it would be broad applicability. MR. GIBLIN: Mr. Chairman, Cormac Giblin for the record. To tie this conversation together about the inclusion rezoning concept, we did bring that to the board about two and a half years ago at a workshop, and it was decided not to go forward with it then. We brought it back to the board at the beginning of last summer at another affordable housing workshop and we did receive direction to move forward on it. And we are preparing an inclusionary rezoning concept, LDC amendments for the next cycle right now. So that's when all this would be coming back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you for informing us. I'm sure that will come in handy in the discussions that go on with the FLUE. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We had the workshop with the commission. I really remember in the coastal high hazard that the density was dropped back to three and four if you had an affordable housing. Is that right? So when you say four here, it's not clear at least MR. WEEKS: Any applicable density bonus could get a property from three back up to four. The conversion of commercial zoning bonus remains, so that would be one means of getting from three back up to four. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't remember that. I think we were pretty clear on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we were pretty clear, too. Page 176 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean to me the clearness was that it was -- the density was three in the coastal high. The availability to only hit four is with an affordable unit. I also thought we got rid of the 16 unit per acre commercial conversion entirely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. WEEKS: That was discussed quite a bit. And actually that question's been raised and staff has looked back at the minutes from the various hearings, and it's about as clear as mud, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Has staff looked back at the tapes, not the minutes? MR. WEEKS: Actually, I think we did. Had a staff member -- I think we did listened to the tape. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is the clear as mud part the 16 units or the four -- or the three, one. MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. It was whether or not the conversion of commercial zoning density bonus was to be eliminated or kept. My recollection, after much discussion, including some discussion about deleting it, was that the board's final direction was to leave it in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow. MR. WEEKS: The board had discussed reducing the density bonus from 16 to 12. They discussed eliminating it all together. But my -- my recollection is that they did leave that intact. Staffhad explained -- during the discussion we explained to them what the purpose was. It was an incentive to get rid of some of that isolated or stripped commercial. Also explained it as -- to my knowledge it's only been used I think twice since the plan was adopted, but -- but -- ultimately my recollection is they said leave it in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's go back to the three one. What's your recollection of that? MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry, three one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the base density Page 1 77 March 8, 2006 in the coastal high hazard is three. The availability to get a four is only through an affordable unit. MR. WEEKS: I don't recall that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because we said that a lot. I can remember doing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wait a minute. The base density is three. What is it you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're saying four here. I mean -- MR. WEEKS: The base density is still four, but you're subject to a one unit reduction from being in the coastal high hazard area. So that gets you to three. Sometimes we refer to that as an adjust base density. And then you can only get back up to a maximum of four through any applicable density bonus, which would be affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when you see the four here, you -- in your mind you see one affordable housing unit in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Talking about paragraph two, in the middle, where it says maximum four units per acre. It's really only three, and you get four if you put a density of affordable housing in as one of the units. MR. WEEKS: Make sure I'm in the right place. We're under -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 16. MR. WEEKS: Urban coastal fringe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's going to come up a lot. MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it says not to exceed a maXImum. MR. WEEKS: Right. Not to exceed a maximum of four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 178 March 8, 2006 MR. WEEKS: That -- that is the absolute cap that the board has directed in the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Based on the arithmetic. If I may make a comment, I remember you standing there and addressing us. And I know we differ in our recollections, but you -- you were actually -- the word incredulous was probably appropriate and said something to the effect you want to eliminate the density band? And we all nodded. And I thought it was really clear that we had said they go away, all of those. The only thing basically would be left would be the affordable housing bonuses. So I myself am a little taken aback. I -- I thought it was pretty clear we were going to get rid of that. MR. WEEKS : Well, please know I'm referring to my recollection of what the board's action was. As you know, your actions and recommendations and the board's actions are not always the same. My recollection is the board, after a -- after a fair amount of discussion on this point, as well, was to leave the conversion of commercial intact. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At that same workshop? MR. WEEKS: No. I'm talking about the final hearings, actual hearing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. MR. WEEKS: Because in addition to the workshops, these matters were discussed at the hearings, both yours as well as the board's. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have got a solution to this, and it'll probably work out well. We'll take a 15 minute break and be back at 2:48. Thank you. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on page 16. I don't-- I think we completed that page, but I'll ask again just to be sure. Page 1 79 March 8,2006 Anybody on the commission have any questions left on page 16? If not, let's move to page 17. Not many changes on page 17. There's no questions there. Move on to page 18. Page 19. Question on page 19 would simply be on the top of the page, I notice that you -- in item 0, no building shall exceed -- and you underlined three, and then the word stories, and then you underlined in height. So I think the numeric three and in height is -- is new. Is there -- this is probably a prior adopted small scale plan amendment or private plan amendment that was done, David? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it too late because of the circumstances that occurred when this was adopted to put a height in connection with the three stories like others have that says not to exceed a maximum of 35 feet or something like that? MR. WEEKS: The PUD for the site has already been approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: This was the Orange Blossom mixed use subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Gotcha. Thank you. Any questions on page 20? This is one of the pages where your workforce housing is highlighted, but I'm assuming it will be one you address when you come back in with some corrections as a result of the LDC changes. MR. WEEKS: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 21. I would at least mention the same comments to you on that page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Up under item H it -- on the page it mentions include grocery stores. Question. Does grocery stores Page 180 March 8, 2006 include places like Costco or Sam's? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. Those would definitely be considered regional commercial uses. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Even though a large part of the produce stock's groceries? MR. WEEKS: That -- that's correct. It's not classified as a grocery store. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 22. On this page, David, you've got a lot of references to workforce and affordable, but under number L you actually put a median income for the household of a hundred percent. I'm assuming you may want to consider re -- since it's new language you would want to revise it to whatever the new parameters are? MR. WEEKS: We'll check on that, Mr. Chairman. Seeing that it's -- specifically it's added language and seeing it as a hundred percent makes me think there may have been some reason for that. This is another -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would not disagree with you, but that's why I'm pointing it out. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd take an extra look. MR. WEEKS: We'll follow up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Could I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Very briefly. I'm -- I'm pretty sure that that's because the original proposal to redefine the definition of gap force housing went from 81 to a hundred percent and that subsequently has been revised to 150 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was Bob Mulhere, for the record. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Sorry. Bob Mulhere. Page 181 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 22. Down at the bottom we're talking about 16 units per acre, is that an existing situation that can't be changed or is that 16 new language? I think it's just carry over language, relocated. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. We have this subdistrict in two different -- under two different districts, and we are simply flip flopping it, taking the language from one and relocating it together. So it's new only in the sense that we've moved it from another section of the element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Except that since this is also an appropriate situation, wouldn't you put in the actual density? MR. WEEKS: This is not -- this is not for a specific -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean units per acre. I'm sorry. MR. WEEKS: This is not for specific property. This is a text based provision with broad applicability. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking at 12 and -- and not at 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to page 23. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 50 thou, that came from a prior public hearing or -- the square footage, the second paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 23. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is the mixed use. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. This was a privately initiated amendment, and it's all added because it's being relocated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way when we speak I know that sometimes the court reporter's looking at us because a few people are mumbling. Gotta be careful if you're the speaker, you're the speaker Page 182 March 8, 2006 she's recording and not being picking up miscellaneous talk. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, by the way, I -- since it is a new court reporter, I'm David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department, and next to me is Randy Cohen, same department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 23 we're on. The commercial mixed use subdistrict where you're looking at going into mixed use now for the commercial areas, during the housing committee meetings it was suggested that to incentivise workforce housing or affordable housing or gap housing by utilizing mixed use, yet I don't see any reference to any of those in this particular provision. Do you know -- because you're getting up to 16 units per acre, as long as it's not within the coastal high hazard. And I thought the indication from the committees at one point was that that should -- some of that should be workforce or affordable of some type. Did you not consider that in this new language? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I answer that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, certainly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. When the smart growth community character advisory committee met and developed the GMP language for this, the issues that we're now currently well talked of were not realized by that group. And so it may be a plus to consider that at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the committees that I was referring to are the two that I was part of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I was ignorant of that part of it. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first committee was the workforce housing committee. One of the ideas that we had come up with was using mixed use as a way to encourage affordable house. And I understand now that maybe the smart committee had the similar idea not so much for affordable housing but just using mixed use concept. Page 183 March 8, 2006 Maybe the two should be blended together a little more than they seem to be here because there's no mention of workforce or affordable housing components if they were to use the density bonuses afforded to them by mixed use. MR. WEEKS: Short answer is this. Staff simply did not consider that. And if that's your direction, we'll be glad to try to come up with something say for your March 16th hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you're going to put units in mixed in with commercial, you certainly have a better chance of them being affordable than they are on lots in estates areas. I don't mean Golden Gate Estates but generally subdivisions. So I think certainly you ought to look at some application of that for commercial mixed use subdistrict. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can we just discuss it a little bit more? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, of course. That's what we're here for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And -- and I completely appreciate what you're -- what you're saying, and I'm -- I'm going to say I agree with it. But I just wanted to introduce in -- I think it was the Orange Blossom, that Buckley PUD, the intent I thought of the developer was to, as they phrase it, young professionals. Now, I don't know if that constituted or constitutes the housing for gap or above gap. My assumption at that time it was above gap. But I certainly -- I certainly think it's an appropriate thing to bring into this while we have the opportunity, before we've actually brought the LDC language in. And I'll take another look at the LDC language to make certain that we do something about that, but I think it's very appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, in fourteen one you talk about commercial PUDs or commercial component of a mixed use PUD and Page 184 March 8, 2006 let them utilize this commercial mixed use subdistrict. Would they then be getting additional language to their PUD, or would that be existing density within the PUD already approved in order to utilize this subdistrict? MR. WEEKS: If I understand the question, it would have to go through a rezoning action to get that approval for additional units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And the units would be in addition to what the PUD would already be approved for. So if you had a mixed use PUD, a commercial tract, and a residential tract and the residential tract was approved for a hundred dwelling units, they would need to come back to amend their PUD to get density for the commercial tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this commercial mixed use subdistrict isn't providing anything by right then. It's all enough just to -- an ability to provide it by rezone. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's incentive really. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, isn't it via conditional use we get it or -- MR. WEEKS: I was going to say the PUDs I think are a different animal that you'd have to come back for a zoning change. Otherwise you would have a conflict between your PUD documents, which is in effect a minizoning order saying you're only allowed a hundred dwelling units and yet you're trying to get more than that through an administrative process. In the C 1, two, and three zoning districts, you're correct that by conditional use the LDC provides for mixed use development at present. And as Mr. Murray has mentioned on a few occasions today, there's a Land Development Code amendment that will be coming into Page 185 March 8, 2006 the 2006 cycle which will help to implement this subdistrict. You can see the subdistrict language says that we will develop a LDC provision to help implement this. And once that gets adopted in whatever form, that should allow for an administrative process for developing mixed use on those conventionally zoned properties. Conventionally commercial C 1, two, three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the -- is it the consensus of the board that staff come back to us on this with some language addressing the affordable housing component of a commercial mixed use subdistrict? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nodding head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody in agreement with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I'll make a note, David, that I'll set this aside for you coming back sometime before this is all over. Page 24. COMMISSIONER CARON: Where is Bavis Boulevard? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you catch that? Number 15. MR. WEEKS: New street. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 25-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Brad. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The last sentence I'm -- I guess I'm curious as what you're trying to prevent there. Density achieved by right shall not be combined with density achieved through rezoned public hearing process. Wouldn't -- in the rezone wouldn't they establish the density? And are you afraid somebody would come back and then add it to what they would've had by right and not mention that there in the public hearing? MR. WEEKS: It's to make -- the intent is to try to completely separate the two processes. If you're going to do the affordable Page 186 March 8, 2006 workforce housing by whatever terminology, you're either going to go through a public hearing process and have the county commissioners authorize a certain density or you're going to go through an administrative process and -- that's being proposed here to achieve your density, that you can't combine the two. F or example, you can't come to the board and have them approve a density of ten units per acre, then come to staff to get another four units per acre of affordable workforce housing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But my question is wouldn't the public hearing establish your den -- I mean would somebody actually think you can do that or -- and I'm not sure that maybe -- you know, the first sentence you said might've been clearer than what's said here, though. I mean -- I mean would somebody actually go through public hearing, describe what they want to do, get approval for a certain density, and then come back to you and tell you that's the additional density that they got at the public hearing? I don't think so. MR. WEEKS: Hopefully not, but we're just trying to prevent a -- the unforeseen from happening. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MR. WEEKS: We just want to make it absolutely clear that they're two separate processes and you can't mix them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 25. Oh, I'm sorry. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn't know if you wanted -- I did have a comment on that sentence, and I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't notice you up there, Bob. You're too short. MR. MULHERE: I'm getting shorter all the time. For the record, Bob Mulhere, M-U-L-H-E-R-E. I don't recognize you, so I thought I'd spell it. I -- I think I understand David's explanation, and I understand the Page 187 March 8, 2006 purpose and intent of that sentence. I do think it might -- not trying to add more work, but I think we might be able to achieve some greater clarity as to what that intended. I think it's -- it makes sense what he's saying, but I'm not sure -- I didn't understand it when I read it, you didn't understand it, so maybe that means others wouldn't understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I simply had a note someone needs to explain this. I guess I understood it, but I didn't know what it meant. David, maybe you could -- I thought it needed some wordsmithing. I think Brad did that and now Mr. Mulhere does. I'm sure that there's some confusion in the way that needs it. Any suggestions? MR. WEEKS: Right off the cuff I'll just jot a note to bring that back to you if you'll allow me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean maybe you said something that the density achieved by right shall be removed with density achieved by rezone or something. MR. MULHERE: Or density achieved by rezone shall be inclusive of any potential density that may otherwise be achieved by right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll let David come back. We're going to certainly be here more than today, so we -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. I had a comment on -- and I don't know -- you haven't gotten there yet. It's in the same section. Did you want me to continue or just -- it's a clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How far forward are you going? MR. MULHERE: Paragraph B under one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Again, I just wasn't exactly sure what was intended there. Let me tell you why. It says within the rural fringe Page 188 March 8, 2006 mixed use district receiving lands, the density rating system is applicable for the affordable housing density bonus -- bonus only as specifically provided for in the RLSA for stewardship receiving areas. So within -- is that suggesting that within the RLSA -- I'm sorry, I'm in the -- I read the wrong line. I'm on the fringe. As for it's specifically provided within a rural village, under C. And my question is within a rural village, what's provided for is a requirement to provide a certain number of affordable housing units and then a certain amount of those have to also be what's termed presently workforce but likely will change to gap. And so I'm not sure that there is an application of the density rating system. MR. WEEKS: What we are proposing -- back up. The present future land use element provision for a rural village provides that if you provide affordable and workforce housing, it is a bonus. The Land Development Code, however, mandates the provision of affordable and workforce housing. What staff is proposing is two things. Number one, to mandate some affordable and workforce housing, the same as the LDC does, but to also continue to provide for a bonus. So if you provide more than that which is mandated, it is allowable as a bonus. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And does that require that the density rating system in some way be adjusted to reflect that or no? I mean you're referencing back to the density rating system, but the affordable housing density bonus in the density rating system is different than the one that's in the rural fringe. Basically, you get a half a unit bonus -- MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: -- in the rural fringe. I was hoping you were saying you were going to increase the bonus in the villages for affordable housing but -- MR. WEEKS: No. Maybe I need to check that. My recollection was -- when I was working on this is that -- that within the rural village Page 189 March 8, 2006 it makes reference back to the density rating system. So I was just simply trying to make that cross connection. I'll verify. If I'm mistaken and that needs to come out -- MR. MULHERE: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, if you are mistaken would you come back and let us know? MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob. The top of page 25 you have a -- second line, you have a strike out of permitted. Prior to that word it says per gross acre is permitted, now it says is allowed. Wouldn't it be per gross acre may be allowed? Because right after the word allow you say though not an entitlement. So it's really not a -- it's not guaranteed, it's may be allowed. MR. WEEKS: I would agree, that'd be better language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a problem with that on the panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 26. I'm trying to understand item G. Talking about four dwelling units per acre by right. Is that by right as regular density, or is that by right as affordable housing? MR. WEEKS: This would be by right, and this would be your base density. I think -- let me walk through this. We've provided for an administrative by right density bonus of up to four units per acre for the affordable workforce housing. The question is what do you add that to? If a property is zoned A, rural agricultural, that density is one unit per five acres. So are you adding four on top of one unit per five, or are you adding it to something else? The way staff looked at it is -- is we should provide for the base density of four units per acre to be allowed by right and that on top of Page 190 March 8,2006 that you get your four unit per acre bonus. We have to -- we need to specify what the four unit acre bonus is being added to. And -- and if you have a property that's zoned -- again, my example again, agricultural, .2 dwelling units per acre, then your end result is 4.2 units per acre. I would question just how much is that helping to provide affordable housing. So staff was proposing allow the base as a matter of -- only when you're providing workforce housing, affordable workforce, you get the base plus however much bonus that you qualify for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're taking all these zonings areas and you're saying agriculture, estates RSF 1, all of them now have a base of four, regardless of what they currently have in the FLUE? MR. WEEKS: Well, these properties are -- right now the FLUE would provide that they are eligible for four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not -- not if it's agricultural. MR. WEEKS: Eligible under the density rating system to be rezoned to four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Estates? MR. WEEKS: Within the urban area, yes. We -- there's not a lot, but we have some estates zoning in the urban area. Off of Radio Road, off of County Barn Road, for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying -- and I remember some of those came through here. In fact there was one off of Barefoot Williams Road not -- quite recently where the people were very impassionate about their neighborhood -- MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where someone was trying to go in and put in more homes on a lot than what there was typical in the neighborhood. By this they'd have the absolute right to do that, and they wouldn't even need a public hearing to do so, right? MR. WEEKS: In that particular instance, no, because they're in Page 191 March 8, 2006 the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. MR. WEEKS: But if they happened to be off of Polly Avenue, Rattlesnake Hammock Road area, similar circumstance for properties zoned agricultural, this provision, yes, would allow them by right to achieve up to eight units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is not fair to that neighborhood. It wouldn't be fair to the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't imagine that happening in this county . COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We basically turned it upside down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Miss Student? MS. STUDENT: Thank you. I have a question. Probably staff -- and I don't have my land code here or I would check. But in the ag area I don't know we would allow multifamily. That's not a permitted use in ag zoning district, right? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. MS. STUDENT: So you'd have to do a rezone. MR. WEEKS: Well, as I noted in the -- in the staff report, if this provision is ultimately approved by the board, there will be significant land development changes -- MS. STUDENT: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- necessary. Because for all of the various -- whatever zoning districts this provision will be applicable for, we would -- we would need to change development standards. Because certainly if you're zoned agricultural and you're developing one unit per five acres or -- or an agricultural use, your development standards should be different than if you're developing an eight unit per acre development. Page 192 March 8, 2006 Similarly, as Margie just pointed out, you need to add the provision for multifamily units. Same thing for your single-family zoning, they don't allow multifamily units. They should have different development standards. Other provisions of the Land Development Code -- for example, the ag zoned district allows barbed wire fences. Well, if somebody's doing an affordable workforce housing project, residential, we would not want barbed wire fences to be allowed. So a lot of LDC changes would be necessary to -- to implement this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- you can't improve this community's problems by destroying what everybody moved here for. This would be so detrimental to neighborhoods. I just -- I mean, for example, Riviera Golf Estates. MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone could go in and say I want to rezone that to RSF 1 and then really what they're doing is going to cash in on this and go ahead and build Riviera Golf Estates. I just don't think without a public process that this is the right thing to do to the neighborhoods in Collier County. MR. WEEKS: This is one change that we can point more directly back to the Board of County Commissioners from their gap and affordable workforce housing hearings as to what they wanted to see. They -- they were not explicit. They did not say in these zoning districts allow affordable housing by right, density by right, but they did give the direction to allow for some type of density bonus by right as a means for providing affordable and workforce housing. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and I think other commissioners, based on the looks of your faces, you're in agreement that this is a radical -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. MR. WEEKS: -- departure from the current process to achieve a density change. I mean right now only the Board of County Page 193 March 8, 2006 Commissioners has that authority, and they would be -- if they approve this, they would be delegating to staff the authority to grant a density from as low as .2 units per acre all the way up to eight units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, you apparently have something to say. MR. GIBLIN: Well-- again, for the record, Cormac Giblin, housing development manager. What this provision seeks to do is only allow a dense -- an affordable housing density bonus. In areas where it is already allowed -- all those areas that we've mentioned, people can today go through the public hearing process and get an affordable housing density bonus of their base, plus up to eight extra units per acre. What this provision does is allow you to achieve half of that, half of that bonus, without the need for the public hearing. And so it's not putting affordable housing where it's not allowed or not -- not allowed because it currently is allowed in all these areas with those public hearings. And that was a direction we got from the board beginning of last summer, in terms of by right density bonuses for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't that tend to ultimately concentrate affordable housing in violation of the GMP because you're not putting it out against the entire county? You've said now that -- which it's going to put affordable housing where it's already allowed. Tell me -- tell me more about that so I won't feel a prejudice in that view that -- it -- if it's not allowed in certain places, maybe it should be and why would we want to intensify the application of it? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Two -- really two answers to the question. First one is when I say allowed, right now affordable housing density bonuses are only allowed in the urban area, which is what this paragraph -- Page 194 March 8,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: -- is referencing. So-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Anywhere in the urban area? MR. GIBLIN: Anywhere in the urban area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: Now, the second answer to the question, though, is some of these other amendments do allow some affordable housing to go into areas outside the urban area which gets to the -- you know, really the second half of your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Okay. MR. GIBLIN: So concentrating in one area of the county, no. Unless you're talking about the urban area all together. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, not by design. It may -- it may happen by default but not by design. Okay. But I think this does turn it upside down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, I was involved in both the committees that had workshops on these issues, and I remember this discussion. I can tell you I don't think -- I can tell you I didn't understand at the time that the outcome would be as written in this year's FLUE, both in this paragraph and there's some paragraphs we haven't gotten to yet and some we've already passed. I think had this been understood, I can't imagine anybody saying this is the right way to go. I just -- this is just too intense for the residents of this county. And if the intense -- intent is to change the county to this radical of a procedure, I think you're going to eliminate the reason for people to move here. Maybe that's the alternative -- the objective, but I just don't see the need for it. Not the way it's written here. Any other comments from the commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to understand. So, Cormac, Page 195 March 8, 2006 what you're saying, it has to be a ten-acre site, right? MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then if they're going to put affordable or workforce on it, they could start with the four dwelling units as a base. Where does it say that it's limited to only four more, though? I'm not getting that. Or could they go up to the maximum of eight? MR. WEEKS: On page 27, paragraph C, affordable housing bonus by right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. It's coming up. Okay. MR. WEEKS: That's where it specifies the four unit per acre bonus maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then again, David, there's that last sentence which -- MR. WEEKS: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That -- Okay. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron? Miss Caron and Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just don't believe that we should be taking densities that in some -- some areas can be whatever, .2 or someplace else it can be 1.5 and then suddenly just granting these people four units an acre without anything. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I think the public would -- MR. GIBLIN: Just back to my point, though. Those are permitted or allowed currently today through the public process. COMMISSIONER CARON: But through the public process. MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what still needs to happen. MR. GIBLIN: And that -- that was; through -- through the affordable housing commission, workforce housing, gap housing Page 196 March 8, 2006 committee. You know, that -- Collier County's system of public participation in this -- in this -- specifically in the development of affordable housing is seen by the industry and by -- by affordable housing professionals as one of the key detriments to attracting the development of more affordable housing to this area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a solution to that. It's called inclusionary zoning. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're working on it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Murray, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I just was going to say that I agree with you, and I think this turns -- turns it upside down. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any -- the consensus of the panel is then to strike G? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in disagreement on that issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless we had a public hearing, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the point. Page 27? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: If I could, just a couple comments. Bob Mulhere again, for the record. I understand the direction you're taking, I just wanted to add that my recollection of -- of this as an unofficial recommendation of the ad hoc gap housing committee, one of their recommendations was to look at by right zoning. But I also recall that there were limitations placed on that to require -- and I think some of them David referred to, which was develop site specific or specific development standards. Second part was, as I recall, there were -- there was discussionn Page 197 March 8, 2006 about those being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and development. That's really not a part of this and may have, had it been a part of this in some way or another, had a different -- you may have had a different opinion. I'm not prepared to develop those now, but part of that compatibility test could have been that you -- you can't exceed a certain density beyond the surrounding development around you. You know, maybe it was 50 percent or something along those lines. That was part of the discussion which -- I mean it's not here and I can understand why folks within a certain neighborhood might object to significantly higher density than -- than a neighborhood that's built out. So that was another question. Are we talking about -- you know, would the -- the by right density be compatible with the surrounding development? Would -- four units per acre next to four units per acre is pretty compatible. Single family next to single family, you know, multifamily next to multifamily. Maybe -- or even next to single-family with an appropriate buffer. So I think there were some more provisions -- at least from that committee -- that were intended to be a component of any by right zoning that would give some sense of comfort, maybe not a hundred percent, maybe not even sufficiently to have swayed your opinion, but that would have given some sense of comfort that the surrounding properties were being protected in the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere, am Ion that committee with you? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't come across -- I don't come from that committee with the same reading that you just -- MR. MULHERE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- transpired. I just wanted you to know that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Page 198 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I can't see how this should -- should fly. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is almost hard to put into-- it reminds me of an area -- now it's urban and Mr. Kereal (phonetic) wanted to build some homes in an area. Those people have one acre. One unit per five acres, I think it was at the time. And this would just basically just crash their community; would it not that -- MR. MULHERE: I'm not -- I'm not arguing with your position as it's written. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: I'm suggesting that, at least from my recollection, there -- there was discussion of -- of additional provisions that would insure compatibility of any by right zoning with the surrounding area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I heard you. And relative to what David said, which I lost on about the density bands being retained by the commissioners, the density bands in -- I'm talking about the other area now, where -- around activity centers and so forth. MR. MULHERE: Density bonuses you mean. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. Yeah, the density bonus on the round of bands. In any event, even if I'm not saying it correctly, you understand what I mean. The point being that they -- they were sensitive to the need for transition. So it would seem to me that we'd like to be consistent -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and not dump on people. MR. MULHERE: I don't disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think this commission's already finished their comments on this. Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Paragraph number Page 199 March 8, 2006 one, under the density rating system, there is some existing language -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Mine don't have any page numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Twenty-five I'm told. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And in paragraph lA, near the bottom, it says mixed residential and commercial uses as provided for in C 1 three -- through C3 via conditional use. That is an impediment, an obstacle, a limitation on mixed use that serves to discourage it. I would ask that you simply strike via conditional use. That doesn't prohibit it from being a conditional use, but this language would require it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, how does that fit with the intent of what you saw the commercial mixed use subdistrict being developed towards? Were you expecting it to be a conditional use, or were you going to add it as a permitted use? MR. WEEKS: That's actually a good point. The existing provision in the Land Development Code is to only allow the mixed use by conditional use. I believe the intent of the proposed Land Development Code amendment would be to allow it by right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: By right. MR. WEEKS: And I would -- therefore, I would have to agree with Mr. Anderson that it would be appropriate to remove this. That would pave the way for that proposed LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody objecting to the striking of those three words? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize, I didn't catch it. I should've caught it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Let's move on to page 27. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask the 26 thing. And, again, it's back to my memory. I remember, Dave, you gave a Page 200 March 8, 2006 great presentation on the mixed use areas. I don't remember us getting rid of them. And also, isn't it kind of contrary to the community character plan we have that we've established these density areas and then now we're not going to encourage people to build essentially within walkable areas to work and markets and things? MR. WEEKS: You're referring to number two -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two. MR. WEEKS: -- on page 26? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. WEEKS: Yes. That's the residential density bands, and as part of the EAR the board explicitly directed that those be deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I-- MR. WEEKS: There were three density bonuses the board directed -- go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't a meeting that we were at. It was a separate board meeting where they -- they got into the issue above and beyond the workshop that we attended, Brad. That's where I think we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I remember at the workshop David gave a presentation and, you know, wasn't happy with the thing. But -- I mean I personally think that's wise. I mean I think that what our prior boards did, the legacy of that was smart, is they tried to encourage these activity zones. I mean it turns out that all they were doing was sidening the drug stores, but the -- the intent was to have areas where people would walk, shop, do everything. I actually live in one of those bands, and it is a really smart way to live. So I'm not -- the commissioners killed it, though? MR. WEEKS: I would agree from a planning standpoint both the residential density bands that we're specifically discussing now, as well as the residential infill density bonus makes a lot of sense. So that you have a trans -- for this provision, for the density bands, that you have a Page 201 March 8, 2006 transition of density or intensity. Because within the activity centers you're allowed to have the full array of commercial, all the way up to C5, and you're allowed to have the maximum density of 16 units per acre in most activity centers. And if we eliminate the density band, then as soon as you get outside of that boundary, you drop down to four units per acre, unless you're providing affordable workforce housing. And the density band allows for a transition down to seven units per acre and then from there down to four units per acre. From a planning standpoint, that's traditional Euclidean zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And smart growth. So I mean could we as a board ask the -- I mean we're the planning agency, they had the meeting without us, could we not recommend that from a planning aspect -- I can't see what the negative that they were concerned about would be. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. Mr. Schiffer, if you feel strongly that this should be included and not stricken, you can recommend to the BCC that they revisit the issue. Obviously it would be contrary to the EAR. And if they were to change their mind in terms of a policy decision, we would have to explain it in the EAR based amendment report to DCA. It's not unusual for that to transpire between any -- any EAR that goes to Department of Community Affairs and then an amendment to actually transpire that's contrary to what -- to what takes place. MR. WEEKS: If I could add to that, the -- the board's view of the density rating system was quite different than how we've traditionally viewed it. And the traditional view was from a planning perspective of compatibility of transitioning density promoting infill development, affordable house, et cetera. The board's -- I think it was very clear in their comments about removing some of these density bonuses was let's remove the Page 202 March 8, 2006 competition for affordable workforce housing. If -- if the only way to get affordable -- excuse me. If the only way to get a density bonus is to provide affordable housing, then the presumption is we're going to get more affordable housing because people want that density bonus. That was their perspective. They were very clear in that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Say that back. What you're saying is that it's not that they don't want people to build in this band, they want them to build via affordable housing solely. MR. WEEKS: Correct. Eliminate the competition in hopes we'll get more affordable housing. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, I'll just clarify. Mr. Weeks is correct. It was basically felt these density bonuses were being used solely to allow for developers to come in with a market rate product and capitalize, quote, off of the kind of gift in -- in bonus. And David's correct, this was seen as more of a -- to the -- basically if you can come in with -- under a market rate product and get density, there would be no motivation to produce affordable housing or workforce housing. And that was seen as the -- if you want to do it, come under that -- that -- that criteria. So that was -- that was it. If you see differently and if you think it's something that being -- be included, we'll take your comments back to the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's starting to sound smarter. David, let me just say back again is that -- in other words, they would only be allowed seven units anyway. It's not like they could come in with affordable on top of that seven? MR. WEEKS: No. Any applicable density bonus could be used. So, for example, if a property were within the density band, they could qualify for the -- the board would have the authority to grant the base density of four, the bonus of three for being in the band, and affordable housing on top of that for a total of 15 units per acre. It's not exclusive of the other bonus. Page 203 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. That's what I remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: If I might, I wanted to comment on item 2A, conversion of commercial zoning. And simply ask -- as I sat here and listened through the morning, I now understand how conversion of commercial works. And I was questioning when I read that originally how it's applied in the coastal high hazard area. And as I then looked at the density rating system later on and the way you either lose a unit or add a unit -- but I was wondering for clarification purposes it might not be wise to make a reference to the coastal high hazard right here so that it -- it's explicit and -- and that you don't get the 16 units per acre in coastal high hazard if that's what's intended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so happens Miss Caron had that same note to bring up. COMMISSIONER CARON: That was my next note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You beat her to it. MR. ARNOLD: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: My only comment would be that if we do that I think for every density bonus we should do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we should. Then it's clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's repeat what -- COMMISSIONER CARON: There are no questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The premises-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it's clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to add a reference to the coastal high hazard as being not included in the density bonus provision in everywhere where there -- it's applicable; is that correct? Page 204 March 8, 2006 Anybody objecting to that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. ARNOLD: And if I might, item number two that was deleted, proximity to activity centers for the density bonuses, I agree with staff that from a planning perspective we think that makes a lot of sense to try to encourage those, and I understand the direction of the board. Just want on record that we don't think that's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would've expected nothing less. MR. MULHERE: Again, for the record, Bob Mulhere. Item number two under density bonuses. I won't be too repetitive except to say, you know, to my knowledge eliminating that really contravenes all smart growth and appropriate planning principles that I have ever learned in both my education and experience. Removing an opportunity -- it's a tool. It's not guaranteed, you're only eligible for it. To take away the opportunity under the right project just doesn't make sense to me. I don't think it would have any bearing on the cost of affordable housing or the likelihood of having affordable housing occur. People would just build. The fact that if someone can build seven units where they used to be able -- can now only build four units where they used to build seven, they'll build four market rate units and charge more money for them. As opposed to building seven for lesser money. Simple economics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the fact that someone's building next to a commercial area, they may decide that they can go up in more density and not have quite as expensive units because they wouldn't fit the market place. So-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be another form of simple economics. MR. MULHERE: I agree a hundred percent. Page 205 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. To hit affordable they'd have to have a ten-acre site. So what this does is exclude sites smaller than that from being able to have a higher density. Is that right, David? MR. WEEKS: Only through an administrative process. Still have the right through public hearing process to request the affordable housing bonus. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At a lesser -- I mean the affordable housing bonuses are very clear that you have to have ten acres. MR. WEEKS: Only for the bonus by right. If you go through the rezone process, you could be -- there is no minimal -- minimum density -- excuse me, minimum acreage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that density matrix that we work on which states the ten acres, that's by right? That doesn't require public hearings and things? I'm confused. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's talking about the matrix. MR. WEEKS: In the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. WEEKS: I'll have to defer to Cormac on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't this the concept in the GMP? I mean the implementation is that matrix, so I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's actually ten percent of the -- what is it, is it a -- MR. GIBLIN: Again, for the record, Cormac Giblin. The matrix that you've seen is not by right. That's through the public hearing process. And the only size limitation that would come onto an affordable housing project currently would be that it is required to go to PUD. And so if there's a minimum PUD size, which is ten acres, that is with -- that's the only size -- minimum size Page 206 March 8,2006 restriction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point is that a lot smaller than that to build residential in that band area would only have to -- be able to build four units. We've eliminated three units per acre there. MR. WEEKS: I'm not -- if a -- if the density band bonus remains, if the board should flip flop and keep it in, then there is no size limitation applicable. The only size limit is for the density bonus by right for affordable workforce housing. To get that bonus by right, you have to have a minimum of ten acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I still don't think it's good to remove it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to page 27. You know, I'm trying to be very tolerant of how many times you pop up here. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: On number two, this proximity to the mixed use -- to the density band, has the planning commission taken a consensus? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, let's -- I didn't think anybody but Brad seemed to be thinking it was a good idea to reinstate it. I'm not one to out guess the BCC, and if they don't want something it's up to them to bring it back, as far as I'm concerned. But with that being said, does anybody on this -- who on this panel would like to see that reinstated? Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All the guest houses can go there. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Anderson? Page 207 March 8, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: Before you left the density rating system I just wanted to reiterate the earlier statement about you considering a general exclusion for any project that includes an affordable workforce or gap housing component in the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First of all, we haven't left that density rating system yet, but I'm trying to understand your question. Can you re -- do you mind restating it? MR. ANDERSON: Not at all. That you -- the limit that you have a -- are recommending be imposed of four units per acre in the coastal high hazard area, that there be one exception to that cap that would allow the provisions -- any of the applicable provisions of whatever's left of the density rating system to be utilized within the coastal high hazard area if the project has an affordable gap or workforce housing component. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's my understanding that in the coastal high hazard, because it is coastal high hazard, your density may be a base density of four but it's an effective base density of three. And if you want to get back up to four, you can do so by adding affordable housing. Is that correct, David? MR. WEEKS: As these amendments are proposed, that is not correct. If there's any other applicable density bonus, that could be used to get you back to the four. Now, it -- certainly this -- this board has the option if you want to direct -- if you -- you have the option to say, no, we disagree with that. The only bonus we want to be applicable in the CHHA is the affordable workforce housing bonus. I think I heard one or more of you say that was your understanding of the way it was supposed to be. COMMISSIONER CARON: It was one bonus to bring you back up to four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not what he's saying. There Page 208 March 8, 2006 are other bonus provisions that will bring you above three in the coastal high hazard. If there are, what are they? Let's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: What -- yeah. MR. WEEKS: The conversion of commercial zoning density bonuses. COMMISSIONER CARON: We just said -- MR. WEEKS: The other -- I'm sorry. The other would be-- which is -- used once and since the plan was adopted is on page 28, C, transfer of development rights bonus. This is the prerural fringe TDR provision. And, again, it's been used once since the plan was adopted, but that would still be a means of exceeding the -- that reduction down to three units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. We're talking about raising it above three units per acre. MR. WEEKS: But still within the -- with the cap of four. So it can only get from three back up to four. COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in your page 28, the last sentence on C says in no case shall density be transferred into the coastal high hazard area from outside the coastal high hazard area. So how does the TDRs work for that? MR. WEEKS: If -- if you have one property within the CHHA and you wanted to transfer density from that to another property within. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that -- that isn't hurting the overall density of CHHA. It'd still remain the same, it's just transferring internally. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's one of the concerns we had, and that doesn't seem to violate that concern. But the other issue on page 26, 2A, I thought we said we were Page 209 March 8, 2006 going to add the language based on Mr. Mulhere's comment that that is not applicable in the CHHA. MR. WEEKS: My note was that you wanted to reference the density cap of four units per acre so that the reader would not be deceived into thinking, oh, I can have 16 units per acre, only to later find out, oops, I now can't because I'm in the CHHA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what's the difference? It's not applicable because he can't have 16 units in the CHHA, right? MR. WEEKS: The difference -- that's correct. The difference is under this conversion of commercial zoning bonus, the property could come back up from the three to four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: That's the difference. It just gets you back to four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- I don't have a problem with that. That's limited as far as -- do you understand it now, Bruce, now that we finally think we do? MR. ANDERSON: I think I do. And my point was that I thought you ought to be able to go to the full 16 if you had an affordable housing component. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. MR. ANDERSON: Because you can today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's hopefully some of the things we're working on. Thank you, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not popping up again, too, are you? MR. MULHERE: Well, again, I just wanted to know -- I'm not sure exactly where you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're on page 27. We're going to page 27, but we haven't gotten there yet. MR. MULHERE: Residential infill, those provisions? Page 210 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't gotten there. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on the top part of page 27. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I know you're going to be jumping up when we got to the bottom of page 27. Okay. On page 27, members of the commission, do we have any concerns? I certainly do, but I'm going to hear all you first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just -- just the affordable by right. I mean just to say it out loud, what we're saying is if you've got ten acres, you could build 40 houses on it. Unless you build ten-- unless you put ten percent affordable housing, then you get 32 more marketable houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this says -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you can do 80 units on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's -- you're going to get 80. I'm adding to it. I'm starting at the -- with the affordable you get 32 more market rate houses for eight affordable units by right, without the neighbors' scrutiny, without anything. MR. WEEKS: The way it's proposed is that it's an all or nothing. You can't simply come in and say let me have four units per acre by right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: You -- if you say I'm going to develop affordable workforce housing, you meet the criteria of having ten acres or more in the certain zoning district within the urban area, then you can jump all the way up to eight units per acre by right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: That -- pardon me. If you said I only want to do four units per acre of affordable workforce housing, yes, that would be Page 211 March 8, 2006 allowed. But what I want to make sure that it's clear is that you cannot achieve any density by right unless you're providing affordable workforce housing. There is no provision for simply walking in and saying let me have the base density by right. That can only occur if you're providing affordable workforce housing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But that's quite a reward. In other words, a guy can't walk in the door and get 40 units, but he can walk in the door and get 72 units with eight affordable housing units. Ten percent and -- MR. WEEKS: Whatever the formula is but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: Yes, maximum of 80 in your example, 80 units by right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Without anybody knowing it. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: By just submitting the site development plan and getting the building permit and -- well, not that that's simple, but -- MR. WEEKS: That is correct, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just astounded that we would even think of something like that without a public hearing process. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is no different than the other provisions we've already addressed similar to it. I can't see -- if we didn't feel the other ones should go forward, this one certainly should not go forward. We can belabor it again if we want to and listen to everybody's sides of it, but it's going to be the same outcome, I would hope. My recommendation is we strike C completely. Is anybody objecting to that? Page 212 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I'd kind of like, could we make that only in the mixed use activity center area? Then we kill that other bird that I have a problem with. In other words, we have that density band area that I really think should be -- have a lot of housing, that's just a really smart planning concept. Could we limit where it occurs by right? MR. WEEKS: Certainly we -- you have that option. I'll make two comments. One, you potentially have the same compatibility concern because right outside that activity center you might have a lower density development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: Secondly, I would question whether anyone would use such a provision given that past experience shows that virtually 100 percent of the activity centers are zoned and developed commercial. Flip side is if you don't give them the opportunity, how can they? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- I stand by my prior statement. I don't believe we're here to second guess the policy set by the BCC. So I still think C ought to be struck. I'm going to ask again. Does anybody have an objection to that? Okay. C gets struck. Page 27, the bottom strike outs. Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere. Obviously I don't agree with eliminating this residential infill provision. But notwithstanding that disagreement, I'd like to suggest the potential for retaining some portions of it. First of all, it's -- coastal high hazard area is excluded from the provision, as you can see in the first paragraph. It's got a limit on the size, 20 acres or less. And we're talking about -- the project is compatible with surrounding land uses, and I think those are the main issues that you've raised as concerns typically related to being able to Page 213 March 8, 2006 increase density. This makes sense. Again, it's in the urban area, it's urban infill. That's where you should be allowing additional density, that's where you can have economies of scale. I really disagree with striking through this. And I understand it was the board's direction and -- but-- but I would suggest that it be retained, that you consider retaining it. But if you are not inclined to do that, I wonder -- if you look at G and H, presently it says of the three additional units -- by the way, the bonus was really only two because you were required to go and buy a TDR from Sending Lands to be able to get those two. And that -- so that was really only an increase of two units overall. Somebody trying to get my attention? No. Okay. And so I wonder if -- if you're not inclined to retain this if you wouldn't consider still allowing for an increase in density for the same kind of qualifications, 20 acres in size, compatibility, et cetera, but allow that solely through the acquisition of TDR's Sending Lands. It's not my preference, but it's certainly better than eliminating it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Mulhere. Any comments from the board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just why did they want to eliminate it, David? The EAR doesn't mention why but -- MR. WEEKS: It's the same as with the density band. Eliminate the competition for affordable workforce housing. Again, like Joe had mentioned, it's just one more opportunity for market rate housing to be provided at a higher density, and therefore more profit to the developer without addressing the affordable workforce housing need. So the board wanted to eliminate the competition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the failure of that argument is that the matrix as we just went through the 32 to eight, that's what's killing your -- I mean there's your eliminating units through Page 214 March 8, 2006 competition within your own matrix. COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, I think perhaps Cormac's office can be adding things in when they are doing their inclusionary zoning. I think that's where it should come in. Perhaps residential infill comes back in, but it must include affordable housing as one of the criteria. MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so I think when you get to your -- get working on inclusionary zoning, that's where it would be more applicable, I believe. MR. WEEKS: I would just note that if we're going to have an affordable workforce housing bonus, I don't know what the purpose is for having multiple bonuses. My point is we already have that bonus. Whether it gets changed by right or not as an addition, we have that bonus available. I'm not sure what the benefit is of saying you have some type residential infill workforce housing bonus. I mean I'm thinking that we just -- a bonus provision for workforce housing is all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got -- if Mr. Mulhere came in with a 20-acre project under the density that he qualifies for of four units per acre and he wanted to add more density and he was willing to do it with affordable housing, couldn't he apply for that right to use that bonus through the process and be awarded a bonus if the -- everybody deemed it was worthy? So I mean this doesn't eliminate infill from giving more density. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Mr. Mulhere, in your example, would have the option of asking for a bonus under the affordable workforce housing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- and! or this bonus provision. He could do both. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And he could be coming in with 12 units per acre. Page 215 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but he'd have to go through the process, and it would be a public hearing, as it should be. That's my point. So -- thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would this work if the three units were affordable housing? In other words, you have an infill you can build for, but if you make the three additional ones affordable housing -- I mean if they're trying to make it affordable housing, why don't they just say it and do it? Why come up with a little game to play? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they're doing that by eliminating all the other bonuses about affordable housing. That's what they've been doing on this whole document. At least that's the way it appears. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, not all of the bonuses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the problem I have with that, Mark, is that the matrix doesn't really bring in a lot of affordable housing. I mean, again, the ratios we've discussed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Brad, the matrix hasn't been adopted by the BCC at this point. They asked to have it brought back on March 28th, from what I understand. MR. GIBLIN: Again, to address the matrix -- Cormac Giblin, housing development manager. The amendments here simply refer back to the section in the LDC where the matrix is contained. The BCC directed us to reevaluate -- completely reevaluate that matrix at their last meeting. Weare retaining a consultant to do that, to look at it, give it a thorough economic analysis. So the matrix itself may be radically amended pending the results of that study. So the citations pointing us back to the LDC would then be -- you know, incorporate those changes, as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Cormac. Page 216 March 8, 2006 Are there any other comments on page 27 or 28? Because that item rolled over to 28. David? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to just make sure I'm clear. Absence of any specific direction, I'm assuming the planning commission's action is not to recommend any change, that is, show -- show residential infill as deleted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless we -- our consensus is given to you to change something that's here, I don't think we're recommending a change. And I haven't heard anybody bringing up a consensus on that issue. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. Just when I hear comments that suggest change -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the -- based on the discussion, I didn't think it was needed to go through it again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean I could do a lone wolf vote again if you want, but we don't have to -- MR. WEEKS: I just want to make sure we're clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't want to put yourself in that position. Page 28. Are there any other questions on page 28? Page 29? Page 30? Oh, page 29? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, please. I'm looking at maximum density general, A. Let me see if I understand this right. The maximum allowed density shall not exceed 16, except by utilizing the transfer of development rights. So what would it be then? MR. WEEKS: It's -- it's -- unfortunately it's not a simple answer. The -- this again is referring to the prerural fringe TDR process. The rural fringe TDR process is very straightforward. One TDR credit per five acres and you have certain bonuses. The TDR program that's referred to here allows for a density increase that is -- that varies with the zoning of the receiving area. Page 217 March 8, 2006 You cannot exceed -- it's either five or ten percent, depending on the zoning, of the receiving area's zoning. Let me give you an example. If you had RMF 16 zoning -- that allows 16 units per acre -- you would be limited to receiving a TDR density bonus of no more than five percent of that 16 or -- if I do the math right is that .8 dwelling units? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Point eight, yeah. MR. WEEKS: So in that case, .8 dwelling units per acre over the 16 maximum allowed by this provision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you could have 16.8. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought we maxed at 16 in the LDC and the GMP. MR. WEEKS: That's -- that exception has been there since plan adoption in '89. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just learned something. MR. WEEKS: Again, only used one since the plan was adopted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 30. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just, again, from the meeting is that -- in this -- the coastal high hazard four units, I know we're going to add some verbiage upfront, but would it be smart here to note that that four is only available with one? And the impression I got is that, you know, we have the affordable housing system where you get more marketplace housings. I got the impression that it's three market housing, one affordable housing to get that. Is that the -- in other words, if I have ten acres and I play the -- let me see. If I had ten acres, I'd have 40 units. I guess I'd almost have to do that, wouldn't I? Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you wanted 40 units, I think if you're in the coastal high hazard you could build 30 of them market Page 218 March 8, 2006 rate and then ten of them -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we're clear that that ten would be -- it's not ten percent. In other words, is it four -- is it four affordable and the balance marketplace, or is it three market, one affordable to get the four? MR. WEEKS: For the specific formula that is used I'll have to defer to Cormac to explain, but your base density of three units per acre are all market rate housing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. WEEKS: And then of that in this case one unit per acre bonus, that's where the formula comes in to determine how many of that one unit per acre would be market rate, how much -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Cormac, take the lowest thing on the matrix, which is 50 percent, ten percent -- ten percent of 50 percent. So essentially that would give you much more than one bonus density. So you're limiting yourself there, but that's the -- you know, the lowest you could come in on the matrix with. So that would give us four units of affordable, 36 units of marketplace. So essentially that -- it's not 75 percent like you're thinking. MR. GIBLIN: You're correct, you're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I -- MR. GIBLIN: You get the three and then you apply the formula to get you the other one, and then it's whatever -- however the formula works out in terms of percentage in terms of how many market and how many affordable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I really remember that day is that you can have three units. The only way you can have four units, if you make that fourth unit -- in other words, what the ratio really should be, according to the conversation I thought we had, we should have ten units of affordable, 30 units of market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was what I was thinking we were Page 219 March 8, 2006 heading. I'm a little -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we suggest that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's -- let's suggest that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the coastal high hazard if you want to make up the additional one unit, you don't apply the matrix. That-- all of that one unit applied has to be affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that would give us six more units than we would got -- we would get if we don't make that requirement right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. I thought that's -- unfortunately, I thought that's where we were heading all along. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would seem reasonable that if you have a density bonus for affordable housing that it should be built as affordable housing, right? MR. GIBLIN: Well, no. The bonus comes into the play when-- the bonus is the extra market rate units that entice the developer to build the affordable units. So that's the -- that's the true essence of the density bonus. COMMISSIONER CARON: And in the coastal high hazard area perhaps gap housing would be the way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See what the fear here-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Density bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What the fear here would be is developers won't buy it because if they don't get a mix of additional market, they can't afford to do the affordable. So that's more of an argument to include the affordable in the base of the three. See people cringe on that one. But it's like I said, if we've got all this density out there in the books ofa base of four, why don't some of the base automatically require, inclusionary zoning which -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's the direction. Page 220 March 8,2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's where we're going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do we do? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Bob Mulhere. I just have one. Okay. Did you just recommend that the base density in the coastal high hazard area is three, and if you want to get to four that all of the fourth unit must be affordable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we talked about it, I don't think there was a recommendation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think we made that conclusion. MR. MULHERE: One just comment. And if that's -- if that's what you're recommending, it's very easy to understand. You -- I would wonder if you would not -- does that term affordable potentially include some gap housing? And I think if you did, you might actually see somebody out there building some affordable and some gap. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't have a problem with it personally. MR. MULHERE: I mean they would have to figure out a ratio of that unit. Forty percent gap, 60 percent affordable, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, in our earlier discussion with David Weeks, he said that staffs going to come back and everywhere we're discussing affordable in reference in these documents, he's going to change the language to reflect latest definitions in the LDC. MR. MULHERE: I recall hearing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: That makes sense. But I still think, Mr. Strain, that they're going to have to figure out in this case -- you're talking about instead of a percentage, a unit per acre -- that there has to be some ability to have a ratio of that one unit per acre for gap and for affordable. So it takes a little bit more than just, in this case -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 221 March 8, 2006 MR. MULHERE: -- you know, defining it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm willing -- I think in this case we're better off leaving the mix of that additional unit to whatever the matrix comes out that's going to be developed and revised and presented to the BCC and adopted at some point, rather than try to monkey with it here today. MR. MULHERE: No, I tend to agree, but I just wanted to put it on the record that it -- you know, there should be some gap housing provision as well as affordable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that that -- in the matrix when it's finally concluded, I thought that that -- everything is open season in that matrix. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I think. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. We're not -- we're not precluding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on. Bottom of page 30. I had one question. You have a reference to a human scale. Is there -- anybody know what a human scale is? I mean I know what a bathroom scale is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That Da Vinci picture of the guy in the circle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is it when you talk about it in relationship to development? What are you trying to say? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a mixed use term. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, a smart growth term. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. It means pedestrian oriented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so that the court reporter can get' Page 222 March 8, 2006 everything accurate, we have to go back to being recognized when we speak. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Everybody's running -- it's getting late in the day. David, could you answer my question in regards to this human scale definition? Is there one or do we know what that means? MR. WEEKS: There's not a definition. I agree with what's been stated, that it's a smart growth term and may even re -- predate the smart growth movement, if you will. But it does refer to pedestrian scale. The scale of buildings in particular in reference to a human being. To try to put it in a different term, you would not want to have a ten story building sitting really close to the front setback line. You would want something much shorter close to the front setback line, closer to the street frontage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this -- is this verbiage somehow implemented in the LDC so that we can -- when we reference human scale in the GMP, we know what we're talking about in the Land Development Code? MR. WEEKS: Actually, I don't think it is specifically in the LDC, but this would be implemented through a rezone action because it's in the mixed use activity center language. So when a property comes in for rezoning, at that time we would consider their development standards as to whether or not they're meeting the intent of this -- this provision for human scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I might add when the LDC language for the mixed use comes forward there will be clearly stated what it is intended, sidewalk, the whole bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Page 31, anybody have questions on page 31? About the middle of the page you've got Page 223 March 8, 2006 26 units for a hotel, motel, which I know has been I think on the books for a long time. The conversions -- I know Marco Island's going through a rewrite of some of their districts that have hotels in them because hotels are starting to convert to residential. If someone wanted to convert a hotel to residential here, would they have to then convert it on the basis of the residential density allowed in that particular district they're in? And I'm thinking of the coastal high hazard in particular. MR. WEEKS: This is where we would -- we would look at that policy, if applicable, FLUE policy 5.1 that we had a lot of discussion about earlier. Looking at the intensity of the existing zoning, in this case the hotel development, versus what they've proposed. And -- but if they're in the coastal high hazard area, four is the maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: No exceptions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I wanted to make sure. Anything else by anybody on page 31? The second to the last paragraph, the last line, you're talking about a project that's located in the mixed use activity center that is not within the urban residential fringe district but is within the coastal high hazard area. Then it says -- and this is about the middle of the paragraph. If such a proj ect is located within the boundaries of a mixed use activity center which is within the urban residential fringe subdistrict, eligible density shall be allowed by that subdistrict. Now, then it goes for residential only project. It seems that you can spread the residential portion of the density but not the commercial. And I'm concerned about if you have mixed use projects. If you have a mixed use project -- and I think Mercato's a prime example. Can you repeat the Mercato ex -- Mercato project based on the language in this? And if not, is it a distance or a density issue that we have to affix to some -- some point from the activity center in order Page 224 March 8,2006 to make that possible? MR. WEEKS: Answer to the first question is that Mercato would not be allowed, and that's intentional on staffs part. The language as it presently exists would be in the last complete paragraph on page 31 where it speaks to a residential project and it specifically provides that the -- for a project that's a residential project, partly in and partly outside of the activity center, that the density is allowed at 16 units per acre for the acreage within the activity center. And it explicitly provides that it can be distributed throughout the whole project. The purpose for that -- again, this goes back to original plan adoption in '89. The purpose for that is to -- is to not force the project to have high density in the activity center, and you get outside the activity center and have a much lower density. It's allowed the density to be spread out so that you might have a consistent, uniform density throughout the entire proj ect. In the case of mixed use development, the incentive provide -- for -- for getting additional density was intended and should be for doing mixed use development in the activity center. From a staff perspective, to me it simply does not make sense to say you're doing a mixed use development within the activity center, we're going to let you have the maximum density measured for your entire acreage. So assume you have the entire 40-acre quadrant and you're doing some commercial and some residential within that activity center, we would allow you to take the 40 acres times 16 dwelling units per acre and take that density and spread a bunch of it outside the activity center. How has that helped promote mixed use development in the activity center when that is the Page 225 March 8, 2006 intent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But didn't you find Mercato consistent with the GMP? MR. WEEKS : Yes, we did. And I'll tell you straight -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, this is confusing now. Did you write this? MR. WEEKS: I wrote this language to -- to try to make it clear. I mean I -- I believe all along that the language intent was not to allow for the density to be spread throughout. If you look at the paragraph that begins on the bottom of page 31 and goes onto 32, this entire paragraph is about mixed use development. There's a sentence in there on page 32 -- I'm looking for where it says you can spread the density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'd be the last sentence. MR. WEEKS: It's the very first -- excuse me. It's the very first complete sentence on the top of 32. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. WEEKS: Density -- excuse me. Existing language. Density is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the activity center. So that -- that's simply stating that -- that if you're doing a mixed use development -- and that's what the intent is, this whole paragraph is about mixed use development -- that you can then -- by example, all 40 acres, you can calculate the density that way. But there's nothing in here that states or in my mind suggests that you could spread that density outside of the activity center. We're trying to promote a mixed use development in the activity center, and that's why you get the density bonus. This is a parallel to and the amendment that added this paragraph came about at the same time about two years ago, when we established the residential mixed use neighborhood subdistrict and also the commercial mixed use subdistrict. Both of which allowed for mixed use development, both of which Page 226 March 8, 2006 allowed for calculating density of the entire project, but they do not allow you to take that calculated density and spread it outside of the commercial component. So this is consistent with how those two provisions read. And, again, it was added at the same time. So my -- back to the question of Mercato. I'll just tell you flat out. I think we as staff made an error. I pulled that analysis that we wrote for that proj ect, and in our analysis we talked about spreading the density outside. And I think we're just simply wrong. We quoted the paragraph above which talks about a residential development. Mercato is not a residential development, it is mixed use. The only saving grace, if there is one, is that -- in the case of Mercato, is that the density granted was three units per acre. And though I think it would've -- I think the county should have mandated a certain number of units to be built within the activity center, we did not. Some of those units -- therefore, there's not a specified number of units to be built. If they should be -- build a certain number of units within the Mercato's activity center portion, then that portion outside of the activity center may in fact be at three units per acre and therefore consistent with -- with the plan. But the short of it is in my opinion we as staffmade a mistake. Now, what did the board approve? Well, the board approved a gross density of three units per acre without specifying where those units are going to be built. So it's going to ultimately come down to a policy decision for the BCC, what was your intent. Staff is telling you what they -- their -- they -- they always intended, but the board ultimately will have to say, no, staffwe disagree or, yes, we do agree and we're not going to let a Mercato type proj ect happen again. In the sense of spreading that density outside the activity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, compared to the intersection of Airport and Pine Ridge Road and similar intersections Page 227 March 8, 2006 throughout the county, Mercato is a great proj ect. It does a wonder -- I mean it's got -- it's a good layout, it brings in a lot of smart growth, it brings in mixed use development. I can't see why we wouldn't want that to happen, versus what we have had happen in other activity centers. So I would think that rather than hinder proj ects like that, you would at least -- if you have a concern about the maximum density overall if you were to allow some contiguous properties to be included with that project, you limit the distance to how far out you could go and then the maximum density overall and then you've got all the criteria met to make sure that any proj ects that happen are of a quality similar to what we've already approved. I'm a little surprised that you guys didn't think it's consistent now, but it was then. And I saw that as one of the positive projects that have come through. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I were to own ten acres outside of the activity center and the necessary acreage inside, it would certainly be to my advantage to expand and utilize the bonuses. But if we have a boundary, which is what I understand you're trying to establish, you have a boundary and that's where the bonuses are -- and I guess I'm in direct conflict with you -- it would seem to me that you'd want to keep that boundary. Now, otherwise how deep would you go with that? Now, I understood, I thought, what you're talking about some definition about distance, but if I owned an acreage and it extended quite far, where do I draw the line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm suggesting we establish a distance and a maximum density over the whole thing and then we're covered. But anyway -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that defensible? Is that -- is Page 228 March 8, 2006 that something -- well, I don't know. I mean I'm not enough -- smart enough to know all this but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Arnold, did you have some comments since you were the planner for Mercato? MR. ARNOLD: I did. Thank you. Wayne Arnold, for the record. I wanted to address two things. One, I think, David, you may not be aware that there was a late change in the process, I believe, at the planning commission in which they established a minimum number of units that had to be developed as an integral component in the activity center. And I believe the number was 50 that was established as a minimum for Mercato. And I think also, too, keeping in mind I think it -- it talked about in here, I think in reading in this, I don't -- I didn't think that at the time -- and I don't know that anybody else on our team did either -- that staff was in error because the language to me contemplates moving the density and using your total gross project acreage. And also keep in mind that this is for a master plan activity center in this particular case -- and there are only, what, four of those -- in which they know property owners own property within the activity center and outside the activity center. And I guess I agree with Mr. Strain that if the thinking is that we just don't want somebody to have a thousand acres outside the activity center and they're taking a maximum possible density and then blending it into the rest of the project, we're okay with that. I think a quarter mile in our case works. I know there's another example that's in the process, and I think a quarter mile -- a quarter mile from the activity center works for them, as well. And our particular case, as David said, I think our density was maybe just a hair over three, but certainly would be less than the potential four unit per acre gross density that's being contemplated. Page 229 March 8, 2006 But I think if the concern was not allowing the units to be spread forever and ever into another project, I would agree with Mr. Strain that the quarter mile distance seems to work just fine, if it's a true mixed use project. I don't think anybody disagrees with that concept that David's talking about that the proj ect would need be mixed use where -- it wouldn't be mixed use in the sense that I've got all commercial and then I've got a stand-alone residential, but it needs to be one where you actually have a mixed use proj ect, and then you may also have a residential component. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my suggestion would be that for mixed use projects, they're allowed to extend through joint -- through common ownership a quarter mile past the activity center, but not to exceed a density cap of four units overall gross. That's just a food for thought discussion we'll get into later. Mr. Mulhere, do you have any comments? MR. MULHERE: Well, yes, I have a few. Thank you. Bob Mulhere, again, for the record. I am representing a client who does own property both within a mixed use and potentially master plan, one of the designated master planned activity centers, both within the activity center and without. It is -- it has not gone through the process fully yet. It's under review. I had some discussions with staff related to a finding of theirs initially that it wasn't consistent because we did not identify any number of units required to be constructed, residential units required to be constructed within the commercial activity center portion of it. Subsequent to that we -- in speaking with David, David indicated that he felt like there was a mistake made in Mercato for that reason and that -- that -- that some number of units ought to be required within the activity center residential to truly make it a mixed use activity center. I think he's gone a little bit beyond that with his recommendation presently. Page 230 March 8, 2006 At that point it was represented to me that that would be then consistent. Maybe the number might be arguable. I could see that the number would be -- two is not enough. Is a hundred -- you know. But not that it would be eliminated completely. And I think he's gone a little bit beyond that with his recommendation. Having said that, I do understand his intent. And I think we all agree that these should be mixed use proj ects in order to avail yourself of the residential component. It's just a question of the number. I like your suggestion of a geographic boundary. I also had just made some notes which I'll share with you, but I think David talked a little bit before about having -- as part of this discussion about having a transition. And, you know, perhaps a transition in terms of the density within the activity center, to the general area outside the activity center, to some other area that might be further removed, say from the quarter mile, I mean it should go from higher density down to lower density. That's part of the whole point here. Also, in -- had a concept that -- and maybe this doesn't work as well as -- as a geographic ring around it. You know, just drawing a quarter mile ring around it sand staying within that area. But I had also made a note that -- which I thought would have been consistent with -- with my previous discussions to -- with David would have been some minimum percentage of the density that you generate from within the activity center must be utilized within the activity center. Either way it's just a different way of looking at it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You indicated that, you know, that that's -- that's the process, inferring almost like density bands, right? MR. MULHERE: At least one, yeah. Page 231 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that really the purpose of mixed use? MR. MULHERE: No. I think the purpose of mixed use is -- is-- there's a whole bunch of benefits to mixed use. There's traffic benefits. I think you know, you were involved in the smart growth. My point, though, is that -- no, I think that David's point was that in part there should be a transition from the higher density permitted within the activity center to the -- to the areas outside of the activity center that are only permitted to have a lower density. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And I can appreciate that. I guess my concern there would be -- we don't -- well, I don't. I don't think we should create a bonus because someone happens to own property contiguous to the activity center and can realize an extra benefit from it unnecessarily. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, I could certainly see it if in mixed use, which the intent I understand in mixed use is to allow residential to be within that activity center and then to have the contiguity make sense. Then I could certainly see it. But to -- but you're -- nothing more than commercial within and residential without doesn't strike me as being a proper -- MR. MULHERE: And we agree, and we're not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is a project that is wholly master plan that would be very consistent with the other provisions here that talk about human scale, pedestrian friendly, mixed use, open, accessible -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Very clearly. MR. MULHERE: -- not gated. Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But then I think that-- MR. MULHERE: But I'm saying you ought to be -- you have to have the ability to spread that out and do a master plan proj ect, as opposed to -- and I -- and originally that, I think, was David's opinion, Page 232 March 8, 2006 that some minimum amount, whatever that is -- I don't think it was -- you know, we were kind of shooting in the dark a little bit as to what that number would be. But I think he went a little beyond that to say if it's mixed use none of the density that's generated from the activity center can be spread to the area outside of the activity center. That's my-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to move forward here, guys. Go ahead, Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: May I speak again? Thank you. Wayne Arnold, again, for the record. Just wanted to also add that I think that to make the prohibition as staff has proposed here is very inconsistent with the way that we've treated mixed use projects and other subdistricts. And I also think that it's inconsistent with the way we've treated pure residential or pure commercial. Because in the form of a mixed use activity center -- Mercato, for instance, had 27.5 acres or something to that effect that was technically in the activity center. And the language wasn't clear -- and David's trying to rectify that, as well, to say the acreage of commercial couldn't be exceeded. I could theoretically create a diagonal line of 27 acres and extend it for more than a quarter of a mile, for instance. And what I think we're trying to do is you would -- in the context of what we're doing has to be in a public hearing. We have to come through a PUD zoning. You're going to get your shot at it. I think we're simply asking -- I don't want to be the representative of a project that, you know, within three months after us going through the process and having an endorsement from I think almost every group that we've talked to that I find myself in a situation where I've got a nonconforming situation and that to go back and make any amendments to that project puts me in jeopardy of a finding of inconsistency with this plan. And I -- I hope you're on board with our position that we can have Page 233 March 8, 2006 some limitations on distance to help address staffs concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. F or the panel I would suggest that we consider something to the effect that if it's a master plan mixed use project and can extend up to a quarter mile outside the activity center, not to exceed an overall four units per acre with -- I would suggest two of those units per acre be located within the activity center. How does that sound with the commission? And, Mr. Weeks, do you have any problems with that? I mean you may have problems with it, but is it doable? MR. WEEKS: It's doable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is limiting the whole project to four units per acre. Because we're in an activity center, that's where we should really be packing our density where it's going to require less transportation. I think the intent of it, I mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the density it could go to, David? MR. WEEKS: For most activity -- for activity centers not within the urban residential fringe, not within the coastal high hazard area, 16 units per acre is allowed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And I think Brad's right. We don't want to reduce it where the intensity belong -- where the density belongs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then just leave it --let's just focus on the distance, and let the density work itself out in the marketplace with the plan -- master plan unit process that would require them to come before us anyway. MR. MULHERE: I just gotta -- if I could, two things. Again, Bob Mulhere. Mr. Strain, your recommendation -- I just want to clarify because you said -- you said four units per acre gross max on the entire proj ect. Page 234 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're discussing that right now. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I just had one question. But you also said two of those units had to be within the activity center. I think then you've got a situation where again if you have a very large pr~ject, you're entitled to four units per acre out there, you're taking now units from way outside, I think it has to be tied to a percentage of the activity center generated density is my suggestion. In other words, if you want to say 25 percent or 30 percent or 40 percent of the density generated from the activity center at a minimum that -- that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That makes it a lot -- that makes it a lot cleaner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, that percentage could be the percentage of land that's outside or inside. I think the odds are you're going to have a larger percent outside of the activity center, so couldn't you distribute the density based on that percentage? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a great suggestion. David, why don't you work on some rewrite of this language and bring it back to us when we reconvene on this issue tomorrow or whatever next week, whatever's -- when you tell us you've got the language, before we vote on the FLUE we'd like to have it. MR. WEEKS: Okay. I think your one direction is that this would be limited to spreading the density out for a -- if it's a mixed use development in a master planned activity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, yes. And with that we are going to take a break until 4:30. When we come back, we're going to discuss when this commission's going to end its meeting today. Thank you. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I believe, Mr. Murray, you had a Page 235 March 8, 2006 7: 00 appointment? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- we have town meeting tonight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe were to break by 6:00 would that work for you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That'd be fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolf1at, would 6:00 work for you? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- Miss Court Reporter, does 6:00 work for you? Without you we are in dire straits. COURT REPORTER: It works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, we left off on page 32. And David was going to come back for the top of that page with some revised language before we finish. Not today, but whatever day we get into that. Miss Caron, I think you had an element to discuss on the balance of page 32 and over to page 33? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I was just wondering if all of these factors to be considered during the review rezone, should all this go into the LDC and not in the GMP, or is there a reason for it to be here? MR. WEEKS: Two things. One, this -- these factors have been in the plan since its adoption in '89. Secondly, we have a separate set of rezone criteria in the Land Development Code which have the broad applicability whereas this is only applicable to the activity center. I would suggest we leave it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that answer your question? Page 236 March 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on to page 33. Anybody have any questions on page 33? Hearing none, I'll move on to page 34. Are there any questions on page 34? David, on the number two, towards the bottom of page 34, I have three words I wanted to ask you about. The first one, if you go to the third line up, about the middle of the line, it says the word shall. Would that be better used as the word may? MR. WEEKS: Third line from the bottom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. About halfway across the line. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the word shall? We're on page 34. MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. Let me get the context. You want to change that to may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just thinking it would be -- that flexibility might be better. MR. WEEKS : No, sir. Because this is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I was asking. MR. WEEKS: The sentence is -- is providing for maximum amount of commercial development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we're not telling someone they gotta build to the maximum. MR. WEEKS: Let me double-check that. I'm having trouble concentrating, but I think you're right, actually. The more I read it, I think you're right. What I'll -- what I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can just come back to us on it. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go eight lines up, you'll see the same word appear after the word area, the left side of the sentence this time. Area shall be used. If you could just check that maybe those shalls should be may and get back to us next week, whenever we Page 237 March 8, 2006 remeet. I'll make a note that page 34 is coming back. Further up -- actually it's the fifth line down from the beginning of that paragraph, all the way to the right, the added language. It says to the extent of the unified control. I'm just wondering how the word extent factors in or what is it you're trying to get to with that -- is that the right word? Is it self-defining? MR. WEEKS: That -- the master planned activity centers allow for a person that controls a certain amount of the activity center to change the boundary. Mercato's been discussed previously and that was one example. They controlled a certain amount of the activity center, so they were allowed to reconfigure the shape. They could not exceed the acreage within the activity center, but just reconfigure it. This is trying to make it clear that you can only reconfigure to the extent of the unified control. If you don't own the entire activity center acreage, you cannot change the entire activity center acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to get at. So you only can change the property you own, obviously. MR. WEEKS: That's the point, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no other questions on 34. We're on to 35. Does anybody have questions on 35? David, on 35 in the -- we have paragraph number three, and just above that you have some strikeouts. And if you go to the beginning of the strikeout and back up to the next sentence above it, again, the word shall pops up. And I always read these wondering if shall is the right word and not may. So in your review of page -- this is all part of that paragraph two where we started. Would you look at that one, as well, when you come back to us? MR. WEEKS: I can tell you this one is intentional because this activity center imposes a cap on the amount of commercial development that is allowed. So in this case, saying the shall is accurate. So it's -- it's precluding any additional commercial beyond Page 238 March 8, 2006 the 45 acres allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I had a comment, I'm sorry, on two, but also -- but is on this page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: The top of the page. My pages don't exactly match yours, but starting with the sentence under two that says the maximum amount of commercial uses permitted at activity center seven and then continues down to -- to -- to list -- this is the Hammock park commerce center and has specific use limitations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I can't find it. Oh, yeah. MR. MULHERE: Well, it goes further down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You start on page 34 is where it starts. MR. MULHERE: Right. There are specific use limitations. That activity center, including these 19 acres that have specific use limitations placed on them, are immediately adjacent to the -- the new Collier Regional Medical Center. The plan -- I think it's on page 14 or 15 of yours. I can read it to you, it's fairly brief. But the -- by the way, I previously spoke to David regarding this during a break. But the plan allows support medical facility, such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment centers, et cetera, anywhere within a quarter mile of existing or approved hospitals. And I'm suggesting that that's an appropriate place to allow those uses. It's immediately adjacent to the new hospital. And I spoke with David and I think David can speak for himself, but I think he did not object or did not have an objection to that. So I'd like to ask that we would be able to reference back to that section or those uses that are allowed everywhere else in the county within a quarter mile of a hospital. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that we have another hospital location -- Page 239 March 8, 2006 MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- makes sense to apply it. David, do you see any problems with that? MR. WEEKS: I concur. I just quickly mention that as a result of a private GMP amendment is how this -- this additional 19 acres or so was -- was expanded into that activity center. Those use limitations were part of that private amendment where they were -- their argument was we're not proposing normal activity center uses, we're proposing these special types of uses. So they were limited to those. I concur with Bob that it's appropriate to allow for these support medical uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since you're going to be looking at this paragraph two in response to our other questioning, can you just look at it in this regard too and -- MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- propose any language that makes it work better? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 35? Page 36? Page 37? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're back to that developments that are partial in and partial out. So at the last -- second to last paragraph, the large one, mixed use developments, the end of that discusses that. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on, Brad? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thirty-seven. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thirty-seven. Again, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These aren't master plan activity centers, though, are they? These are interchange activity centers. Does that-- MR. WEEKS: Correct. Page 240 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- connotate a difference, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you want it the way that is? MR. WEEKS: Yes. The mixed use activity centers have the provision for being master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. These have a lot of more intense uses than just mixed use activity centers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they are mixed use developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 37, if we go to the last full paragraph on the page, starts with mixed use developments, do you see the second sentence there? Such mixed use projects are intended to be developed to human scale. On page 31 -- all that language was struck at the bottom of page 31. That mixed use development description -- was it struck to add it here? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. Because they're two different subdistricts. One's the -- page 31 is the mixed use activity center, and page 37 is the interchange activity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is the -- if you struck it out once should it be struck on the others is kind of what I am asking. MR. WEEKS: I agree they should be consistent because they're both similar provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they -- we should strike both sentences there? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean I -- I think the sentence has an intent. We don't want the intent or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they didn't want it in page 31, mixed use developments there, and I notice that the same language was Page 241 March 8, 2006 moved over and redescribed in page 30 in some regards. So I was assuming there was a reason to move it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have it on the top of31, we don't have it at the bottom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it is still in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah but -- that is the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean from a design standpoint it mean something to -- MR. WEEKS: My mistake. That language on page 31 that was struck through is moved over right to page 30. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: We just relocated it. So back to page 37, we should not delete that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: My apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 37? Page 38? Page 39? Page 40? Page 41? Page-- MR. WEEKS: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. On page 41 -- I forget who it was, might've been Bruce Anderson. Anyway, someone approached me earlier today. On page 41, at the bottom, under number 11, the second and third line shows a strike through of the phrase in addition to uses allowed in the plan, and staff would ask that we not delete that language. The reason is that this was as a result of a private amendment, and it was intentional to allow uses on the property beyond just the commercial ones identified here, and staff would have no objection to allowing that language to remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have a problem with that on the commission? Okay, David. Page 42. Page 42 and 43, just for the record, on page 42 we have Page 242 March 8, 2006 an item Roman Numeral II, agricultural rural designation, A and then G. That's struck through. And it's reinstated on page 43, under re -- neutral lands B, S. That is a project that a gentleman I work for is involved with, so I will abstain from commenting or voting or any of my votes will not include a reference to that. So in the future when we vote on this element, I'm not including any reference to that particular item, and I will file the appropriate paperwork with the court reporter probably tomorrow. I don't have it with me. MR. WEEKS: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I'll just point out that all we've done is simply relocated the text. Because of the creation of the rural fringe mixed use district, the subj ect property is now designated neutral lands. So that text needed to be located there, as opposed to where it previously was located. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on 42 or 43? Page 44? David, on the top of page 44, in bold, you've got a -- a series of words. When you go to check the language that you're going to replace for substituting in the new LDC definitions involving affordable housing or gap, just out of -- wouldn't that be one of them you'd look at? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. That's the reason it's bolded and italicized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The same thing about the bottom-- towards the bottom of page two, right? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 45? Page 46? This is a north Belle Meade overlay. I had one question. The RCW nesting and foraging habitat has been mapped and used to delineate areas that are appropriately designated as sending lands. Were there other criteria, David, besides the RCW habitat that lended this -- lent this area to be designated as sending lands? Page 243 March 8, 2006 MR. WEEKS: No, no, sir. That's the single criteria. As you hopefully can see, the existing language, when the rural fringe amendments were adopted, required that the county conduct a red-cockaded woodpecker survey specific to section -- specific to the north Belle Meade area to determine if the designation of neutral, which is what it is today, should remain or should be changed to something else. This was an area of contention during the rural fringe adoption process. And as a result of that woodpecker survey, staff is proposing that the section 24 be changed from neutral to sending. You see it here -- the text changed simply to reflect that the study has occurred, and we are changing the designation. And then later in this document, under the future land use map series, you will see the same thing, that we show that we're changing the designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, we have speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Speakers? MR. COHEN: It's my understanding two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: First up, Mr. Andy Woodruff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woodruff, it's your turn. MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you. Andy Woodruff, for the record. If I might just address some comments with regard to the study that was performed presumably for this section 24. I have a copy of the study that was given to me by staff. It's entitled North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan. Okay. And I've got some concerns with the study that was done and whether it truly addressed the condition that was in the -- the FLUE element. Specifically with regard to it being a specific study for RCW nesting and foraging habitat in section 24. The study was conducted for the entire Belle Meade overlay, Page 244 March 8, 2006 which is about 1600 -- I mean 16 thousand acres. And it's not a specific study for section 24, which I thought was what was spelled out in the FLUE element. If you look at the study and you go through it-- I don't know if you have a copy of this before you or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we do not. MR. WOODRUFF: Okay. I've got some of the pertinent pages. Basically, the first 11 pages are the ecology of the bird, which is just a literature reference, essentially. If we get into the meat of the document -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, who did the study? MR. WOODRUFF: The study was done by Southern Biomes for Collier County. I believe that's how it's referenced on the cover sheet there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's the -- the guy's been around a long time. What's his -- the owner's name? MR. WOODRUFF: Geza. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Geza, yes. Okay. MR. WOODRUFF: Yeah. Don't ask me to pronounce his last name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I -- I've known him for a lot of years, many years ago. MR. WOODRUFF: Okay. The study was done, like I said, for the -- the North Belle Meade. I don't find any evidence that anybody actually stepped foot on section 24 to do an assessment for RCW foraging or nesting habitat. The study was based on photo interpretation. As you can see there, it's got 2001 color aerial photographs at 400 scale. A 400 scale photograph, that's about a 13-inch square that you're looking at for a section of land. And to assess the piece of property based on visual photo interpretation at that scale, especially Page 245 March 8, 2006 with the variables that were reported in this report, including the percent of pine canopy, the composition of subcanopy -- I don't know how you determine the subcanopy composition off of an aerial photograph with that scale -- density of canopy, density of melaleuca, density of other canopy species, proximity to open pine areas with mature pines, and potential for restoration, which I'll bring up again. The study basically concluded -- and I don't know how they made this conclusion based on these variables because I don't know what data that they used to assess section 24 based on these variables. It just comes from this methodology section of these variables that they use, and then all of the sudden we get a -- a map depicting an overlay of cavity nesting habitat and foraging habitat. And this is the -- the end result of the study. And the section 24 up in your top left corner is basically -- three-quarters there has been mapped as a cavity habitat based on this study, and then there are some other areas identified by this study. The other areas are essentially areas that are previously developed. The Hide Out Golf Club is in the bottom left, and then there's some agricultural lands in the top right and I believe some residential properties in the bottom right that were mapped as some other properties. But like I said, I don't know how they made this conclusion based on the variables and the methodology that they used. They didn't have any evidence that RCW s were actually utilizing section 24. They presented nothing in the document to say that we currently have RCW's there, either nesting or foraging. There is some reference to a 1993 record from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that's depicted on one of their drawings, but I don't know what the current situation is with that reference. The real kicker for me when I looked at this was I was trying to make -- trying to understand how they determined what they had done here. And it appears that if you look -- some of their methodology Page 246 March 8, 2006 section, it states this not only includes mature trees -- and this is how they assess cavity habitat -- but also associated open pine woodlands, savannas, or potential open pine woodlands that can be created through habitat restoration efforts. So I read that, and then I looked at their variables that they used. And here's the last variable that they used to assess the habitat and its potential for restoration. And it says as previously mentioned, pine associated habitats, whether pine or melaleuca, pine or cabbage palm or dominantly dense pine forests have the potential, through appropriate forest management practices, to be restored for RCW habitat. Therefore, areas meeting those criteria were also included as RCW habitats, if sufficient pine density existed. So basically, what that tells me is any area with pine in this study was mapped as either cavity RCW or nesting RCW, which is confusing to me if this was supposed to really be a true study of the current nesting and foraging habitat for RCW's in this area. Certainly there are areas that have the potential to be restored or created for RCW s, and those areas extend far outside of this box. And, you know, you can make a case that it should include most of southwest Florida if that's the route that we're going. But I don't think it was appropriate to put this overlay on these properties without having done a study, a true study, of what currently existed on those properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is that-- MR. WOODRUFF: I would make one other point in that the -- I think the current proposal, the way it's being reworded, is to consider all of section 24 for sending designation when there clearly are other areas in section 24, including -- obviously there are developed areas. And this is an overlay from the GIS map that we obtained from the county database, which is what this study had prepared. So the blue hatched areas are the areas that they're quantifying as the RCW Page 247 March 8, 2006 cavity habitat. The other areas are the clear areas that are crosshatched there that include, like I said, areas previously developed. There's some golf course, there's some agricultural use, and there's some residential use. A lot of those habitats, like the golf and some of the agricultural use, border other lands outside of this zone which are, I believe, receiving areas. So if there is an intent to completely reclassify this section, I don't think it would be appropriate to include some of these other developed lands, as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, thank you. Could you just help me a moment, please? Is this all 24, or could you point -- is this all 24? MR. WOODRUFF: Yes, this is all of24 inside of the red box that you're looking at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what I needed to understand. MR. WOODRUFF: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Woodruff, thank you. I'm sure we're going to have some questions of staff, and I want -- we've got to hear the other speakers, too. MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your information. MR. COHEN: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. And I'll start with a little background. Is that during the rural -- I'll be brief. Page 248 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just keeping track, but that's okay. MS. PAYTON: Rural fringe assessment, section 24 through the county's research and study of the area, came up as sending. So the science has supported section 24 being sending land from the initial rural fringe assessment. When it came time to actually designate it, there was political pressure from landowners. And also the issue at the time there was a school site in section 24 that at the final hearing there was an agreement that there would be a designation -- interim designation of sending -- excuse me, of neutral for section 24 with a vegetation protection being the same level as sending areas. And that would allow some protection while the study took place. The study was done as referenced by Geza Wass de Czege who has done on the ground evaluation of section 24. He was a school board biologist for that area. And apparently, from what he's told me, he's also done other evaluations in section 24. So he does have some historical knowledge of on the ground values of those lands. The study took place, the study came back confirming what was done during the rural fringe assessment. The section 24 rises to the level of sending. There was a misrepresented -- misrepresentation by Mr. Woodruff that section 24 only abets -- abuts sending land. It does not abut any receiving lands in North Belle Meade. The county sponsored the study. It confirms there are active RCW birds using that area. It's my understanding that the company that Mr. Woodruffworks for monitors the RCWs at the golf course. There has been -- there have been requests of landowners to come on the property and evaluate the RCW s, and biologists have been denied access. So there has not been landowner cooperation with the study, and that kind of gives you an inkling of what might be there. Because if they didn't have RCW s, they probably would say come on and look all you want. Page 249 March 8,2006 Collier County's Conservation Collier program recently purchased the school board site in section 24. It has high environmental values. The reason the county -- the county school board made it available to Conservation Collier is that through evaluation of permitting, they realized that there were too many hurdles. It was going to be too difficult to permit that site because of the listed species. RCW s do use particularly the bottom area of this site, as we've been told, and that area was going to be mitigation area. So, again, I stress that there are RCW s actively using section 24. The studies -- and I say studies -- do confirm that it is habitat. And, therefore, the data and analysis clearly supports section 24 as being sending. So I hope that you will support staff and those of us who have worked for years to get section 24 properly protected. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think we're going to have -- going to need an explanation Mr. Lorenz as -- to help us sort this out. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director. Let me just go through a couple of things here for you. As -- as Andy showed you, this is -- this is the section 24 that -- that we have under -- under review in terms of this amendment. The whole area that you see here is the North Belle Meade overlay district. You can see it a little bit better in this map of where we have -- within the North Belle Meade overlay district we have the neutral area, which is currently section 24, sending lands broken up as sending and then also NRP A or NRP A sending, which is this area here. Some neutral up in this section, some sending land here, and then the Belle Meade receiving district. The RI is technically not in the North Belle Meade overlay district. That's that rural industrial district. When -- when we looked at this assessment, the question came within the -- the original amendments was characteristics of section 24 Page 250 March 8, 2006 any different than the rest of the sending lands within the North Belle overlay district to actually put it in a different status. And that was the -- that was the question that -- that the board had in front of it when they adopted the -- the regulations. So one of the things that we wanted to have our consultant to do in -- Geza is -- was selected because he has on the ground experience within a variety of different properties within North Belle Meade, in -- in addition to section 24. So although for our purposes he -- he could not get permission to go on all the properties, he did his assessment using aerials, using his local knowledge of doing the report that has been referenced to. Based upon his data and information that he -- he provided, in terms of cal -- making an assessment as to what is cavity -- cavity tree habitat and also foraging habitat, that total together gives you the RCW habitat. We were then able to just simply do the GIS analysis to look at that RCW habitat as a percentage of the total area for those various land use designations, and that's what this slide depicts. So if we look at simply the -- the -- the area of section 24 that's RCW habitat as being proposed by Geza, who is our expert who did this study, you see in section 24 65 percent of that total area within that section rises to the -- rises to the level as RCW habitat. So that compares favorably with the other sending land designations within the North Belle Meade. When you look at some of the other designations like NRP A sending, the NRP A sending was a large part to the east. It had various other characteristics with regard to wetland land cover, and that's why it raised to the level of NRP A sending. But for RCW it -- it wasn't as important for RCW as the other sending lands were. Neutral lands, you can see 27 percent, and then receiving lands which is the area that we're trying to direct the -- the land use to is -- only has 15 percent of its lands were classified as RCW habitat lands. Page 251 March 8, 2006 I am not an RCW expert. That's why we hired Geza and Southern Biomes to perform the study to provide the information. Would -- data is available. His expertise is what we are relying upon in terms of mapping. What he would consider as appropriate RCW habitat and the analysis is what -- the study is what he found, and this is some -- another way of kind of assessing the data. Therefore, from our assessment of his information, we would certainly conclude that section 24 lands, for purposes of RCW habitat mapping, is fairly similar with the other sending lands and therefore should be considered sending lands, not neutral lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bill. I have a question that's kind of bothering me. The section 24 land that is being looked at primarily, is it -- that big piece of land owned by primarily one landowner? MR. LORENZ: I'm not sure of the ownership pattern. I can go back to the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were the landowners aware that this was being considered for sending lands? MR. LORENZ: We did not have any -- any specific advertisement to the -- to the property owners concerning this. I mean the only -- the only reference that we have to it is through the -- the -- what originally the Growth Management Plan required us to do when we did the study. I did have a distribution list of -- of individuals who were part of a North Belle Meade e-mail list that I had, but it was not going out to individual property owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll try to be as direct as I can. Mr. Woodruff obviously represents somebody. Does the somebody he represents know that this is being considered as a sending a land, or is he here just because he wants to talk about this subject? MR. LORENZ: I -- I would have to ask him that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I'm trying to go is if they -- who Page 252 March 8, 2006 prevented the county from looking at the site? Was it the same people who are now disputing the ability of this to be labeled as sending land versus a neutral land? MR. LORENZ: I -- I don't know. I don't know who was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a follow-up on that. You have e-mails and so forth about who all-- you know, the parties to be contacted, but -- MR. LORENZ: Well, no, I wouldn't say I have e-mails of all the property owners, no. I just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, let me get to the point. What -- what came to my mind was was permission sought to enter the lands for the purposes of the study by -- by the person who or persons who were chosen to perform the study? And I'm assuming there's more than one owner by inference, anyway. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I can't remember if we actually tried-- tried to do that explicitly with -- with our -- with our consultant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the study was based really on anecdotal -- MR. LORENZ: His local-- no. His -- his local knowledge and assessment of -- of aerial photographs of what the -- of what the habitats -- the vegetative signatures would be there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Has the county utilized that format in any other past activity and has been deemed acceptable? MR. LORENZ: Oh, yes. That's very typical for Growth Management Plan assessments. We -- that's the type of analysis that we did for -- to support the -- all of the rural fringe amendments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was following up on a question -- on my questioning because Miss Payton indicated that the landowners did not allow access to the property, which is something of a telltale sign. Page 253 March 8, 2006 And that certainly would be interesting to know that the land -- that the county was aware and tried to get on the property and couldn't. And you're telling me that's not the case? MR. LORENZ: I have -- I have to check with our consultant because I know that we -- that when we discussed some of this with him in terms of the preliminary planning -- because this goes back several years -- he was -- he was familiar with some of the property, and he was not -- I can't remember exactly whether he actually tried to get some permission and couldn't or simply just relied upon his -- his -- his expertise. I -- I -- I'll have to ask that question of him specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- that is a serious consideration. I mean if someone's not letting you review the property and they're here today and telling you that the property isn't what it is because you didn't review it, that certainly -- MR. LORENZ: I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- puts a twist on thing. MR. LORENZ: I don't -- I don't want to -- I -- I'm not saying that. MS. PAYTON: I could clarify my comment. MR. LORENZ: I'm not saying that. I would like to -- I would like to say that we -- we applied the -- when we hired the consultant, we asked him to go through the -- the procedures, evaluate the services for us, and we approved that scope of services. It -- it may not have included a complete calling all of the property owners and getting their permission. I don't a want to -- I don't want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me get a quick clarification-- MR. LORENZ: -- represent that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from Miss Payton on her statement. MS. PAYTON: Clarification. There are a number of activities that are going on in North Belle Meade relating to protecting red-cockaded woodpeckers. And one of those is a habitat conservation plan for the city gate project. Page 254 March 8,2006 Also, Dr. Hussey has on his property an RCW expert working on evaluating that property. And this biologist, Roy DeLotelle, has attempted to get on all the lands that have been identified as having red-cockaded woodpeckers. And that golf course in section 24 has red-cockaded woodpeckers, and they would not allow them on -- allow Mr. DeLotelle on the property. Also, back when the -- it was being debated during the transmittal and adoption hearings, there was one land owner who drove up in an automobile that's paid more than what I paid for my condo and pleaded that he was going to be poverty stricken if he couldn't have sending lands in North Belle Meade because of his property. And during the discussion he was approached about opening up his lands and allowing them to be evaluated for their RCW values. And he denied, no, he would not allow people on his property. He would not cooperate with the study. And you can go back in the record and you can find that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know any landowner within section 24 that Geza specifically asked for -- MS. PAYTON: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- access to the property and he was turned down? MS. PAYTON: I cannot tell you that, but I can tell you there have been attempts to get on the land through other planning efforts, and there has not been cooperation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just focussing on the study that-- MS. PAYTON: And the land -- and we do know one landowner who said he would not cooperate with Geza's study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. MS. PAYTON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that we got to the bottom of that issue, I have one more issue. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Page 255 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This monitoring RTWs on the golf course. Is monitoring on that golf course being done that you know of, Bill ? MR. LORENZ: I'm not familiar with the details of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've been hitting a lot of zeros here in answers to our questions. Is this study available for this panel? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we have a copy distributed through tomorrow morning's meeting so that we can bring this issue back for discussion next week, after we've had time to review the study ourselves so we can decide? MR. LORENZ: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From first-hand experience of the study, what we think of it. Does anybody have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: I would like -- and, again, I would like to make-- I would like to make a -- a -- the observation, though, that in terms of data and analysis for -- for Growth Management Plan amendments, this particular study would be -- would be very acceptable for -- for DCA's requirements and for our requirements. Also, if we can't -- if -- you have to realize that this is -- this study was done for not just section 24. We're comparing this data for all of the property within the North Belle Meade overlay. And it's just -- it's just not feasible to be able to get on all of the property to do that kind of analysis. So -- so that's just -- just understand that -- that even if you could get on one person's property, the likelihood of getting on all of the properties and doing that complete assessment would -- would be way -- way beyond the scope of what we could accomplish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand that, Bill, but I also Page 256 March 8, 2006 understand that somehow this GMP language had this language placed in this that says this shall be accomplished by a study specific to section 24. I want to see how specific this study is so that we can match it to the language in the GMP that study should have been matched to. Okay? MR. LORENZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you could see that we each get copies tomorrow morning -- we're going to be here at 9:00 -- I would appreciate that. MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Passarella, did you have something you wanted to follow up on very quickly? MR. PASSARELLA: Is this going to be reviewed tomorrow or next week? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're going get to -- we're going to have to finish reviewing it next week. I'd like to see the study, I'd like each of us to have the time to read it, and then we'll discuss it again whenever our meeting is continued to next week. MR. PASSARELLA: Okay. I would like to attend that meeting next week after you've had a chance to review that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sure. You need to call Randy or David after tomorrow's meeting, and we'll have it scheduled. MR. PASSARELLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you represent the owner of the golf course that's out there? MR. PASSARELLA: We did work for the golf course. I have done some permitting work for that golf course. That was probably over six or seven years now that we did that work. I actually did some of that work -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Page 257 March 8, 2006 MR. PASSARELLA: -- on that property, so I am familiar with that -- with that golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you currently monitoring the golf course? MR. PASSARELLA: I don't believe that we are currently monitoring that golf course anymore. My understanding is our permit conditions had a time line that we had to monitor. I'm not currently involved in that proj ect anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you were involved in it, do you recall if there was an RCW issue with that golf course? MR. PASSARELLA: Yes. We had to permit for RCW for that golf course, so yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The golf course basically is surrounded by this -- this sending -- proposed sending lands on at least two sides that I can see on the map in front of us. MR. PASSARELLA: Correct. And my point would be that we had RCW s on that golf course at the time we did the permitting. Which was, like I said, six or seven years ago. If you do not manage this land for RCW s, they will disappear. They will not stay in habitat that is being taken over with under store vegetation. It's not being managed with prescribed fire or other management techniques to keep those RCWs there. And I think that's part of the point I want to make with the study that was done is part of the study is simply based on the potential for this to support RCW s if you were to go in and create habitat for them. I don't know that there's RCW there on the property anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can -- we can deduce that from our reading of the study, and we'll have any questions for you next week -- MR. PASSARELLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when we bring this back up again. Page 258 March 8, 2006 MR. PASSARELLA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Payton, be short. MS. PAYTON: Yes. Nancy Payton, Florida wildlife. I would just like to comment that in sending lands there are incentive to restore habitat. You receive additional bonus TDRs for restoration and for conveyance. So there are landowner incentives to restore what might be less than optimum habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, one thing you mentioned, that the landowner wanted his property to become a sending land, correct? Remember you said -- MS. PAYTON: Oh, I misspoke if I said that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You did? MS. PAYTON: A receiving land. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. PAYTON: Because he wanted to develop it to optimum levels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you don't know where this landowner owned the land that he was referring to? MS. PAYTON: Well, I -- I do have all that documentation in my office. I came here quickly because I was not aware that -- until earlier today that section 24 was going to be discussed, and I didn't have an opportunity to get all my documents together. But he does own land, some platted land in section 24. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I think with that we'll just wait until we get the report tomorrow, and we'll rediscuss this next week when it comes back. Let's move on to -- anything -- any other questions on page 46? Page 47? Page 48? Page 49? One of you guys have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I didn't. I don't have a Page 259 March 8, 2006 question on Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 50? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a couple of 50 questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, David, and -- and it's about the 12 unit -- the 12 dwelling units to qualify, the requirements. MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does A mean? Why is A in there? Because essentially this is how to qualify for the residential. Why does it say commercial -- only commercial buildings are -- it's getting late, I'm not talking too good. Let me try this again. In eight, essentially what we're doing is to qualify for 12 dwelling units, obviously you have to have a residential project or they're useless. Why is A in there and why is G in there? MR. WEEKS: First comment is this -- this goes back to the year 2000 when this overlay was -- was established. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And at that time it was deemed appropriate to limit the commercial only buildings to three stories in height. This is still -- as you mentioned, still part of a mixed use development, but that does not mandate that the mixed use be within a single building. So you could have a commercial building and a residential building separately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Maybe the answer is why do I care, but -- I think that's -- that's the appropriate thing at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, if you're done with page 50? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on to page 51. Number ten on page 51. I know this is pertaining to the Bayshore stuff that we've already done and beat up, spent a lot of time on it. The first sentence, Page 260 March 8, 2006 though, number ten, the word only has been added. If someone wanted to move that 380 dwelling units within the Bayshore triangle outside of the CHHA, why would we want to prevent them from doing that? Isn't that -- isn't this the one that had land on both sides of the CHHA, as well? MR. WEEKS: The only property within the overlay that's outside of the CHHA is north of Davis Boulevard and east of Airport Pulling Road. It's one small area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if someone -- but why do we need to add the word only? If they -- if it's not practical to move it, they're not going to. And if they wanted to move it outside of the CHHA, why would we want to stop that? MR. WEEKS: Okay. First of all, I misspoke. Those properties are still on the east side of Airport Pulling Road, but they're south of Davis Boulevard and north of U.S. 41. All of those properties are zoned commercial or P, that includes the government center, the automobile dealership, where the St. Matthews House I think it is located, and all the way up to the Home Depot. Your point is still valid that if any of those properties ever redeveloped and wanted to do some -- some residential, that would be allowed. I would simply say from a staff perspective, we just thought that was highly unlikely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Dave, also wouldn't -- they would be developed -- they would have much better opportunities in even drawing from this pool, wouldn't they, by right? I mean since they're outside the coastal high hazard, we could start adding a bunch of density on it. So there's no really need to draw from this pool for those properties. MR. WEEKS: Oh, I see what you're saying. They're eligible for bonuses -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Page 261 March 8, 2006 MR. WEEKS: -- other -- other than this density pool, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They've got better prizes to chase than that pool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just wanting to make sure there was a reason to put in the world only. It seemed awful limiting. The bottom of page 51. Your statement there says the density rating limit -- system limits density within the CHHA from a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre. Being on -- I thought the CCME also limits some -- by policy 10.6.1 the density within the CHHA. And I will read that if I can get to it. That's limiting densities to one unit per five acres. So I think there's a limitation in both policies. I'm wondering if it's -- we should just refer to the density rating system. MR. WEEKS: CCME 10 -- policy 10.6.1 is referring to the fact that the coastal -- looks like the coastal barrier island. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But aren't they in the CHHA? MR. WEEKS : Yes, they are. But they're -- they're designated conservation, so they'd be limited to one unit per five acres. The CHHA includes those conservation lands, but it also includes a big chunk of the urban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if someone was reading this and they thought the only limitation was pursuant to the FLUE, would they know that the barrier islands are limited to one to five? MR. WEEKS: I would certainly hope so because this density rating system is within the urban designation. It's not applicable to conservation, agricultural or estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's it on page 51. Anybody on page 52? Fifty-three? Getting to the end. Fifty-four? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I can interj ect, I think I'd Page 262 March 8, 2006 mentioned this previously if you go back to our discussion on the CCME, I think on Monday Mr. Midney had asked a question -- I think it was him -- about a policy that spoke about the certain wetlands and that Camp Keis -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: -- strand there in Immokalee urban area. I just wanted to put on the record that we are modifying the Immokalee master -- Immokalee master plan future land use map to identify that, just as that policy stated that we would. Additionally, I know I mentioned I believe on the record on Monday, as well as in that e-mail that I sent to you-all over the weekend, that we are also amending the future land use map for the rural land stewardship area overlay to depict the Ave Maria town-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- as required by one of those policies. I just want that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any question on the first map, which is the overall FLUE? Then we have an interesting map. I still-- in all my 30 years in this county, I cannot figure out where this is. Map FLUE 13. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that Copeland? MR. WEEKS: The yellow area on there is Goodland. And what we've done is deleted all reference to the Marco Island properties, seeing as how they're no longer under our jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I -- maybe the reason I couldn't figure it out is because the road leading into Goodland, according to this, is State Road 951. So I mean I'm -- that's 92 is what you mean there, isn't it? MR. WEEKS: That -- that's incorrectly labeled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are you going to correct that? MR. WEEKS : We sure will. Page 263 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what threw me. I couldn't figure it out because of that designation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Dave, just looking at that, I mean what you're showing is the yellow, correct? MR. WEEKS: That's -- that's correct. This is-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Zoom in on it, you know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Works if you read above your glasses. MR. WEEKS: We -- we could do that. Seeing as how the -- no longer showing the Marco Island area, so we don't need all of that land area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make it bigger. On the next page the, North Belle Meade overlay map, that really is going to be subj ect to the outcome of whatever we do in this next one -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the board finds it. The last one, Attachment C, it's in the rural -- or stewardship receiving area. I notice that you added the footnote about the acreage and density for affordable housing, but it doesn't look like you -- it's in towns and villages but not in CRD's, yet the CRD's have the same overall density greater than a hundred acres. So I'm wondering why the CRD's wouldn't be included for the larger ones if they're greater than a hundred acres. MR. WEEKS: We were only looking at the larger developments, the towns and the villages. I agree with you the hamlets -- I mean arguably the hamlets and the CRDs could be included. What we're trying to do, though, is -- is make this same change as a matter of equity to the requirement in the rural villages in the rural fringe. The rural villages in the rural fringe area have to be a minimum of 300 acres in size. So we're just looking at a comparable size. So since the hamlets are smaller and most of the CRDs are smaller, that's the Page 264 March 8, 2006 reason we excluded those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the way the CRD's are structured-- and I said this during the review of the stewardship area -- they're ideally suited for golf course communities. Golf course communities aren't noted for affordable housing. They're noted for creating a need for affordable housing. And I'm wondering what we're gaining by not looking at those in regards to the same requirement. Since none are developed, it would be real easy then if you were going to develop a CRD to develop a section that is affordable housing, dealing with a clean pallet. So -- especially if it's over a hundred acres. I think we can -- if we get to the inclusionary zoning ordinance, that may solve the problem. I just thought it was odd. COMMISSIONER CARON: But they need to think about it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think when the inclusionary zoning ordinance comes into play that'll all -- this area needs to be looked at. I think we're done with the FLUE, with the exception of the outstanding items. And, David, I -- I have notes that we're going to come back and visit item on page 23, page 24, page 32, page 34, and page 36. I can't tell you the section numbers because the FLUE isn't labeled as easily as the CCME, but on page 46 the issue was the study. I hope now we're going to be -- we're going to see tomorrow morning the distribution. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that I can't see why we should break into bold new territory at 5:30 in the afternoon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you think our plan of attack's going to be, start at the beginning now? Page 265 March 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to see us start at the beginning of the book tomorrow morning and work our way through. MR. COHEN: So we're going to start with CIE and move into transportation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. And I think that -- besides transportation being there, who have been faithfully here most of the time anyway, I think we're going to need to make sure public utilities -- utilities is here, as well. And whoever is in charge of CIE. Okay? MR. COHEN: You've go me on CIE, so we'll both be here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question. Obviously we should bring our schedules because it looks like next week we'll be booking some time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Knowing -- I'm expecting that next Friday afternoon is a given -- or next Thursday afternoon is a given because we have a short session. I've seen the agenda, should be distributed this week so -- MR. COHEN: And, Mr. Chairman, I've also checked with Miss Brock in the county manager's office, and I have reserved the room on dates available and I will provide them to you tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I do thank you. With that -- do we need a motion? Oh, we're going to continue the meeting until morning. Is there a motion to continue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And seconded. Do we need to vote on it? All those in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 266 March 8, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, one more comment quickly. Perhaps this is thinking rather ambitiously, but Cormac Giblin, who would be here for the housing element, is going to be unavailable tomorrow. He has another commission meeting to attend. We just respectfully ask that should we actually get to the housing element that we not take that up tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or maybe it would be best in the health of Mr. Giblin we do take it up. MR. WEEKS: He might appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're continued until tomorrow mornIng. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 5:31 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. BY ROSE M. WITT AND REBBECCA CRANE. Page 267